ETHICS REVISED: CRISPR/Cas9: The Wave of change is unstoppable.
The wave of change brought about by gene editing technology has already begun. As significant as major turning points in human history such as the Industrial Revolution or the Digital Revolution, this technology is saving lives and innovatively improving quality of life, especially in the fields of disease prevention and treatment. The development of advanced gene editing tools like CRISPR-Cas9 has opened up new possibilities for correcting specific genetic errors and directly addressing diseases, which naturally excites the scientific community. It was once hard to imagine that proteins known to cut DNA at specific sequences in bacteria could be used to manipulate human genes. However, with the completion of the Human Genome Project and the development of precise gene editing tools, we are now able to directly manipulate genes. Despite these advancements, not all countries support the development of this technology. Some hesitate due to the ethical and technical challenges that have not yet reached global standardization or consensus. Yet, the potential for health and quality of life improvements that this technology offers provides ample reason to actively explore and support its possibilities. Instead of trying to stop this wave of change, we need to embrace it and adapt quickly.
When we actively use gene editing technology, we can quickly find ways to prevent the spread of genetic diseases and cure terminal illnesses. As a practitioner of traditional medicine, I have witnessed firsthand the suffering of many people with genetic and chronic diseases. Patients with genetic conditions like Parkinson’s disease experience significant discomfort in their daily lives, and their families also face great difficulties. Modern medicine often offers limited treatment for these diseases, focusing mostly on symptom relief. Gene editing technology holds the promise of correcting the underlying causes of these diseases. This has the potential to dramatically improve the quality of life for patients.
Certainly, gene editing technology raises significant ethical and moral concerns. One of the most pressing issues is the potential for ‘enhancement’ of human genetic traits, which could lead to class distinctions and discrimination. This necessitates a strict ethical boundary that must not be crossed. The debate is complex and requires a central theme to organize the discussions effectively. While the dichotomy of ‘necessity versus safety’ and the controversy surrounding the status of embryos are important, they do not fully address all the complexities involved.
A pertinent question to consider is, “Where is gene editing headed?” The history of early 20th-century nuclear physics, which led to both nuclear bombs and power plants, provides a cautionary tale. It’s not sufficient to argue that dangerous technologies should not be developed; nor can we ignore technologies already in progress. Had we anticipated the outcomes of nuclear physics research, could we have directed it differently, perhaps avoiding some of the darker aspects associated with World War II? These considerations suggest that by defining clear goals and potential endpoints for gene editing technology early on, we can mitigate fears and guide humanity towards greater advancements.Many of the things given to us are indeed gifts. Diversity enriches and beautifies our lives. However, not everything bestowed by nature should be blindly revered. There is a clear distinction between what should be received as gifts and what we need to overcome. Can anyone welcome pandemics, droughts, or storms as gifts? These are challenges to be overcome. Just as chemotherapy was developed to combat cancer and vaccines to fight the coronavirus, gene editing technology has been developed to overcome congenital disabilities.
When test-tube babies were first introduced, people feared, doubted, and rejected the idea. Yet now, more than 8 million children have been born using this method, and many more are expected to be born as test-tube babies in the future. We must find a wise balance through effort and a spirit of challenge, accepting what we must while nurturing the life given to us. Gene editing, serving to enrich our lives, promises a different outcome and future from enhancement-focused editing, as we deliberate on its course.
From now on, clear ethical markers must be set to ensure the responsible use of gene editing technology through transparent international cooperation. This requires an inclusive debate involving scientists, policymakers, and the public, aiming to maximize the positive changes that gene editing technology can bring and minimize the potential risks.
Thus, gene editing technology holds the key to solving some of humanity’s greatest challenges, and its potential must be harnessed. We need a balanced approach that maximizes the benefits of gene editing technologies, while carefully managing the risks they may pose. Through these technologies, we can build a healthier and more sustainable future.
Work cited
1.Das, Bishnu Dev., et al. “A Review on Reliability and Validity of CRISPR/Cas9 Technology for Gene Editing.” Jordan Journal of Biological Sciences. 2021, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p503–511. 9p.
2.Lino, Christopher A., et al. “DELIVERING CRISPR: A Review of the Challenges and Approaches.” Drug Delivery, vol. 25, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1234–1257.
3.Bozeman Science. “What is CRISPR?”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnYppmstxIs
4.Real Engineering. “Designer Babies — The Problem With China’s CRISPR Experiment”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFFyeHJDI50
5.Ng, Written by Daphne. “A Brief History of CRISPR-Cas9 Genome-Editing Tools.” Bitesize Bio, 29 Apr. 2021, https://bitesizebio.com/47927/history-crispr/.
6.Haydar Frangoul., et al. “CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing for Sickle Cell Disease and β-Thalassemia.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 384, no. 23, 2021, p. e91. Crossref, doi:10.1056/nejmc2103481.
7. Haydar Frangoul., et al. “CRISPR-Cas9 In Vivo Gene Editing for Transthyretin Amyloidosis.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 385, no. 18, 2021, pp. 1721–23. Crossref, doi:10.1056/nejmc2114592.
