The Academy Hosts Fifth Deerfield Forum in Collaboration with the Munk Debates on Gene Editing

COURTESY OF DEERFIELD COMMUNICATIONS

Deerfield Academy hosted its fifth Deerfield Forum on Tuesday, April 21, in partnership with the Munk Debates, North America’s leading debate series based in Toronto, Canada, on the motion: Be it Resolved, let’s engineer better human beings.

The Munk Debates are a semi-annual series of debates primarily held in Toronto, focusing on major global policy issues. The Forum marks the first time a debate has been held outside of Toronto and within a secondary-school setting.

According to History & Social Science Department Chair & Teacher Brian Hamilton, the planning process began last June when he reached out to Managing Director of the Munk Debates Ricki Gurwitz to discuss the possibility of inviting the program to the Academy. He explained that Head of School John Austin was “a long-time fan of the Munk Debates,” and that students “desired to see more clear disagreements on the stage [during Deerfield Forums],” leading to the decision to reach out to the Munk Debates team. 

Discussions about the topic and logistics continued throughout the summer, and in September, Gurwitz and her team visited the campus, closing the deal with a solidified topic. Gurwitz reflected on the experience, stating, “[Deerfield] reached out to us, and [we were] very happy to bring [the program] to a school…we were always looking for a chance to engage with young people in debate.”  

Gurwitz also mentioned how the Munk Debates emphasize “diversity of opinion and civil debate” as their mission. Mr. Hamilton echoed similar remarks, saying that Deerfield’s “ambition…for teaching students productive discourse and how to talk across differences” were ones that the Munk Debates program shared.

As part of the debate’s emphasis on measuring the effectiveness of arguments and encouraging open-minded thinking, audience members vote on the resolution both before and after the debate, with the winner determined by whoever secures the largest percentage vote shift at the end. 

Before the debate, faculty members handed out clickers for students to vote—the pre-debate poll was 29% on the pro side and 71% on the con side.

In collaboration with Munk Debates, the Academy brought in four professionals from their respective fields, including biophysics, philosophy, reproductive science, and healthcare, to debate the implications of gene editing. 

Arguing in favor of the motion was biophysicist and former director of the Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society at UCLA School of Medicine Gregory Stock. His debate partner was philosopher, futurist, and transhumanist advocate Max More. 

Arguing against the motion was oncologist, biophysicist, and former Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the NIH Ezekiel Emanuel. His debate partner was Professor of Reproductive Science at University College London Joyce Harper. 

Moderating the conversation was Munk Debates moderator, bestselling author, and television broadcaster Rudyard Griffiths.

The debate started with all four debaters providing a ten-minute opening statement. The pro side brought up claims about the use of gene editing to cure diseases, clarifying that their argument lay on the assumption that the technology was safe and accessible. Meanwhile, the con side addressed concerns about the possibility of this technology transforming into eugenics, arguing that widespread use would lead to homogenization and excessive control by different organizations and governments.

Afterwards, each debater was allowed to provide a three-minute rebuttal, allowing for direct confrontation of the opposing side’s central arguments. Afterwards, Griffiths led a moderated question-and-answer portion, asking the debaters to expand on issues raised during the earlier conversations, including the difference between gene editing and eugenics, the effect of germline editing on diversity, and foundational moral concerns about human engineering. This portion allowed debaters to jump into the conversation freely, which they weren’t allowed to do previously.

The debate concluded with closing remarks from each side, giving the debaters an opportunity to summarize their positions and persuade audience members before their post-debate vote. The pro side reiterated that gene editing, despite carrying certain risks, has the potential to improve lives, urging the audience to grapple with the issue instead of hiding away. The con side reconnected gene editing with eugenics, emphasizing its dangers in potential misuse and abuse.

After the debate, students were allowed to vote again. The post-debate poll came in with 35% on the pro side and 65% on the con side, demonstrating a 6% swing that led to the pro team’s victory.

Following the debate, students participated in a post-forum reception in the von Auersperg Gallery, where the four debaters, the moderator, and other Munk Debate members were available to meet with students and answer follow-up questions.

Students noted how special the debate was compared to previous Deerfield Forums. Michael Clifford-Levy ’26 stated after the debate, saying, “It's been the best Forum in my four years…[and] both sides made very compelling arguments.” Casey Lee ’28 echoed similar remarks, stating, “It is really great. It was very rare to see the Deerfield audience so…voluntarily engaged for 90 minutes.” 

Some mentioned gaps in how certain scientific concepts were explained during the debate. Reagan Warren ’27 observed, “I would love it if the con side expanded more on what CRISPR [Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats] was. I think it was mentioned once in the argument that was alluded to afterwards. I think that would have ultimately benefited both sides of the argument.” 

Other students focused on how the debate framed the distinction between enhancing human traits and improving health. Kate Andrews ’27 stated that arguments about whether “healthy” and “better” are interconnected remained particularly impactful, stating that the idea of these concepts being connected “resonated more than the argument that they are separate.”

Griffiths identified the issue of eugenics as a moment that created a split in opinion between both sides. He stated, “My sense was that…[the eugenics] argument of the con side…elicited the most debate”. At the same time, he noted a point of agreement between both sides when “they both agreed that the technology is in the future. It’s not here right now,” emphasizing a shared understanding that gene editing remains largely prospective.

Con team member Harper emphasized the role of governments in shaping the use of technology, stating that “no matter what technology we develop, every country is under the control of the government. It’s in the power of the rich and powerful who are governing.” Her viewpoint was linked to broader concerns about how scientific advancements may be directed or limited by politics. 

Harper later addressed the role of digital platforms, noting that “social media is responsible for even more homogenization than ever.” She believed that social media “reduces diversity,” ultimately raising questions about how public perception of genetic enhancement may be shaped.

Thinking about the experience collaborating with Deerfield, Gurwitz expressed how “it’s been very positive…[and] working with Deerfield is a dream; you guys have an excellent faculty…and it’s just so nice to be around people who are interested in engaging in different ideas and viewpoints.”

Mr. Hamilton concluded by saying that it was exciting to witness the Deerfield community of “curious folks that are excited about exploring ideas.”