written by: Sarah Ning
Even though the applications of CRISPR present exciting possibilities, the gene editing tool was not met without controversy. There are serious ethical and social issues behind this new biomedical technology that need to be worked out, especially when talking about what this means for the future of the human race. A major concern regarding CRISPR is how extreme we can take its editing capabilities, especially in future “designer babies”. In the final blog post of the CRISPR series, four ethical dilemmas will be covered: what changes should be allowed, unequal access, lack of consent, and the safety risks.
What should we be allowed to do?
As time goes on, the more knowledge scientists will have on the capabilities of CRISPR will pose the question: where do we draw the line? Theoretically speaking, if we were allowed to genetically engineer desired traits into humans, CRISPR could be utilized to remove genetic diseases from a germline, improve athletes’ performances, prevent violent behaviour, and much more. However, should CRISPR only be used to better the human race, but prohibited from altering cosmetic traits? Maybe changing minor or harmless characteristics such as hair colour should be allowed, but what happens when parents wish to change the skin colour of their children? Additionally, traits to better the human race are subjective; maybe it is beneficial for humans to have the instinct to be violent when in need of self-defence.
People may argue that if the resources or knowledge needed to create so-called “perfect” humans are available, then it should be used to our advantage. On the contrary, others may find the idea of redesigning the fundamental biology of humans to be morally troubling.
Unequal access to CRISPR editing
The truth is, not everyone will have equal access to this genome editing technology, as it will likely only be a possible reality for those who will be able to afford the costly treatment. This will only increase existing disparities in access to healthcare and form classes based on the quality of an individual’s engineered genome. The genetically edited individuals can gain an unfair advantage over those with unedited genomes, especially when the edited features enhance their mental and physical abilities (ie. IQ or physical strength). This will simply further the class divide between rich and poor, because the wealthy individuals will have the money to choose traits that will enhance their children, while the poor individuals will have to work even harder to improve their economic status. If the rich are able to continuously have an advantage over the poor, how can poor people compete in this society?
Parents may be put under extreme peer and marketing pressure to genetically modify their children, and those with genetic differences or disabilities could face discrimination. Looking into the extreme, there can be permanent, possibly harmful, effects on the human species, as the genetic enhancement could divide humans into subspecies.
Lack of consent
One of the biggest dilemmas is the inability to obtain informed consent if the CRISPR editing is being done on a human embryo. The parents of the future child will be making the decision that affects the next generation without their consent. Is it ethical for the parents to be given the right to decide on behalf of their future child, as long as their intentions are not altering traits that may cause harm to their child? The child may be psychologically affected in detrimental ways and unwillingly forced to deal with the intended and unintended consequences. At the same time, what if the baby requires genetic editing that will significantly improve their quality of life? Is it right to deny them CRISPR editing just because the child is not able to consent? Take this hypothetical scenario: there is a child who, without gene editing, will be completely blind. Although this condition is not fatal, being able to have perfect vision will make their life easier and give them more opportunities. Who has the right to make this decision: the parents, the future child, or perhaps even a doctor?
Safety and risk of unknown long term effects
Due to the current unfamiliarity with CRISPR technology, it is difficult to predict the long term effects that may arise. In fact, it is impossible to determine if CRISPR editing on humans is safe without performing what could be unethical human experimentation.
The human genome is complex and interconnected, meaning that a modification of one gene could cause inadvertent side effects. For instance, the CCR5 gene that was talked about in the previous blog post was originally removed for HIV resistance, but may have also resulted in improved cognitive functions. There could also potentially be cases where editing a gene might be able to fix one problem but it will have other ramifications. CRISPR may not always work perfectly as intended either; it has sometimes missed the target site and inserted DNA at the wrong places, which may lead to the development of a completely unexpected disease or genetic mutations.
There is no clear answer to these ethical dilemmas, and as scientists are discovering new things about CRISPR every day these moral conflicts only become more polarizing. The future holds endless possibilities, and we can only hope that CRISPR is used safely and ethically. So, now we pose the question to you: What are your thoughts on CRISPR technology? Where do you see this going in the future? Would you be open to having your very own “designer baby”?
References
AYANOĞLU FB, ELÇİN AE, ELÇİN YM. Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Turk J Biol. 2020 Apr 2;44(2):110–20.
Lander ES, Baylis F, Zhang F, Charpentier E, Berg P, Bourgain C, et al. Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature. 2019 Mar;567(7747):165–8.
What are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing? [Internet]. Genome.gov. [cited 2020 Dec 31]. Available from: https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns
Designer Babies: A Right to Choose? Wired [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jan 1]; Available from: https://www.wired.com/2009/03/designerdebate/
Comments