CRISPR-Cas9 and Designer Babies: The Ethical Debate (Part 59- CRISPR in Gene Editing and Beyond)

Welcome to the last and 59th part of the multi-part series on applications of CRISPR in gene editing and beyond.

The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 technology has revolutionized genetic engineering, offering unprecedented precision and ease in editing the DNA of living organisms. While this breakthrough has the potential to eradicate genetic diseases and improve human health, it has also ignited a fierce ethical debate, especially concerning the possibility of creating “designer babies.”

Designer Babies: A Controversial Concept

The term “designer babies” refers to the idea of genetically modifying embryos to enhance or select specific traits, such as intelligence, physical appearance, or even disease resistance. While this concept has been a staple of science fiction for years, the rapid advancement of CRISPR technology has brought it closer to reality, sparking ethical concerns.

Ethical Concerns

1. Unintended Consequences: The ethical concerns surrounding designer babies are compounded by the potential for unforeseen repercussions associated with gene editing techniques, such as CRISPR/Cas9. In these techniques, the Cas9-gRNA complex, while intended to precisely modify specific genes, can inadvertently target unintended locations within the genome. This unintended cutting of DNA can lead to mutations and alterations in genes that were not initially intended for modification. Furthermore, a critical safety concern is the long-term impact on human health and the environment. While CRISPR holds the potential to treat genetic diseases, there remains a significant knowledge gap regarding the lasting effects of these treatments. The interactions between edited genes and other genes within the human body, and the consequences of these interactions over time, are still not fully understood. For instance, the deletion of the CCR5 gene, which has shown promise in preventing HIV infection, has raised concerns about unintended effects on the immune system. Beyond its role as an HIV co-receptor, the CCR5 gene plays a part in immune function. A 2019 study published in Nature discovered that deleting the CCR5 gene in mice increased susceptibility to West Nile virus and reduced survival rates. It is crucial to emphasize that the consequences of altering the human genome in the germline extend beyond the individual undergoing the genetic modification; they have the potential to affect future generations. Undoubtedly, gene editing could potentially eliminate genetic diseases from a family’s lineage, but it could also introduce unintended mutations or genetic changes that could have negative consequences for future generations. Given these considerations, it is of paramount importance to thoroughly evaluate the safety of gene editing before its application in humans. A cautious approach to gene editing is essential, with a comprehensive examination of potential risks and consequences. As we venture into the realm of gene editing, it is essential to recognize that any decision to alter germline DNA carries significant implications for future generations and the course of human history.
2. Social Inequality: Access to CRISPR technology may not be equal across society, potentially exacerbating existing disparities. Wealthy individuals may have greater access to genetic enhancements, creating a divide between the genetically privileged and the genetically disadvantaged.
3. Eugenics: The emergence of CRISPR-mediated gene editing technology has rekindled concerns about its potential for contributing to a modern form of eugenics. Historically, eugenics was a social and scientific movement in the early 20th century that aimed to improve the genetic quality of human populations through selective breeding and coercive measures such as forced sterilization of individuals deemed “unfit” or “undesirable” due to disabilities, mental illnesses, or low intelligence. This movement was widely discredited and condemned after it was used by the Nazi regime in Germany to justify the genocide of millions, including Jews, homosexuals, and people with disabilities. Nevertheless, germline CRISPR editing uses methods different from eugenic measures in the past, but there are concerns that eugenic ideologies and practices may reemerge. Some argue that gene editing might be employed for eugenic purposes, leading to the creation of a genetically homogeneous society that values only specific traits or characteristics. This, in turn, could result in the discrimination and exclusion of individuals who do not meet these genetic standards, ultimately leading to social inequalities and a disturbing lack of genetic diversity.
4. Consent and Autonomy: The ethical principle of individual autonomy is challenged when it comes to modifying the genes of unborn children. Questions arise about who gets to make decisions about a child’s genetic makeup and whether it should be the parents, society, or the individual themselves.
5. Moral and Religious Objections: Some individuals hold strong moral or religious objections to manipulating human embryos for genetic purposes, viewing it as unnatural or playing with the fundamental building blocks of life.

Steps to Address Ethical Concerns

Addressing the ethical concerns surrounding CRISPR-Cas9 and designer babies is paramount to ensure responsible and equitable use of this technology. Here are some steps that must be taken:

1. Educating the Public: Scientists should actively engage with the public to explain the science behind CRISPR and provide transparent information about its benefits, limitations, and potential risks. This educational effort should involve accessible materials, public lectures, and engagement with the media to disseminate accurate information.
2. Public Engagement: Public input and discussion are crucial in shaping the ethical guidelines for CRISPR-Cas9 use. Governments and scientific organizations should actively engage with the public to solicit opinions and concerns.
3. International Regulations: The global community must establish clear and comprehensive regulations governing the use of CRISPR technology in human germline editing. These regulations should prioritize safety, transparency, and equity.
4. Access and Equity: Efforts should be made to ensure that CRISPR technology is accessible to all, regardless of socio-economic status. This may involve government subsidies, insurance coverage, or other mechanisms to make genetic therapies affordable and equitable.
5. Education and Ethical Training: Scientists, healthcare providers, and the general public should receive education and training on the ethical aspects of CRISPR technology. This will promote responsible and informed decision-making.CRISPR-Cas9 technology offers tremendous potential for improving human health and addressing genetic diseases. However, the ethical concerns surrounding the concept of designer babies are real and complex. To ensure that CRISPR technology is used responsibly and equitably, it is essential to establish clear regulations, engage the public, and uphold ethical principles such as autonomy and equity. Only through a balanced and thoughtful approach, we can harness the potential of CRISPR-Cas9 while addressing the ethical dilemmas it presents, ensuring that gene editing science serves the betterment of all humanity.

If you liked this article and want to know more about more about applications of CRISPR in gene editing and beyond, click the below links:

For book lovers:

CRISPR-Cas: Applications in gene editing & beyond: CRISPR Cas System | Microbiology | Genetics |…

For video lovers:

https://www.udemy.com/course/crispr-cas-system-applications-in-gene-editing-and-beyond/?referralCode=8ED7BBAEB7AE497D755F

Happy learning!