Transformed but Not Cured: The Ethics of Describing Gene‐Editing Therapy for Sickle Cell Disease

In December 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved gene-editing therapies as sickle cell disease treatments. Such approvals for gene-editing not only mark radical scientific innovations for populations living with sickle cell disease (SCD) across the United States but also generate an expectation of a potential cure-the end or eradication of an illness and its effects. This essay, however, cautions against framing gene-editing therapy as a "cure" for SCD. Our argument illustrates that, even if gene editing is proven to permanently normalize the hematologic function of the body, there are other painful aspects of SCD that gene editing is unable to transform. Scientific researchers and health care practitioners could benefit from further bioethical consideration of the effects of using curative language with regards to SCD. The curative framing can easily generate misunderstandings in patient-provider communication and elicit unrealistic expectations. Raising awareness about the importance of how gene-editing therapies for SCD are described and about the need to discuss their limitations can prevent further harm.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
The Hastings Center Report
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.70033
Primary Topic
CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Transformed but Not Cured: The Ethics of Describing Gene‐Editing Therapy for Sickle Cell Disease

Jada Wiggleton-Little, Shameka Poetry Thomas, Consuela Albright, Kristin Walters
The Hastings Center Report
CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
article

Transformed but Not Cured: The Ethics of Describing Gene‐Editing Therapy for Sickle Cell Disease

Jada Wiggleton-Little, Shameka Poetry Thomas, Consuela Albright, Kristin Walters
article en

Abstract

In December 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved gene-editing therapies as sickle cell disease treatments. Such approvals for gene-editing not only mark radical scientific innovations for populations living with sickle cell disease (SCD) across the United States but also generate an expectation of a potential cure-the end or eradication of an illness and its effects. This essay, however, cautions against framing gene-editing therapy as a "cure" for SCD. Our argument illustrates that, even if gene editing is proven to permanently normalize the hematologic function of the body, there are other painful aspects of SCD that gene editing is unable to transform. Scientific researchers and health care practitioners could benefit from further bioethical consideration of the effects of using curative language with regards to SCD. The curative framing can easily generate misunderstandings in patient-provider communication and elicit unrealistic expectations. Raising awareness about the importance of how gene-editing therapies for SCD are described and about the need to discuss their limitations can prevent further harm.

The Hastings Center ReportVol. 56(3)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.