Designer Babies: The Ethical Dilemma with Gene Editing
A discussion on the ethical dilemmas that are faced with the power of gene editing.
Gene editing is the process of changing and altering the genetic code of different organisms. The applications for gene editing are vast… from modifying plants so they have a longer shelf life to fighting genetic diseases, gene editing can do a lot. Even though breakthroughs in gene editing will change the world, should we allow it to? Gene editing has some major drawbacks when you put an ethical lens on it, and in this article I’ll go over some of the main arguments. Specifically discussing gene editing on babies and fetuses. A very crucial topic to discuss as the ability to edit fetuses and embryos is becoming more accessible every day.
A Little bit about how Gene Editing works
There are many methods to go about gene editing yet the most popular and widely accepted method is the CRISPR-Cas9 system. CRISPR stands for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats which is a fancy explanation for how it actually works. The CRISPR-Cas9 system analyzes parts of DNA until it finds a part that is identical to what you tell it to. For example, if you were looking for the DNA sequence that handles hair colour, you would program CRISPR to find that sequence. Once found, the Cas9 which is a protein cuts the unwanted sequence and can add its own sequence of DNA. This is done by using guide RNA. By changing the original sequence, you can alter the organisms original properties. Going back to the hair example, you can edit the sequence so the color is different (like blonde or brunette).
Using this system to edit embryos’ DNA allow for people to essentially customize the properties of their children. For example, you could have your child have certain looks, features or could even program parts of your body to fight certain diseases (eg. cancer). This is being referred to as creating designer babies, and have some ethical issues associated with them.
Ethical Dilemma #1: Is it consensual?
Babies in the womb and embryos don’t have the ability to actually consent to this kind of treatment. As a matter of fact, they are essentially unconscious organisms that show no ability to think of anything. The law states that one must be conscious to actually give some form of consent. If embryos can’t consent, then how is it legally/ethically okay for their genetic code to be edited? The law also states that persons under the age of eighteen have people that consent for them like their parents. But at that point, is it fair that parents get to build exactly who they want and limit the freedoms of the child? We have a dilemma here, where these embryos can’t consent but if the parents consent for them, then we are essentially limiting rights and freedoms, which is also morally wrong.
The common counter-argument to solve this ethical dilemma is that genetic engineering the baby is for their own good, because we can stop diseases and fundamentally make them better in real life. This is sort of an altruistic mindset that assumes that the child will actually conform to the edits made to their own code. What if the child doesn’t necessarily want certain edits. Then you are stuck going back to questioning of limiting the rights and freedoms of the child, which is fundamentally flawed. But, if you accept this argument in the idea of the greater good, then there wouldn’t be a dilemma.
Ethical Dilemma #2: Is it fair?
We live in a pretty equitable society where marginalization is becoming less of an issue. With the introduction of genetically modifying humans to become perfect, we have to discuss is it fair to those less fortunate. If this was introduced and legally okay in society, some children are literally better than everyone else. They would be better in academics, sports, creative processes, literally everything. And it’s not even because they are naturally born that way, it’s because they have been given a boost from gene editing. This edge would give more opportunity to the genetically modified in virtually every field and opportunity. Job opportunity? Only if you have a certain gene. The result of this is that society would indefinitely frown upon the non-edited humans and praise the genetically edited humans. This leaves an ethical dilemma where equity is thrown out of the question, a fundamental truth to ethics.
A counter argument to this dilemma is that it’s in the benefit of everyone if we started editing humans because it would lead to more innovation. Big problems like climate change, human exploration and human longevity would be able to be worked on if there were smarter people on this earth. This would in turn benefit those non edited as they live in a fundamentally better place. This altruistic type of mindset shows that it’s done for the greater good.
The argument that wins here is the argument that proves to be more impactful than damaging. Allowing for genetic editing gives more marginalization but also more innovation. Not allowing genetic editing leaves us in the status quo. I believe that marginalization can be dealt with and the returns of innovation are always a positive, so in my opinion, genetic editing is fine under this lens. But, there isn’t a right answer here, hence why it is a dilemma.
Ethical Dilemma #3: Is it safe?
The last barrier to genetic editing going more mainstream is the fact that it’s somewhat unsafe. Off-target edits could give us results that end up being cruel and unwanted by the child. One thing that is more than likely is that there will be mishaps when editing embryos. We see this with any medical procedure, and the general consensus is that we will never reach 100% accuracy. With this being said, do we take the plunge where we take this risk? In this dilemma, there are definitely people that will get the short end of the stick and be modified where they get unwanted genetic properties. Is it fair that some people will have to be negatively affected by gene editing and everyone else will be able to prosper. It’s a dilemma of equity but also cruelty. Unwanted genetic variants could lead to strange and cruel properties of the child. We as a race are being cruel in this manner when we allow gene editing to be mainstream. Some of these children could’ve lived normal lives but are disadvantages because of human error.
The argument to this dilemma is that innovation will get better and better and will lower the risk of this happening. Yes, this is true, and as the technology gets better, we will have less off target practices. But it’s hard to say that we will always get 100% when dealing with genetic editing. Even the most common procedures today still aren’t 100% accurate.
To solve this dilemma is to figure out if we can reach 100% when it comes to genetic editing or living with the fact that some people will be genetically disadvantaged. It all comes down to what is possible by the human race.
Gene Editing: is it Worth it?
When you revise all these dilemmas and look back on the risk and reward, one thing becomes abundantly clear. Gene editing is here for the benefit of humanity and will fundamentally help humans out. However, the pitfalls make it hard to figure out if gene editing is an ethically sound thing. But we need to take a practical lens to gene editing. The major fact is that it is here to stay and will be used, so we can talk ethics all day but what is the actual benefit of gene editing. In my eyes, the ability to change the human race for the better and to everyone’s benefit.
