July 4, 2026

expert reaction to European survey on fertility care, embryo research and genome editing

Scientists comment on a European survey commissioned by Progress Educational Trust (PET) and supported by ESHRE looks at attitudes towards fertility research and gene editing in embryos. 

“It’s unsurprising that most respondents support human embryo research. What is surprising is that support for clinical use of genome editing in embryos outpaces support for using the same technique in discovery research — even though the science points the other way.

“The broad international consensus — from the WHO’s Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing to the ISSCR — is that we do not yet know enough about the safety, efficacy, and long-term effects of genome editing in embryos to justify that confidence. Recent findings bear this out. Independent groups (Egli’s and Niakan’s) have each identified the same problems: unintended mutations at the editing site, mosaicism — where only some cells in an embryo carry the edit — and off-target effects at distant genomic locations.

“Public enthusiasm for the clinic has run ahead of the evidence. Translating genome editing into clinical use now would be premature. What the science actually calls for is continued, rigorous discovery research into how genome editing behaves in embryos — the opposite of what public opinion currently favours funding.

“Advances in genomics, live embryo imaging, and stem cell-based embryo models — paired with the UK’s uniquely strict but permissive regulatory framework — give us the environment to conduct rigorous, open research that can determine whether genome editing is safe enough for future clinical use in embryos.

“This gap between public enthusiasm and scientific readiness is an opportunity for the UK to maintain its status as a global leader in the field: the UK’s licensed research infrastructure and HFEA oversight already make it one of the only places in the world capable of generating the rigorous discovery evidence this field needs. Realising that advantage will require sustained government investment in embryo research, alongside genuine expert-public dialogue that keeps public understanding — and trust — in step with the science, rather than running ahead of it.”

Dr Alena Pance, Senior Lecturer in Genetics, University of Hertfordshire, said:

“I would be interested in knowing whether there was some background information given, as it is the survey seems to throw some strong questions on people without warning, as it were. I just wonder whether the intention was indeed to gauge automatic reaction. This is related to the interesting finding that people seem to be more supportive of potentially preventing life-threatening disease than of the research necessary for it to happen. These approaches carry big risks, so research is really essential and from this discrepancy I would conclude that not enough information has reached the public about the science behind this. Perhaps this is also related to the other interesting observation that the proportion of people with an opinion is below 70%.

“I do have a comment about the survey itself because the distribution of the populations engaged states different regions, age groups and education and economic levels were included to give a representative view. However with around 2000 participants within each country, the representation from each of these categories might have been quite small.”

Prof Ying Cheong, Professor of Reproductive Medicine and Honorary Consultant in Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, University of Southampton, said:

“What this survey exposes is a disconnect the field needs to address head-on. Many people support editing embryos to prevent serious conditions like cystic fibrosis, but that support drops when it comes to the embryo research needed to get there safely. And this is borne out in practice, very few people with surplus embryos after fertility treatment donate them for research, and frankly, very few IVF centres even participate in embryo research donation programmes in the first place. It’s a genuinely sad situation because donation is precisely what allows this research to progress. You can’t have the treatment without the research, and you can’t have the research without embryo donation. If we want the public and policymakers to back these future treatments, we need to be honest about where the whole process is currently falling down.

“The fact that over a quarter of respondents have no firm view on the 14-day rule doesn’t surprise me. It’s a highly technical point that’s rarely explained well outside specialist circles. What matters more is that where people do have a view, it favours extending the limit if it means better treatments for congenital disease. That’s a clear enough signal, and it gives, in my opinion, regulators a clear public mandate to revisit a question that’s often been treated as too sensitive to discuss openly. Given how fast the science is moving, this isn’t a debate we can keep deferring.”

Dr Naomi Moris, Group Leader of the Developmental Models lab at the Francis Crick Institute, said

“One of the major challenges of updating policy around regulation such as the Day 14 rule or genome editing in embryos, has been the lack of solid information about public perceptions and opinions about these technologies on which to base recommendations. This report represents an incredible resource that canvasses opinions across European countries on important and possibly contentious topics, to build up a picture of how people consider fertility research advances. 

“I am particularly surprised at the fact that the majority of respondents in the UK would support human embryo genome editing to treat a congenital disease in a pregnancy (52% support; 16% opposed), but far fewer would support human genome editing for research purposes (48% supporting; 19% opposed). This, to me, suggests that we need to do a much better job in discussing the primary role of fundamental research and how necessary human embryo research is in facilitating any medical or clinical impacts in the future.

“I’m also fascinated by the finding that while 56% of UK respondents said the 14 Day Rule was ‘about right’, 11% thought it was too short and 25% said they didn’t know or declined to answer. I think this means we need to be having far more widespread and more engaging discussions about what the Day 14 Rule is, the reasons for and against moving the limit, and why it matters. This is strong evidence that gives us crucial data backing the need to have public engagement dialogues on this topic before we enact any policy changes.”

Dr Priya Bhide, Clinical Senior Lecturer, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), said:

“Genome editing in human embryos represents a significant scientific advance with a promise for eliminating serious medical conditions before birth. Public support appears strong. The technology needs to be supported by a robust regulatory, legal and ethical framework. Long-term safety data is unknown and societal implications remain important.”

Dr Christophe Galichet, Research Operations Manager (Neurobiological Research Facility), Sainsbury Wellcome Centre for Neural Circuits and Behaviour, University College London (UCL), said:

“As a researcher, it is encouraging see such level of support from UK public, and in several European countries, for using genome editing in human embryos for scientific and medical research and to eradicate severe or life-threatening conditions, for which some successes are emerging (for instance the use of genome editing to treat sickle cell disease, though not via human embryos). While support appears more cautious when it comes to apply the use of genome editing in human embryos for more manageable conditions, it is worth noting that the survey did not address public attitudes for the use of genome editing in human embryos for enhancement purposes such as disease resistance, eye colour or intelligence. Additionally, the survey did not report the socio-cultural characteristics of respondents who supported and opposed the use of genome editing in human embryos, which would provide important information.”

The report – ‘Fertility, Embryo Research and Genome Editing: Public Attitudes in Europe’, commissioned by the charity Progress Educational Trust (PET), supported by ESHRE and conducted by Ipso, was published at 23:01 UK time on Saturday 4^th July 2026. 

Declared interests

Dr Norah Fogarty: “I was a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Kathy Niakan and is the first author of the paper Fogarty, N., McCarthy, A., Snijders, K. et al. Genome editing reveals a role for OCT4 in human embryogenesis. Nature 550, 67–73 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24033.”

 Dr Alena Pance: “I confirm I have not conflict of interest regarding this work.”

Prof Ying Cheong: “A member of HFEA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Person Responsible for HFEA Research lab at HDH, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton.”

Dr Naomi Morris: “No conflicts to declare.”

Dr Christophe Galichet: “I have no conflicts of interest to declare.”

For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.