What is means to be a Designer Baby
The social and ethical implications of human gene editing
Technology in medicine and biology has grown exponentially over the last decade- for better and for worse. New breakthroughs and developments occur almost daily in the world of science. A particular feat that biologists have begun hypothesizing over the last decade is genetic engineering in human embryos. According to the Center for Genetics and Society, genetic editing is a “way of making changes to specific parts of a genome”. It is a complex process in which defective genes in a living organism’s body are substituted with effective replacements. There are two types of genetic engineering: somatic and germline. Somatic cell gene therapy is when only one person’s genome is changed. Certain target genes are edited, but the modification is not passed down to the individual’s offspring. In germline editing, however, a deliberate change is made to the germ cells, or the sperm/egg, of a person, thereby passing on that change to their children and future generations. In other words, genetic editing in embryos would create a lineage of genetically modified humans.
The latter kind of engineering is an extremely new and uncertain topic to scientists, who are still working to understand exactly how germline therapy works, and more importantly, what its consequences and impacts are. Currently, the main reason for exploring embryo editing is the prospect of curing fatal diseases in human beings. Diseases in the world that have resisted destruction could one day be eradicated through the use of genetic engineering. However, this technology has several underlying aspects that we cannot ignore; the ethics of it, its long term impacts, and what it means for the individual receiving the gene therapy. A widespread debate has sprung in the science community over the past 10 years as to whether genetic engineering is more beneficial than harmful, and if it is a safe and ethical thing to pursue. Though genetic engineering in embryos has potential to be a revolutionary tool in medicine that can improve the lives of many people, it requires significantly more regulation and testing before it can become a safe reality, and in its current state, its disadvantages certainly outweigh its advantages.
Genetic engineering has promise to wipe out epidemic and create a better living standard for human beings, but extreme caution must be used with a topic that even the ‘experts’ know so little about. Certainly, there are tremendous advantages to germline editing. With the use of CRISPR, a gene editing technology, the human genome can be altered. Basically, CRISPR finds unwanted sections of DNA in an embryo and replaces them with new DNA that doesn’t code for diseases. This technology was implemented for the first time in 2015, when a group of Chinese scientists attempted to modify a gene in a non-viable embryo that would have been responsible for a deadly blood disorder. Since then, scientists have become more knowledgeable regarding human genetic editing. In an essay written by Eric Lander, a professor at Harvard Medical School, he states that genetic engineering can completely eliminate diseases and viruses that take the lives of millions of people annually, including HIV, sickle-cell anemia, and hemophilia.
Additionally, an exciting prospect for many scientists is the optimistic yet valid argument that gene editing could delay or arrest ageing. Ageing kills around 30 million people every year, but with genetic technology, humans could potentially live much longer without memory loss, fatal disease, or frailty. Imagine this: you get to live your life without the fear of dying of old age. There is no pain, no disease that can take you away from your loved ones. This life seems incredible to many, and with genetic engineering, it may soon become a reality. There seems to be no reason not to proceed to make genetic editing an actuality as soon as possible, with all that it seems to offer.
The issue here, however, is that we don’t know that genetic engineering will turn out as flawless as we imagine it to be. In fact, we don’t exactly know how it will turn out at all. One of the factors that makes the issue of embryo modification so complicated is the fact that no one can predict with certainty what the long term consequences of the process are. When somatic engineering is done, scientists will immediately be able to see how it affects the individual. The same cannot be said for germline editing. Genetically modified embryos could turn out to be normal human beings, or there could be unforeseen side effects to the procedure. Currently, that is too large of a risk to ignore. Although genetic modifications have been done in organisms other than humans, the stakes are much higher when dealing with members of our own species. If a batch of genetically modified field crops turn out bad, we can throw the batch away and start with a new one. We cannot afford to gamble with human lives in the same way. The eradication of one disease in an embryo may well lead to the appearance of another one. According to an essay in the Journal of Biomedical Sciences, “an accident in engineering the genetics of a virus or bacteria… could result in a stronger type, which could cause a serious epidemic when released. This could be fatal in human genetic engineering creating problems ranging from minor medical problems to death”. There is no way to be sure what impacts genetic engineering will have in the long run, because it is such a new topic that no one has had enough time to figure it all out.
Even if human genetic modification is viable, is it right? The ethics of genetic engineering are messy and present a significant challenge in proceeding with the process. Human beings have been known to take things too far. People can often use things that are meant to improve the world and twist them to become hurtful or dangerous.
