Is the modification of human genes ethical? Some may believe that modifying genes in humans is immoral and research towards such biotechnology should be halted although this would be detrimental to the progress of medical advancement. This paper will explore opposing positions about the morality of human genome editing and come to a conclusion on which is more persuasive. Currently, the most powerful tool for modifying genomes is the CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats)-Cas9 system. Found naturally in bacteria, CRISPR-Cas9 defends against viruses by cutting viral DNA into small fragments, rendering them harmless. This function can be utilized by modifying CRISPR-Cas9 in a lab to be able to target other DNA sequences. This function combined with the repair mechanism of the cell can be used to add or remove or modify a DNA sequence.
There are many benefits in pursuing the technology to edit genes. They present solutions to diseases and mutations that could not be fixed otherwise, could possibly further human evolution to improve quality of life, and can be researched safely and ethically. Scientific advancements have already been made that have made it possible to check for genetic disorders in fetuses such as Spina Bifida and Down Syndrome. Mankind will be capable of further manipulating human genes and thus have answers to problems that were not previously treatable. For example, the capabilities of in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis is limited by the number of embryos that are created and as most of the embryos will be coming from the parent themselves, it would be likely that the embryo or future generation would end up with the same condition that the parent is trying to not pass on. Genes can be manipulated in these early stages to avoid these complex diseases without increasing the number of embryos used. Furthermore, genes can be changed or added for the benefit of the individual’s health in the future. An example would be “potentially [inserting] genes into human DNA that will produce physical warning signs of cancer, allowing early detection.” (Harris J., 1992). Most common diseases are the result of more than a single gene mutation, coupled with environmental influences. From the Society for Applied Philosophy, “For example, genome wide association studies have identified at least 44 genes involved in diabetes, 35 genes involved in coronary artery disease, and over 300 genes involved in common cancers. Traditional selection methods, like [in vitro fertilization] and [pre-implantation genetic diagnosis], are not powerful enough to select against polygenic diseases.” (Gyngell, Douglas, and Savulescu, August 2017) Germline gene editing can modify multiple genes in a single embryo simultaneously, making it possible to combat diseases we normally would not be able to. Such research will lead to the longevity of human life and other forms of life, overcoming natural impediments and healthier future generations. It would be more unethical to discourage this research when it would help countless people from avoidable illnesses and deaths, preventing cases of birth defects, cancer, diabetes, and other ailments. The boundaries between prevention, therapy, and enhancement can be determined as these technologies continue to develop and laws can be created to regulate the usage of germline engineering. Gene modification has already shown remarkable progress, “In April 2015, it was announced that CRISPR had been used to make edits in human embryos for the first time. In August 2017, researchers in the USA used CRISPR to correct a mutation in human embryos that leads to a fatal heart condition—with virtually no off-target mutations. In November 2018, Dr. He Jiankui announced that he had used the CRISPR-Cas9 system to edit the genomes of twins Lulu and Nana, in an attempt to make them resistant to HIV.” The Nuffield Council of Bioethics released a report titled ‘Genome Editing and Human Reproduction’ that addresses the ethical questions surrounding gene modification technologies. According to the report, genome editing would be ethically acceptable if “they [are] intended to secure, and be consistent with, the welfare of the future person and they should not increase disadvantage, discrimination or division in society.” (Nuffield Council On Bioethics, 2018). Usage should only be permitted after there has been an acceptable amount of opportunity for public debate about how it will be used and any implications and there are measures in place to assess the possible risks and establish safety standards. The report adds that if permitted, the usage should be licensed on a case by case basis and strictly regulated. The long-term effects on the participants should be monitored as well.
It concludes that the use of gene editing should not be limited as long as “They are not biologically reckless; They are consistent with the welfare of future people; They are not socially divisive; They are not initiated without prior societal debate.” (Gyngell C., Bowman-Smart H., Savulescu J., 2019). Human germline engineering cannot be ruled as simply good or bad, instead, it is the applications of the tech that should be evaluated for their effect on society. Based on the appraisal of these applications, debates can be held to discuss the future governance of the particular usage.
Like Lasik eye surgery, technologies with therapeutic uses will also lead to other applications. One could use gene therapy to further human traits such as build or intelligence. Some may argue the morality of gene modification due to future generations not being able to give consent to germline changes. “Designer babies” refer to children with their genetics modified as the parents want, not for medical reasons. Doing so could place a burden on the children with unreasonable parental expectations. For example, the parents might expect for the child to grow without the hinderance of certain ailments or genetic traits and set high hopes and standards for them that could impede their ability for an open future. This problem only worsens with using genome editing to enhance traits. Using genome editing technology leads to the notion that children are similar to Additionally, this could also affect future generations and they too would not be able to consent to having their genes modified, withholding them from their right to a future of their own volition. There are many questions that germline engineering prompts, such as who will have access to these facilities. Would it be unfair for only the affluent to be able to afford the privilege? Using such technologies would only further increase the discrimination in society and increase the disparities between the wealthy and those who are not as fortunate. Using genetic modification will undermine many of humanity’s efforts for equality, there are already several global agreements in place preventing the use of these technologies as part of international human rights. This kind of usage could put humanity on the path of transhumanism. There are those who object to this notion because they believe humans should not be interfering with nature and are playing god with germline engineering. Due to the experimental nature of the technology and the welfare of the patients, there is widespread debate about whether this should even be pursued. People also worry that future generations are at risk of harm caused by a negatively altered genome although it is understood that this is not an inevitable consequence and can be carefully dealt with if not avoided in the first place. It is the mindfulness of the future generation’s interests and wellbeing that causes most unease about gene editing technologies.
CONCLUSION
The usage of gene modifying technologies would accelerate the evolution of humanity for the betterment of society and living conditions. The average life expectancy of humankind would increase and the percentage of people in the world with disabilities and illnesses such as AIDS and sickle cell would decrease over time. By editing genes, future generations will not have to suffer from conditions that used to be incurable and will be able to screen for disease or mutations before they even manifest. Using human genome editing will allow for the treatment and prevention of polygenic diseases (the result of multiple gene mutations with environmental effects) other current technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, aren’t powerful enough to attack. Laws can be made to prevent exploitation of the tech for cosmetic and other non-medical purposes, simply governing the usage can solve many of the worries and problems some may have about using gene modification. The argument that humankind does not have the consent of future generations or know the possible impact it may have on them is inconsistent with other practices we use commonly today. Many innovations are made that greatly impact upcoming generations but are perused nonetheless because the expected benefits outweigh the negative possibilities. For example, cell phones are an invention that had a huge effect on the future generations. It has some negative effects on today’s society but has without a doubt improved our quality of living and is now an essential tool in our everyday lives. The risks are definitely outweighed by the benefits of germline engineering if used with regulation and will greatly benefit humanity in the future. Placing bans on the research will stymie the development of powerful treatments for future generations and possibly deprive them of it completely. The report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics concludes that the use of gene editing should not be limited as long as “They are not biologically reckless; They are consistent with the welfare of future people; They are not socially divisive; They are not initiated without prior societal debate.” (Gyngell C., Bowman-Smart H., Savulescu J., 2019). Ultimately the arguments against the usage of germline engineering are not as persuasive as the supporting arguments due to inconsistency when compared to other technologies and that the safety and usage concerns can be addressed by governing and regulating the process. Instead of trying to decide what should be used and what should not, the public and the government should work together to guide the creation terms and laws to ensure the technology is used with regards to everyone’s concerns and is beneficial to society.
2020-4-3-1585885978