Gene editing already has widespread applications, for example, in agriculture, and it has polarized views, with whole anti- GMO movements taking place around the world. Vandana Siva, a social activist from India heavily promotes organically- grown food and is strongly against genetically modified crops in farms (Navdanya, n.d). She believes that ‘the very idea of GMOs is a death knell for biodiversity.’ She argues that the ‘integrity of life’ will no longer exist when corporations push out and popularize the genetically modified crops which they produce (Greens- EFA, 2013). This essay focuses on the use of gene editing in humans, but a reference to agribusinesses in the context of genetically modified food provides a useful avenue to understanding how corporations and large business intend to and are already using gene editing for profit.
Perhaps the most common use of gene editing outside of medical research in humans, is in ‘designer babies. ’Because gene editing lets you edit the genetic code and change the characteristics of anything, you can effectively make ‘designer babies’, by changing the genetic code of your soon- to be born embryo, giving it any characteristic you want (Pang and Ho, 2016). In the modern world, the cosmetic industry covers over 500 billion USD (Cosmetic market value worldwide, 2018-2025 | Statista, 2018), which shows the sheer importance society places on appearance. Victor Hugg, a social scientist writing for Iowa State Daily, says that “The number of people in our society who place an exorbitant amount of value on the physical appearance of themselves — and of others — is overwhelming” and “every human being makes judgments based on someone’s age, height, weight, hair, eye colour and so forth” (Hugg, 2011) . Because society is so focused on appearance, writers like Hugg argue that people consider appearance to be what dictates their value. This could lead to more and more people using gene editing to alter their children’s appearances.
Beauty standards play a huge part in the modern world. It could be said that gene editing, and more specifically, designer babies, would encourage social standards regarding beauty to continue and get worse. Women are under more pressure to look a certain way to fit in and conform to the body standard at the time (Mazur, 2010). One year, blue eyes may be the standard, then it may change to brown in a few years. This is a similar case with body shape. According to an investigation conducted in 2007, 90% of all woman aged 15-64 around the world would like to change at least one aspect of their physical appearance (Calogero, Boroughs and Thompson, 2007).This shows that technology that allows you to change your child’s appearance will potentially be used by parents, based on these social standards. As will be demonstrated in this essay, there are also consequences of using this technology that impact the child on which they are being used on. Robert Sparrow of Monash University argues in his 2018 paper on gene editing (Sparrow, 2019) of the obsolescence of ‘designer babies’. He contends that when a child is given enhancements at birth, they will “rapidly go out of date” and “Sooner or later, every modified child will find him or her- self to be ‘yesterday’s child”. With this, he is making the point that, just as fashion becomes obsolete as the years go by, genetic traits that are considered ‘attractive’ will soon lose their flair. When this does happen, the child will feel inadequate and will no longer have what society considers the ‘best trait’. Furthermore, different qualities may be considered more attractive in the modern world, so gene editing would further homogenise and universalise our understanding of beauty, attractiveness and what is considered ‘good’. One thing that makes the human race so interesting is the diversity of people. This homogenisation of the idea of beauty will eliminate this diversity.
In this essay, it may be useful to give an idea of the benefits of gene editing only being used in medical research and treatment in the lab. This is where medical treatments using gene editing should be considered. Children who suffer from hereditary diseases cannot live a normal life. The use of CRISPR/ CAS9 for medical treatment, however, be used to genetically rectify these issues before the baby is even born. The embryo of the child formed from the parents can be biologically altered to remove the genetic mutation that causes the disease (Gene Therapy- Mayo Clinic, n.d). In medicine research, researchers’ best interests are to do with treatments for illnesses, so the power that is gene editing will be used to benefit all of humanity, even if it is kept behind laboratory walls. Furthermore, using it for medical research has a lot less problems associated with it, and less societal consequences. There is, although, an important factor to consider here; medical research is not always morally or ethically justifiable. There are many historical examples of immoral medical research. In 1951, a young woman called Henrietta Lacks was taken to Johns Hopkins Hospital where she was given treatment for her cervical cancer. Dr George Gey, a cancer and virus researcher in the hospital would often keep cells from patients for medical research. He found Lacks’ cells to be quite unique and even today, HeLa cells help us study the effect of viruses and toxins. While this was beneficial, the doctors at the hospital passed on her cell samples without her consent or knowledge (Nature, Nature, (DTU) and (UNIL), 2020). This demonstrates how medical research can also often be ethically questionable.
