Gene Editing Ethics

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.

Imagine a world with less cancer, diabetes, and infant mortality. Yet at the same time, imagine a messed up world with “fake” people. There are so many ups and downs with CRISPR that it has caused many uproars as to whether or not it is ethically right to conduct experiments with. With this technique, we could help lots of people across the world. Yet at the same time, we could screw up and ruin the world with this technique. We need to set a firm line as to whether or not CRISPR is ethical.

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?

Imagine the possibility of eliminating serious genetic diseases from the world. Imagine the idea of treating, preventing or even curing diseases that are yet to be cured. Imagine the feeling of being given improved health and a prolonged lifespan. This can all be accomplished with the aide of genetic engineering. Human genetic engineering refers to the process of directly manipulating human DNA to produce wanted results. DNA is a simple but very complex chemical that has the power to change the world and has begun to do so already. Many opponents to gene therapy fail to realize that genetic engineering has great potential to become very important in the biomedical industry. Though controversy exists regarding the ethics of human genetic engineering, it can produce numerous benefits, which outweigh its disadvantages and side effects; therefore, scientists should be able to manipulate the human genome for the purpose of helping people with serious medical conditions.

Human gene editing has long been controversial topic; however, precise techniques that accomplish this feat have only recently been discovered. According to the Welcome Genome Campus in the UK, the most versatile and simplest technique, called CRISPR-Cas9, allows scientists to cut, alter, or add to sections of the DNA sequence of living organisms (“What Is CRISPR-Cas9?”). This astonishing technology has nearly endless applications, including the potential to eradicate genetic diseases in humans that currently have no cure. This could have vast implications for people who suffer with disease and the economy of the region in which they live, but the technology has yet to be commercialized. The

The genetic engineering used for genetically modifying embryos and the thought of genetically modifying embryos is a technology that has caused an unethical dilemma within today’s society. This genetic technology comes at a risk, however, the most common way to genetically modify a human embryo, let alone anything living is known as CRISPR Cas9. This tool uses the enzyme Cas9 to cleave onto DNA to cut it, however according to Alex J. Maben a journalist who wrote an article on the flaws of this technology states “’The Cas9 enzyme that CRISPR uses to cleave DNA… could also make cuts where it’s not intended to, potentially causing cancer’(Kaiser, para5). Also, once CRISPR is in the body, it stays in the body” (Maben). This is an ethical dilemma because as stated above the CRISPR tool can cause cuts to

Fast forwards two hundred years and the science (or lack thereof) depicted is almost indistinguishable, a revolutionary new process called CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) is allowing science to edit the human genome almost at will. With the announcement of US scientists creating the first genetically modified embryo, an outburst of ethical debate has arisen. While they are certainly not the first (a Chinese division won the achievement in 2015), this achievement was created through the CRISPR process.

Genetic engineering is the figurehead of the ethical concerns of scientists in the 21st century. Nothing is more engrossed with criticism and dislike than the idea of altering the baseline for living organisms. Many people are skeptical of genetic engineering due to the versatility it exhibits. A scientist could use a genetic editing tool, such as CRISPR, to remove the genes for a hereditary disease in an embryo, but they could also utilize it to alter the physical characteristics of a human baby. This thought provoked the flood gates of ethics to unleash a multitude of unanswered questions and concerns about the usage and further development of genetic engineering. The field of genetic engineering is

Therefore, people should consider not only the cost and attainability, but also the possible negative results and impacts on the genes. Despite some noble intentions on the part of a parent as it relates to preventing genetic defects, consideration of the negative impacts of gene manipulation are necessary. Gene editing should not be used to accomplish desirable physical traits. Furthermore, while the benefits to gene modification certainly seem attractive, there is risk associated with the practice. At this stage, it can be argued that the application of an imprecise technology that is not well understood, has the potential to create unintended generational edits. “Given the unlikely success of creating a “perfect” (i.e. presumably genetically error-free) baby, the high risk of collateral damage makes CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing ultimately unethical” (Sas et al, 2017, p. 1). Thus, while gene editing has the potential for positive results, the outcome may ultimately prove to be

John Harris and Marcy Darnovsky’s article, Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos? (2016), explores the potential moral and future repercussions involved with CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, a rapidly growing science. Harris argues that gene editing could be the resolution to curing detrimental illnesses before the birth of a child, and the science needs more time to experiment. On the other hand, Darnovsky argues that while gene editing may be able to treat illnesses before birth, it opens the door for parents to decide what they want their children to be like and to get rid of any undesirable traits. Both authors appeal to the audience’s logos to argue for or against gene editing and its potential consequences. Harris states

Genetic diseases and illnesses have been of much concern for many years, leaving many deceased or with a poor quality of life. Due to the implication of modern medicine and other techniques used for treatments, mortality rates have decreased and the average life expectancy has increased. Unfortunately, every individual responds differently to the type of treatment they need, which is why the implication of personalized medicine is forthcoming. A certain technique that has been distinguished and commended by researchers today is known as clustered regulatory interspaced short palindromic repeats, or CRISPR. CRISPR is associated with Cas9, and it is a popular genome editing technique which can be programmed to target specific areas of DNA and

The idea of eugenics as a means of improving human conditions through embryo manipulation, has been debated in many scientific and cultural communities for various reasons. One of them being its effect on society, specifically the societal views of genetically improved individuals. From a social and cultural perspective, the concept of eugenics varies between people of different cultures. With the results of different human eugenic trials and the increase of gene editing technologies such as CRISPR, there have been many contrasting reactions to the information. Recently, the topic of debate has been whether there should be limits on the development of gene-modifying technologies, specifically in embryo modification. This report examines the

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

The CRISPR protein contains the Cas9 enzyme that uses a guide sequence within RNA to form base pairs with DNA target sequences. This allows the enzyme to break the DNA at a specific region in the strand (Doudna & Charpentier, 2014). In other words, the Cas9 acts as a pair of scissors in order to cut the DNA at a specific location so that parts of DNA can then be changed by adding in or deleting fragments of the genome. Because CRISPR-Cas9 programming is simple and has the capacity to recognize targets at multiple areas, this has granted for many exceptional developments to be made concerning the editing, modification, regulation, and marking of genomic loci precisely and