Take social media for example- something that nearly everyone uses everyday. The creation of social media intended it to be a platform where people could come together, communicate with one another, and feel supported and loved. And, although that is still a profound aspect of social media, it has also been used to increase cyberbullying and has provided a platform to make thousands of people feel worse about themselves.
In regards to science, humans are constantly tethering on a line between exploration and obsession. Yes, genetically modified humans are currently only being hypothesized to eliminate harmful diseases, but once the floodgates are open, the possibilities for what editing the genome can do are endless. By creating genetically engineered people, we would be interfering with nature and trying to ‘play God’. Let’s revisit the topic of ageing, or lack thereof. Although living forever sounds wonderful to most people, it has its downsides. Not only would it lead to issues such as overpopulation and class division, it would be inherently unnatural. It is a sad but true fact that ageing is a natural process that everyone must eventually go through. Attempting to halt or reverse it will no doubt have dangerous repercussions. There are certain things humans should not try to change about nature and the traditional cycle of life. Starting genetic engineering in embryos will open a pandora’s box of genetic modifications in human beings. There will be no stopping what we do with such powerful technology.
‘Designer babies’ have, until recent years, only been thought of as a science fiction concept. The term means creating a baby whose genetic code is seen as more desirable by society. With the development of gene technology, designer babies are becoming an increasingly real possibility. Not only would designer babies have no diseases or disorders, they’d also have traits that are more selective. Nearly everyone I know has a favorite superhero movie. What if it was possible for you to become one of the superheroes you idolize in real life? To be impossibly strong, have super speed, or have the ability to become invisible? Genetic engineering makes this now-hypothetical scenario a very plausible future in out society. The prospect of being superhuman in theory may seem incredible, but in reality, all it will do is put one group of people above another. It is not realistic to say that everyone will have access to gene technology, or that everyone will want its treatment. The creation of designer babies will lead to the creation of a social divide. That is the exact opposite of what genetic modification is intended for, but it can go down that path if not treated with mindfulness. If we can genetically modify an individual to not have HIV, what is to say we cannot modify them to have blue eyes, or be male? As of now, not much. Because gene technology in embryos is still a new concept, regulations surrounding it are sparse. There are currently 29 countries with legal bans on genetic editing. Most countries, however, have restrictions that are not legally enforced. How far is too far with modifying embryos? Until this question is firmly answered, it is unsafe to proceed with genetic engineering. It is imperative to not be impulsive or hasty as this transformative research moves forward.
An important thing to remember while discussing germline editing is that it is, in fact, germline editing. It is not somatic engineering, where the consequences of the procedure apply only to the individual who knowingly consented to it. With germline engineering, the affected embryos will grow to become walking, breathing, human beings with no say in what happened to them when they were just a few cells. The babies did not get to consent. Yes, their parents can give permission for them, but they are their own person. Their parents will not have to deal with the weight and side effects of the process. It is unethical to perform genetic modifications on someone and leave them to bear its consequences with no voice in the matter. Without serious regulation and caution, it would be unfair to genetically engineer cells that will become human beings. Once again, we are not talking about engineering food, which is disposable and with which we can afford to make mistakes. A mistake in embryo modifications means ending the life of a human being. Even if the embryo survives the genetic editing procedure, we cannot say for sure how they will turn out. It is entirely possible that they manage to live a healthy life, but there are always possibilities of error we must consider, which are especially high given how little most people know about the subject. More testing and more regulation is required. This is not to say that we should never use genetic engineering. It is certainly possible with time, but we have to consider all aspects of it before allowing it to manifest into something authentic.
Will genetic engineering in embryos become a reality in the near future? Most likely. There is no stopping human progress and ambition. Access to technology in this generation has opened door after door for innovation and experimentation. We must do our research of what is behind each door before throwing it open, particularly when what is at stake are the lives of the members of our society. There is exceptional good that can be done with this technology if it is used correctly. Diseases can be erased, people can be given a chance at a better life, and our community can become a little more equal. We can achieve incredible things with germline engineering, but we need to remember that its original purpose is to make life better, not perfect. Perfection can never exist in a society; there is always something more that will be needed, and we cannot fall down a rabbit hole of obsessing over this type of excellence. Genetic engineering should unite our society, not further divide it. We must ensure that the benefits of such a severe process are far greater than its consequences before allowing embryo modifications to become normalized and accepted in our world.