My essay not only argues for gene editing only being used for medical research and treatment, but also for it to be kept exclusively in the laboratory. If gene editing were used in medicine, but outside of the lab, large healthcare business may patent gene- editing technology and proceed to charge exorbitant amounts for people to use this technology, rendering it far out of reach for those who cannot afford it. This already exists with general privatised healthcare in many countries (Collyer and White, 2011), and gene editing should not be restricted, as something with so much potential. We have seen the value that society places on appearance and beauty standards that exist, so those less fortunate who do not have access to it may not feel that they conform with said societal beauty standards as is the case with the latest fashion, for example- in a study conducted on college students by Lauren A. McDermott and Terry F. Pettijohn II of Coastal Carolina and Walden University (Pettijohn II and McDermott, 2012), students rated models and not only were African- American Models rated lower, but so were models wearing clothes with no branding or less expensive clothes.
One ethical theory that may be important and useful to consider is utilitarianism. A utilitarian standpoint may provide counterarguments to my thesis. Utilitarianism is about what will give the most people the most happiness. In other words, what will increase the total ‘amount’ of happiness in the universe (Driver, 2009). Restrictions put into place on the use of gene editing (i.e. only using it in labs) will mean that less people will have access to it. If we allow gene editing to be used outside of the lab, more people are likely to get valuable life- saving treatment. This means that there should be no restrictions and gene editing should be permissible for use outside of the lab. More lives saved means more happiness for more people, which is what utilitarianism is all about. However, as we have explored in previous paragraphs, if access to gene editing has less restrictions, there is always the risk that it will be used for designer babies, for example. Not only have we seen how likely this is, but we have also explored the consequences of this. Potentially, restricting gene editing for medical research in a lab may give more people more happiness, as here it is always going to be used to save lives.
Libertarianism is a concept that also may be used to oppose this thesis, and more specifically, why it should only be used for medical treatment. Libertarianism is a philosophy that strongly promotes freedom among people (van der Vossen, 2002). While altering the appearance of babies in a test tube may have societal consequences, restricting the many uses gene editing has and only allowing it to be used for medical research and treatment may also restrict the freedom of parents to have their child look or act the way they want them to. After all, while it may result in the consequences explored previously, it is the parents’ choice at the end of the day. It is similar to the idea of parents shaping the way their children think and behave. The main difference being that this is to do with their appearance. On the other hand, it could be argued that this restriction may be a good thing, as allowing the parents to have free reign over their children’s genetic traits and enhancements may result in problems arising, with the aforementioned negative consequences outweighing the parents’ satisfaction. Furthermore, while we say that allowing the parents to change their children is free will, we also need to consider the free will of the child that is soon to be born. If the child does not like the changes that were made to them, this will result in conflict. While gene editing is reversible, as recently discovered (Frederick, 2021), this is still likely a long process that the child has to undergo. Additionally, maybe it is not safe to allow this free will over the distribution and use of gene editing technology. According to a study conducted by the University of Missouri-Columbia, most teenagers prioritise appearance over health (University of Missouri- Columbia, 2012). While libertarianism means the people can choose what they do with CRISPR/ CAS9, in the grand scheme of things, it is more important that people stay healthy. This is why so many anti- smoking campaigns are promoted by governments around the world, for example.
To conclude, it is very rare that a discovery as revolutionary as gene editing graces the field of genetic research. However, using it for personal gain and for one’s own vanity will undermine the potential for greater good. If gene editing remained purely for medical use, it will have a much more widespread impact on the world around us. It should also be kept exclusively in the laboratory, as there will be accessibility issues, if, for example, it is patented, and less people have access to it. There are many issues associated with how it will likely be used by people, so I argue for increased regulation of the distribution and the access of this technology, even if that may involve gene editing only being used in the laboratory for medical research.
2021-7-18-1626640266