Should Gene Editing Be Performed On Human Embryos?

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

As we stand in the world today, we as humans have never been more technologically advanced or scientifically intelligent. We have the ability to explore outer space and the depths of the oceans. We are even in the process of developing organs using 3D printing technology. But there is a limit to the extent of advancements that humankind can reach before some begin to pose dangers to humanity or become unethical. Currently, technology is being developed to expand the procedure of in vitro fertilization to genetically modify embryos. The products of this engineering are commonly known as “designer babies”. This technology, when fully developed, would grant parents the opportunity to select against possibly life threatening or altering conditions such as cystic fibrosis, schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s. Using this technology, parents would also be able to make extensive selections regarding their baby’s gender, physical characteristics, and possibly even personality traits and talents. While it is positive advancement to be able to select against life-threatening diseases, the creation of an a-la-carte baby is unethical and crosses the line between positive sociological developments and immoral manipulations of nature for many reasons.

Although the intentions of genetically modifying DNA in human embryos is aimed to rid society of genetic defects, it is still essential that this scientific discovery remains ethical. In an article on NPR.org, Rob Stein describes an experiment that scientists have been conducting in which they modify human DNA in order to eliminate life threatening genetic diseases that could be passed on for generations (Stein). In Portland, at Oregon Health & Science University, Paula Amato, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, explains “that their work is aimed at preventing terrible diseases, not creating genetically enhanced people...much more research is needed to confirm the technique is safe and effective before anyone tries to make a baby this way”(Stein). Because scientists like Amato realize their research is controversial, they are taking every precaution to assure what they are doing is morally correct, they are not intending to corrupt society. Although their intentions are good, it is their job to make sure their research is being used in an ethical way. If not, millions of people, who are already obsessed with the idea of perfection, will be able to do something about

Imagine a world where maladaptive genetic diseases have ceased to exist, parents have the ability to alter and improve their unborn child’s attributes such as height, intelligence, and attractiveness, and each generation becomes healthier, smarter, and stronger. Sounds like an unfeasible utopia, does it not? However, due to scientific advancements in the field of embryonic gene modification, this fantasy may soon become a reality. In a nutshell, embryonic gene modification refers to scientists altering the genome of an embryo in vitro for a multitude of reasons, ranging from eliminating harmful genetic diseases to altering superficial characteristics. Although embryonic gene modification may seem like a dream come true to many, it is not without ethical concerns that require intense debate.

Human genetic engineering and eugenics have been a largely controversial topic over the past decades. Eugenics can be popularly defined as the science of improving and enhancing a human population or person through manipulating the human genes, selective breeding, and sterilization. The end goal and desired result of eugenics is to basically create a human race or people with more desirable biological, physical, or psychological traits. Eugenics and genetic modification is a current, pressing subject; in April 2015, a group of Chinese researchers, used a new gene-editing technology, called CRISPR to “[tinker] with the genomes of human embryos” (Adams). Presently, according to CQ Researcher, “New genetic technologies allow scientists to delete a mutant gene and insert a healthy one, which…has the potential to eliminate inherited diseases, such as cystic fibrosis.” However, these techniques have only been used on embryos belonging to laboratory animals. The big question here is whether or not science and technology are crossing an ethical boundary by using these techniques and performing genetic modification on human embryos. Do humans have the right to “play God” and alter nature?

If it is possible to cure genetic disorders in unborn children, then why does this dilemma exist? Designer babies may offer a solution for many parents faced with an uncertain future. The term “Designer Babies” refer to children who develop from embryos that are selected, or genetically modified in vitro (outside of the human body, usually in a laboratory). While emerging technology is constantly improving the daily lives of mankind, the scientists involved in this branch of science have fallen under great scrutiny despite their best effort to contribute to society. As a developing science, the exploration of genetic editing has potential to direct humanity to a radiant future. Financially funding and

“A certain person’s religious, economic, political, and scientific viewpoint of a situation significantly influences what his or her moral beliefs about designer babies are. Those who are highly influenced by religious teachings find the technology used by designer babies to be humans attempting to “play god”, while from an economic standpoint the inequality that would develop between the rich and poor from the expenses of using the CRISPR-cas9 system is inevitably unethical. Yet, from ethical beliefs that are developed from a political perspective, the opinion was split. Those from a conservative standpoint saw designer babies as immoral when considering the traditional rights a child has, but those from a liberal viewpoint brought into the

Anthony Wrigley has a Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Leeds, currently is a senior lecturer in Ethics, Keele University. With 19 years’ experience in teaching ethics, and over ten years specialist focus on teaching biomedical and research ethics. Dr. Wrigley engages in the critical ethical evaluation of legislation and policy on matters of biomedical and research ethics. He focuses on questioning the ethics into anything medical relate just like gene editing, and how it affects not just the human body but also people it affects. While Ainsley Newson is an Associate Professor of Bioethics at the University of Sydney. She has a Bachelors of Science with first-class honors in human genetics, a Bachelor of Laws with honors and a Ph.D. in Bioethics. Working in the field of bioethics, she specials in ethical issues and

The future of genetic engineering results in ethical issues pertaining to the unlawful decision to design a child. D’Souza describes the possibility to design a child: “He envisions that, in the not too distant future, couples who want to have a child will review a long list of traits on the computer screen, put together combinations of “virtual children,” decide on one they want, click on the appropriate selection, and thus--in effect--design their own offspring” (D’Souza, 2010, p.810). Giving parents’ the authority to design their child affects the nature of the children. This authority will place parents’ in power instead of God. Then, D’Souza claims: “Gene therapy has already been successfully carried out in people, and now that the human genome project has made possible a comprehensive understanding of the human genetic code, scientist will possess a new kind of power: the power to design our children, and even to redesign humanity itself” (D’Souza, 2010, p.811).

