But they warn any such research would need to be strictly controlled to prevent inheritable changes being made to the human genome, and any embryos that have been subject to genetic manipulation should be destroyed.

NSW Stem Cell Network director Bernie Tuch said Australia risked being left behind if it did not allow scientists to press forward on research involving human embryos, which were now allowed in the UK, Sweden and North America.

"We could adopt the approach of saying, 'Thank you very much, we will wait for the rest of the world to explore this new area and then we will come on board'," Professor Tuch said.

"I guess that's the conservative approach. We would argue that Australia is up there with the rest of the world and we should be seriously considering this possibility."

Scientists, bioethicists and clinicians are meeting at the University of Sydney's Charles Perkins Centre on Wednesday to discuss the future of gene editing and whether current laws reflect public attitudes, following rapid advances in the technology.

Scientists are now able to delete and insert pieces of DNA into certain cells through a simple and efficient technology known as CRISPR that has the potential to cure genetic disease, create tougher plants and wipe out malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

But the technology has also raised concerns about the prospect of "designer babies", or the creation of unintended DNA changes that are inherited by future generations.

Australian law does not allow CRISPR to be used to genetically modify human embryos, but it is allowed in other countries such as the UK, where scientists have used it to study the reasons for infertility and miscarriage.

Professor Tuch said the laws could include a provision that would allow the National Health and Medical Research Council to license scientists to genetically modify embryos, as it already does for other types of research.

This could allow people with hereditary diseases to edit out that particular gene from their embryos in circumstances where IVF screening was unsuccessful and their only alternatives were passing on the disease or childlessness, he said.

Some overseas scientists have argued that it is immoral not to edit out genetic diseases from human embryos if the technology exists to do so.

But Walter Eliza Hall Institute geneticist Marco Herold, who is using CRISPR as a gene screening tool to identify novel drug targets for cancer therapy, said it was too soon to use the technology to make changes to embryos and implant them back into their mothers.

"The problem is at this stage we believe that a single mutation might cause a disease but it's not always 100 per cent," Dr Herold said.

"You might alter other things you're not aware of, so that's why at this stage we should still be cautious in altering embryos."

The law should allow the human genome to be edited for research purposes, but not to manipulate the germ line, which would mean the changes were inherited by the next generation, he said.

In 2015, the co-inventors of CRISPR joined other scientists in calling for a moratorium on making inheritable changes to the human genome.

Professor Jennifer Doudna later explained that this would give the scientific community time to consider all the implications of applying the technology to human embryos.

"Imagine that we could try to engineer humans that have enhanced properties, such as stronger bones, or less susceptibility to cardiovascular disease or even to have properties that we would consider maybe to be desirable, like a different eye colour or to be taller, things like that," Professor Doudna said in a TED talk.

"'Designer humans', if you will. Right now, the genetic information to understand what types of genes would give rise to these traits is mostly not known. But it's important to know that the CRISPR technology gives us a tool to make such changes, once that knowledge becomes available."