Just Because We Can, Doesn’t Mean We Should
An Opinion Article on Gene Editing and its Implications
Whether it is through a history of colon cancer, a slow metabolism, or an unpopular but permanent cosmetic trait, most people have at least one grievance with their genotype, the combination of genes that determines the genetic expression of certain traits. With the development of CRISPR and gene editing techniques, however, we may not have to hold these grudges. In fact, due to new technologies in the field, we will soon, if we do not already, have the ability to edit nearly any trait influenced by genetics by changing the genetic code of humans while they are still embryos. But with this power comes an abundance of unanswered questions regarding the ethics of applying scientific advancements in genetics, and can we trust ourselves to draw the line as to where gene editing becomes unethical once we start applying it in embryos?
How it Works
Before jumping into the implications of gene editing in embryos, let’s first overview how gene editing itself works.
Every plant and animal has a set number of chromosomes, organized structures in the nucleus of a cell made of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. In strands of DNA, there are four nucleotides (adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine) that code for the genes of the organism. If you are familiar with binary code, the way genes, and consequently traits, are coded is a similar concept. Ultimately, the arrangement of the nucleotides, similarly to that of 1s and 0s in binary code, encodes messages that dictate what will be produced. In binary code, this may be a sentence or series of numbers, and in genetics, this will be the expression of certain heritable traits, like hair or eye color.
Up until recently, this code was seen as unchangeable. It was with the invention of CRISPR/Cas that this perception began to change. Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats or CRISPR with CRISPR-associated nucleotides or Cas allow us to locate and remove genetic sequences from a genotype. These removed sequences are often pinpointed by researchers and scientists as coding for traits that are deemed unfavorable and can be identified by the nucleotides that make up the sequences. Sometimes after a sequence is removed, another one must be added to ensure there are no genes unaccounted for. This is done by adding a DNA template to the process, which is inserted into the location where the previous strand of DNA was removed.
The process of removing and inserting DNA strands has opened up a variety of research areas relating to disease treatment and the accelerated evolution of species. CRISPR/Cas is being used to develop treatments for cancer, Huntington’s Disease, sickle cell disease, and a plethora of other diseases impacted or directly caused by genetics.
The Gray Area
Upon just glancing at gene editing and the possibilities associated with it, it can be difficult to discern why there would be ethical considerations necessary before widely applying the technology. Although using CRISPR/Cas for disease treatment is not very largely debated, discussions around genetically modifying embryos have led to the rise of many diverse and often opposing opinions regarding the ethics of gene editing.
Drawing the Line
Beginning to genetically edit embryos leads to many questions regarding what is deemed appropriate to treat. For instance, should we “cure” conditions like Down Syndrome? While some may argue that creating treatments for Down Syndrome would facilitate the lives of people who would have been born with the condition, others believe that Down Syndrome does not require a “cure”, as it is not a disease, and that treating it as such would have a negative impact on the societal perceptions of diversity. And if we agree to treat conditions that our society is negatively adapted to accommodate, do we start to use gene editing to remove traits that can make children subject to isolation from their peers due to social norms, such as predispositions to a lower IQ or even conventionally unattractive characteristics? Do any traits that have the potential to make the lives of children more challenging become something that has to be “fixed” by gene editing? Although most people today may agree that physical traits should not be modified genetically simply to render children more attractive, or that genetically removing traits that don’t merit medical diagnoses would be an outrageous offense to diversity, I dread that our perceptions may change the more we would become accustomed to creating genetically modified babies.
Knowing When to Stop
Another factor that may influence our ability to decide what traits are acceptable to genetically modify is the human drive and thirst for innovation. Sometimes for better, and sometimes for worse, when we discover or are introduced to new ideas, we can be very quick to utilize them, at times without too much thought as to their implications. Will we become so engulfed in the excitement of “designer” babies that we forget the social implications of some edits becoming mainstream? I believe, unfortunately, that once we start widely producing genetically modified babies, it may be difficult for us to stop and reflect on where to draw the line.
Formal Conversation
As gene-editing technology develops and custom babies becomes an increasingly realistic possibility, it is crucial that we expand beyond sparse discussions at points of advancement in the technology and initiate more formal and public conversation between scientists working on the technologies, companies building and supporting it, and federal governments to create ethical regulations regarding gene editing. This may help to prevent rushed innovation that might otherwise result in a lower tolerance for diversity or the increase of toxic beauty standards. Unfortunately, however, such discussions may be delayed until there has already been an incident in which a negative impact results from editing babies.
Clearly, gene editing, although a fascinating and revolutionary advancement, raises many ethical conversations and qualms that must be addressed. Perhaps we’ll soon eradicate bothersome genetic traits, or perhaps we’ll decide a convenience, no matter how great, isn't worth attaining at the risk of possible social uniformity.
