A Speech on Genome Editing, Its Impacts, and the Repercussions of Oversimplification
Here is a random blob of stuff that I wanted to say on genome editing (on human embryos to be specific), but never got the chance. I know that there are so many positives, but if I had to take a stance, this is where I stand.
Do you feel like you get the clear picture of things easily from the media? Do you feel like there is too much oversimplification present? Because if you do feel that way, you are thinking in the right direction. We are constantly misled by the lack of nuance of information we receive on a day-to-day basis. Have you ever heard of genome editing being referred to as “cutting and pasting” or “a word processor”? It is just one of the many ways people are misled. We are forced to overlook its function, ethical concerns, net benefits, and feasibility. Since the development of genomics, scientists have always dreamt of a time when the carrying out of genome editing on humans would be possible and fruitful. They have created an image of curing terminal illnesses, lowering the risk of ailments, and making the world a safer place to live in. And I want to believe it so badly. But I can’t help but wonder what the safety risks are. Is this just too experimental? I know there are risks to everything, but are there safer alternatives? I am not extremely experienced, I am only someone who researches about this constantly. While there are many potential salutary improvements that the technology could provide, there are far too many negative impacts in my mind that genome editing would bring based on current circumstances.
In this “speech”, I am going to address the reasons why I don’t shouldn’t be implementing genome editing on humans at the present time. To do this, I am going to talk about the ethical concerns of genetically editing humans. There is a large range, but there are just a few that this talk is concerned with. They comprise safety concerns and risk/benefit analysis and, the phenomenon of informed consent.
First, let’s address safety concerns and risk/benefit analysis. Now, there is one statement that hits these two birds with one stone. It is from the NHGRI, or the National Human Genome Research Institute. It states, “Some researchers argue that there may never be a time when genome editing in embryos will offer a benefit greater than that of existing technologies”. In short, it is unethical to do genome editing in humans knowing that safer alternatives would be more propitious. Furthermore, the NIH states that a 18-member panel of experts on genome-editing came together and discussed the ethics of genetically editing humans. They ruled that there would be no reliable or completely safe application of it in pursuance of positive impacts in present time. This means that at the moment, we are not ready for genetically edited humans. Genome-editing technology effectuated in humans is simply unreliable and unsafe, and we cannot risk it at the moment. If germline genome editing is practiced despite the ruling stated above, that is certainly unethical. Because the timeframe of genome editing is simply not practical with regards to safety, it is unethical to implement at the moment.
Secondly, we must address the phenomenon of informed consent. In the article “What are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing?” written by the NHGRI (National Human Genome Research Institute), it is stated, “Some people worry that it is impossible to obtain informed consent for germline therapy because the patients affected by the edits are the embryo and future generations.” You see, the problem with genome editing addressed in informed consent is that it can lead to consequential issues down the road. The embryo cannot consent to any of the changes made and the edits can have an irreversible impact. As stated in an article called “CRISPR Gene-Therapy: A Critical Review of Ethical Concerns and a Proposal for Public Decision-Making” written by fellows at the University of Copenhagen, “Because genome editing is usually done to create long lasting impacts that can be passed down to offspring, instead of making one small edit in just one genome, germline genome editing is performed.” Germline editing/engineering is the process where the genome of an individual is edited in such a way that the change is heritable. It is typically done through altering germ/reproductive cells (egg and sperm). Due to the fact that this impact lasts for generations, scientists are forced to think about safer alternatives, such as IVF and other innovations. In short, it is unethical that children cannot consent to these drastic changes made that will affect not just them, but future generations as well.
It was stated by Harvard Gazette author Mary Todd Bergman that “Progress in this field has been so rapid that the dialogue around potential ethical, societal, and safety issues is scrambling to catch up.” And that is true. Implementing genome editing on humans in existing conditions would lead to many health repercussions and would have a pernicious impact on the health of many. The magnitude of this issue is not one to ignore. The truth is that the world is not ready for this technology. The world is not yet ready for the future of science. If the process of development is rushed, the consequences of socioeconomic impacts and moral principle-based controversy will certainly be felt. The ethics of genetically editing humans must be understood in order to prepare for future technologies and controversial situations circling around these technologies. We are moving far too fast and we are now backed in a corner, forced to think about situations of morality that we are not yet prepared to speak about. As you can clearly see, it is not ethical to genetically edit humans at the present time.
*Just want to point something out while I’m ahead. The NIH does not fund any projects related to embryos. The evidence I cited from the 18-member panel might require some cross-analysis because it was originally from the NIH and written by a Dr. Francis Collins.