Imagine a future where parents never had to worry about their child being sick-- a future where technology allowed parents the ability to make a flawless child. That future is near, but is halted due to people’s fear of Genetically Modified Babies, which is “a biologically radical technique referred to by terms including ‘mitochondrial replacement,’ and ‘nuclear genome transfer,’ [these techniques] would produce modifications in every cell of any resulting children” (Cussin and Darnovsky 16). This procedure takes the fetus’s cells and allows the doctors to manipulate the cells in any matter they want; then, the cells are placed in the women’s egg. Unfortunately, Genetically Modified Babies are “codified as [prohibited] in more than 40 countries and several international treaties” (Cussin and Darnovsky 16). In the United States, the FDA had a full day meeting on the subject matter. On February 2014, they discussed human modification and prohibited it (Cussin, Darnovsky 17). The idea of a “designer baby” may seem preposterous, but technology is making the concept attainable. In the United States, there are laboratories that have the technology to reach such a goal, but are unused due to the FDA’s law; however, if “nuclear genome transfer were allowed, [the laboratories] could be used for any purpose” (Cussin and Darnovsky 17). America should allow gene manipulation in babies because it is inhumane to let innocent babies suffer from diseases and disorders that can be

The term designer children is unnerving at first to many. The idea of parents designing the genetic makeup of their offspring makes children seem like a commodity in a genetic free market. Thoughts of a dystopian society like the one in the film “Gattaca” come to mind. However, taking an immediate repugnant stand against genetic enhancement is not well-founded. A more open-minded inspection of the issue reveals that the idea of parents improving their children’s life prospects through genetic engineering (provided it is safe) is, at its core, not unethical. In fact, some genetic enhancement in addition to correcting deleterious genes to prevent disease is a moral obligation. It is moral to make rational decisions using the science and

For years the discussion on designer babies has been up surging and is now at the forefront of many medical and academic discussions. An experimental technique, known as gene therapy, birthed the idea of designer babies (“Gene Therapy”. GHF). This very experimental technique, why, uses healthy genes to treat, or rather prevent diseases that could be passed down from parent to child. However, scientists have ventured to further expound on the concept of preventing disease to a more cosmetic and superficial approach. The more imposing science of gene therapy would attempt to take science further into the realm of altering physical characteristics ultimately allow parents to choose their babies eye color, gender, and other physical characteristics that have no bearing on the child 's well being or health. The term now coined as “Designer Babies” is used to describe how by using gene therapy, parents can quite literally design their babies employing genetic screening combined with in vitro fertilization to alter otherwise naturally occurring physical appearances. Whether or not this revolutionary new science should be banned in the United States has become a very controversial topic in the U.S. igniting the strong opinions of scientists and politicians alike. Those in opposition believe that gene therapy is unethical, arguing that science is pressing toward a level that is morally perverse by allowing science to create the next generation instead of

Demolishing genetic diseases from the human race has been and always will be a key role in science. However, there comes a point in time when moral standards have interjected the betterment of cleansing genetic diseases. One of the many branches of science that has the complete capability to exterminate our destiny of any genetic diseases, gene therapy, is being silenced due to the curse of society’s moral standards. There is a very narrow line in what is not morally correct and ethical to standards of people; causing the advancement of procedures like gene therapy to be narrow. The only explanation to gene therapy awaits on what we, as a community, can bring about for the future generations, but this is

It’s no secret that many of us seek perfection. Now, scientists have pioneered a way for us to choose or genetically alter embryos, creating the “perfect” child. In heated ethical debates, bioethicists have argued for and against the practice of eugenics and Procreative Beneficence. Recently, medical professionals in the United Kingdom genetically engineered embryos that were prone to inherit a mitochondria disease. This event triggered differing opinions about the genetic manipulation of diseased genes. David Prentice, a lobbyist against eugenics, made the claim that this practice is followed by many ethical infractions. Others such as Art Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, think of this process as progressive, creating a future of disease free children (Cox).

Before we move to clinical trials we have to prove efficacy and safety in animal models, but ethics go beyond effectiveness and welfare. Firstly, Crispr raises an issue of social justice equality. Gene editing technologies are inflated and several professionals are afraid that patients who may benefit from them would not have access. Dr. Mitchell Weiss, chair of the hematology department at St. Jude Children's Research Center pointed out that many diseases are impacted in low-income families in developing countries. Questions raised by George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School: ‘Who would have access to this kind of human germline engineering?’ ‘Do we want to accept the scenario that only those with financial resources get to “improve” the genomes of their children?’ We can’t let the story get ahead of the facts. Secondly, Future generations can’t give consent. Francis S. Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, pointed out that medical research must always seek to balance benefits and risks, with individuals who are partaking in research giving fully informed consent. But the entities whose lives are potentially affected by germline alteration will be extending to countless generations into the future. They can’t give informed consent, in other words, permission granted in the knowledge of the possible