Gene Editing Issues

In the world of science we face a myriad of controversial studies that confront bad press from the public for various reasons, even if the origins reside in the aspiration of the betterment of mankind. One of these studies is the process of gene editing in an attempt to provide people with better health or longer living by moving around and replacing key strands of DNA in their system. Many people opposed to this style of treatment see it as unnatural to mess with nature, some it is perceived as unholy in the eyes of their religious beliefs, and other just care for the safety of the patients that are willing to undergo this sort of treatment. However, me and many others believe that the pros of gene editing out weight the cons. Gene editing may very well may be the secret to unlock the secret to longer and healthier living and maybe push us to something even better than that.

This article discusses the big question on how far should gene editing go. Gene editing is literally changing who we are. By changing one generation, the rest that follows are different as well. Being human, we naturally have many faults, but with gene editing all can be erased; we’d be perfect. This article is important as it debates the hard question about gene editing, where to stop. Also at the bottom is a survey on if we should be able to design our children.

Technology has helped humanity in almost every aspect of everyday life. It has made life so much easier that it has become almost impossible to live without. In Dr. Richard Restaks “Attention Deficit: The Brain Syndrome of Our Era”, and Alexandra Samuels “Plug In Better’: A Manifesto” they both go into detail on how technology has affected today’s society, and how it has changed human behavior to rely on it to such a degree that people have become addicted to technology as if they need it for their very survival. Both Restak and Samuel talk about how technology has made humanity more connected to each other and yet has also disconnected each other at the same time and to the real world. People use technology so much in their everyday lives to solve problems and to carry out tasks that they no longer control its effects on them, whereas before people had to rely on their own individual talents, skills, and efforts to get tasks completed. Gene therapy and other cutting edge medical techniques like all technology, has incredible life changing potential as well as possible side effects

Even though gene editing has been discussed and thoroughly gone through and examined, many scientists are still very skeptical and refuse to even do it especially on embryos.

Victor Frankenstein may have created and abandoned a creature, but what happens when you start to design future generations? Any scientific advancement that can have such a great effect on the lives of people has a possibility to be misused. Something as large as genome editing can be extremely useful, life changing, and effect every future generation. Then again, with great power comes great responsibility. Will genome editing be the modern Frankenstein?

There are other types of gene editing out there but research shows us that CRISPR is fast, precise, and simple. Researchers are developing a way for CRISPR therapy to help with Alzheimer’s all the way to HIV. There are two categories the researchers and people have put CRISPR in: practical and philosophical. The researchers say that the immediate barrier is practical. During the tests, CRISPR has found targets in other parts of the DNA that need fixing other than the intended part of the DNA. Because of this, it may take at least a generation to ensure that it is safe. Some people oppose CRISPR because the oppositionists say it lets people play god but getting medicine every time you get sick with the same thing obscures the natural order of things. The opportunities are getting pushed ahead for treating cancer, childhood diseases that are genetic, and how to understand diabetes better. The one question some people have is whether it’s right to edit genes that are

There have been many test trials for taking steps to sure there are positive results, but there is a risk in trying something new. We will always have to be worried about failure just like into curing some diseases some people die when taking the cure. But with gene editing it's different they only thing the body can do, just reject or accepting the process. Proving the fewer risks than ejecting some unknown subject into your body with a 45% chance of it working or you dying instead. But gene editing opens new doorways to "eugenics, where those with access to the technology could select" future generations genetic traits like eye, skin or hair color, or height (12).

The animals that belong in our ecosystem is diminishing as time goes on, many of which we have not thought of becoming endangered, are being threatened. Scientists have figured out an alternative solution to save species from being threatened by humans and natural disasters. This alternative way is gene editing, as Joseph Dussault stated in the Christian Monitor: “Gene drive, a controversial genetic editing technique through which scientists could alter or eliminate entire species, is mostly discussed alongside Zika and malaria fears” (par. 2). It can help save species as well as turn it around and attack themselves for carrying a disease. With the use of gene editing, helping preserve the species

A new epidemic in human reproduction is slowly sweeping the earth, and it is known as human gene alteration. It gives parents the ability to decide their babies' sex, hair color, or even eye color. Creating these so called "designer babies" seems like the perfect way to have the child you have always dreamed of. But is this a moral way to go about reproduction? Is it fair to these children to mess with their genes just for your own satisfaction of having the perfect baby? Gene alteration can also be used in other more beneficial ways. One being to prevent and weed out disease that effects an unborn child. Gene alteration can be very beneficial, but only if used in the right way such as

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

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.

Because of those concerns, the government right now put heavy restriction on experiment with gene editing. It would take away the chance to cure many children and benefit for the society any many different way. Birth defects are “contributing substantially to health care costs and the nation’s burden of disease, illness, and long-term disability” (Centers, 2015). With gene treatments, we can avoid those cost and change the future for many

Genetic modification also referred to as genetic engineering is a technique in biotechnology whereby a genome of an organism is manipulated directly using biotechnology. The technique has the effect of changing an organism genetic make-up cells. The genes are transferable from one species to another using genetic modification. This is possible in human. The possibility of the manipulation in human fetus has raised a strong ethical debate (Mohrenweiser, Wilson & Jones, 2003).

This is likely due to the fact that human genome editing is still a fairly new idea and the technological process hasn't been fully developed. Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of Humanities and Social Sciences at Tufts University, stated in his article (“Against Designer Babies”) that “for whatever enhancement is sought, the only method for determining efficacy is to engage in a clinical trial with a few dozen fertilized human eggs or embryos, where half would be genetically modified...and the development of the children would be followed throughout their lives to determine whether the genetic modification worked...It is unimaginable that any humane society would permit such a trial, where the potential risks so outweigh the social benefits...”. In place of these methods he proposes that there are more reliable, and tested techniques available. For example “The use of prenatal screening or pre-implantation embryo diagnosis will suffice in preventing the birth of a genetically abnormal embryo...”(Krimsky). In adition to that Rahul Thadani, a writer for Buzzle.com who covers topics on scientific discoveries, states that “[while] the basic intentions of the science behind designer babies are good…[the] impact on society is hard to predict... Humanity would be better off not pursuing such technologies...” (“Thadani”). There are those who believe that if their are safer processes being used, the development of these technologies is unnecessary. With that said, there are also some who believe that if the technology became readily available to everyone there would only be a few people who could actually afford it, which could cause further disparity between the social classes according to Rahul (“Thadani”). In view of this, Rachel Lehmann-Haupt, a writer, and expert on

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