The increasingly universal accessibility to information has led to the globalization of comprehensive dialogue, a platform by which the opinion of an individual or individual entity can be nourished into a global discourse rather than majorly existing within the scientific community. Among other discussions that lie on the aforementioned platform exists a heavily divided debate regarding the current advancements in gene editing technology. The process of gene editing objectively entails a variety of engineering by which DNA is inserted, deleted, or replaced within the human genome. This advancement in biomedical technology has shed light on a potential future in which somatic and germline genetic editing may optimize the process of human evolution, as well as stimulate an expanding international community that strives to maintain bioethics at a scientific and societal level.
A somatic cell is any cell within a multicellular organism that is not a reproductive germ cell or undifferentiated stem cell. Therefore, somatic genomes are not generationally transmitted and clinical research conducted on them will only affect the individual who receives treatment (Thrasher et al., 2016). Because the effects of this form of gene editing does not extend past an individual level, it is ethically secure to conduct consensual research on somatic cells. Beneficial editing processes have been introduced that attempt to rid blood cells of sickle-cell anemia and improve immune cells ability to attack cancer cells, among other severe diseases and ailments. These scientific advancements have hinted at a biomedical utopia as gene editing has the potential to eradicate diseases such as these that have negatively altered the lives of millions of people over the course of history.
There are significant benefits and risks that may be reaped from editing somatic cells. Although the intention of gene editing is to eradicate a gene’s abnormalities, inaccurate editing has the potential to create artificial abnormalities. This is problematic in that treatments of artificial abnormalities have not accumulated substantial research. With that being said, the evolution of technology would cease to exist if scientific risks were not taken. Understanding the potential risks behind this developing practice and being able to weigh them appropriately against the potential benefits is an entirely necessary regulation that can exist as a parameter of the trials. As the genetic engineering of somatic cells does not affect future generations and is therefore not a matter of consent, the clinical research that may be conducted on this variety of biotechnology is extensive.
A germ cell is a sex cell of either the egg or sperm variety that contains 23 chromosomes, which means each germ cell has the potential to bond with its counterpart and create a human life. This is the most controversial form of gene editing in that the genetic impact is passed on to subsequent generations (Thrasher et al. 2016). However, genetic editing of this variety has proposed the potential to eliminate inherited diseases that severely impact one’s quality of life. Furthermore, it has been proposed that germ cell editing may enhance beneficial qualities in a genome, thus creating superior strains of genes. Inherited diseases by which germline editing may eradicate include mitochondrial diseases and Down Syndrome, two varieties of disease that currently have no cure (Wang, Yi, Qu 2015). As of now, reproducing while under the ailment of certain inherited diseases is unethical in a sense because of the certainty that the abnormalities will be present in the offspring. Not only does this method of editing improve future human genomes, it potentially lifts the burden of passing on a life altering disease to one’s offspring by individuals affected by them.
While genetically altering somatic cells does not cross a line of consent, germline editing is under fire because the argument exists that it does cross said line of consent (Darnovsky 2016). However, it is a social responsibility to utilize the platform of gene editing to discover cures to inherited diseases. John Harris, professor emeritus in science ethics at University of Manchester, claims, “Just as justice delayed is justice denied, so, too, therapy delayed is therapy denied.”. Another heavily disputed aspect of germline editing is genetically modifying human genomes for the sake of creating superior breeds of offspring. This is a matter of scientific responsibility in that there are parameters that must be maintained in order to ensure the safety of future generations. However, the long-term effects of germline editing are unknown and clinical research for this variety of genetic engineering differs from somatic cell engineering in that the implications will not be containable as the impacted cells reproduce. Serious risks exist including off-target mutations, artificial abnormalities in embryonic and fetal development, and long-term health concerns (Thrasher et al., 2016). Despite the risks, the inherent dispute is rooted in the desire to maintain and improve human health. With that being said, genetically altering germline cells has the potential to maintain and improve the health of the human species at a magnitude larger than ever available before.
Previously at https://www.essaysauce.com/essays/history/2017-11-28-1511895479.php since 15.10.2019