By Sage Roeder
As of 2015, it is now possible to genetically modify your child in your image. This new science called CRISPR/Cas9 (an acronym for clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats) currently has the potential to single out and remove certain genes from the next generation’s genome, thus eventually removing them from the gene pool. This is thanks to biochemists Jennifer Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier, and Feng Zhang. This would bring a remedy for deadly inheritable diseases. It would also allow parents to have control over how their kid is genetically. This new technique has been a topic of discussion across the globe, experts chiming in about their concerns with the efficacy and ethicality. To most onlookers, CRISPR is revolutionary and seemingly opens new doors, but it isn’t as positive as one may think. CRISPR should not continue into human trials until certain societal, ethical, and safety standards are reached.
Firstly, from a strictly biological point of view, CRISPR is unsafe and produces unsatisfactory results with questionable ethics. To date, there has only been one successful human trial conducted, "Of 86 embryos treated with CRISPR/Cas9, 71 survived, 54 of which were genetically tested. Testing showed that although the technique had worked on 28, only a fraction contained the replacement DNA" (Winter). So not only is this technology unsafe, it is not guaranteed to work regardless of whether the embryo survives or not. In the event that this does work, one should consider that scientists’ understanding of the genome and how certain genes causing such diseases influence or affect necessary genes."Even when researchers successfully identify genetic flaws that contribute to one problem, they are learning that that same “problem” gene may actually have other benefits." (Baker, 4) and "The diseases that in theory would be easiest to prevent [...] affect relatively few people. Many common conditions [...] are polygenic. Height alone is influenced by at least 400 genes." (Baker, 4) This playing around with genetics could cause serious problems that we are already seeing in the studies of CRISPR and its effects on animals and bacteria. According to molecular microbiologist at the Rockefeller, Luciano Marraffini,"' If you incorporate too much foreign DNA, you cannot maintain a species'” (Mestel). These results are dangerous for not only the specific test subjects but also the ecosystems in which they reside.
Now with the discussion turning to the general public, concerns about how ethical this is rises up. Various vocal Christian groups are worried about ruining god’s divine image of humanity, saying "Is the human genome sacred? Does editing it violate the idea that we’re made in God’s image or, perhaps worse, allow us to 'play God'?" (Joseph 2016). Their views also seem to align with another controversial topic being debated especially in the United States, abortion. In the American abortion debates, both groups argue, “‘It also goes against the United Nations Charter of Human Rights,'" (Baker, 6) but for different reasons. Anti-abortion (pro-life) groups argue “We do not believe any human being should be used as an experiment, no matter their stage of life,” said David Prentice, vice president and research director of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of Susan B. Anthony List" (Karlan), while pro-abortion (pro-choice) groups argue "That’s because some parents might want to use the tool to “prevent or cure” things like dark skin or homosexuality, “instead of looking for social changes to make people see each other as more equal,” said Darnovsky [of Center of Genetics and Society." (Karlan). This concern of breeding a new type of intolerance is not just limited to the abortion debate, but is also a concern of the already disabled. People are concerned that CRISPR lessens the worth of already disabled people, and kids that may not be able to afford this new technology (Baker, 6). They beg the question, "[..] which lives are worth living and which are worth editing out of existence,” (Baker, 6).
Ethically and morally, the big questions concern power and consequence. Even if this technology was proven safe and efficient, and a societal consensus was reached amongst opposing groups, the question remains: "who should decide its use, and who should have access to it?" (Baker, 3). Removing certain lethal diseases from the gene pool entirely would be great in theory, but once that is done where do we go from there? As an expert from Cambridge says, "...once we alter genes that cause disease, we'll alter other genes, too. And who's to say what's disease and what isn't?" (Jacobsen, 3). This thinking will inevitably lead to a purity mindset similar to that of Nazi Germany. With modifying the future generation, we also have to consider that they are not common patients, for they are not sick quite yet or will never be sick with a lethal disease. They ultimately will pay for any negatives seen as a result of tampering with specific genes and how they interact with each other, but they did not approve to these operations being done. "Moreover, both technologies would be creating individuals whose genetic conditions have been potentially “fixed” or “corrected,” but who have never consented to being a part of this experiment and who will be paying the price of any unintended negative consequences (McLean 2015)" Yes, they could be spared by the diseases that this would prevent, but they could have increased negative effects compared to the small likelihood that any positives will be obtained. The potential negatives have not been weighed by the people that will be affected, so they will pay the price for the possible ramifications of something they never consented to. "Writing in Nature, Lanphier et al (2015) stated that using gene editing in human embryos with technologies such as CRISPR/ Cas9 could have unpredictable effects on future generations, making it dangerous and ethically unacceptable." (Winter)
In conclusion, CRISPR and genome editing is too dangerous a technology to continue into human trials because of the biological and ethical flaws along with the lack in societal consensus. Considering that we do not know enough information to see how genes interact with each other, the benefits of curing some diseases are not worth the possible negative consequences that will affect the patients without their consent. Across species, evolution would fall into the hands of man and very probably disrupt ecosystems. Even if CRISPR was infallible, as a society we have too many conflicts as to whether it should be used. Ethically there is too much potential for a group or individual with mal intent to use this powerful technology for harm. If this science is to be continued it would not only need to be safe, but it would also have to come with strict ethical guidelines to avoid abuse and a societal consensus to said guidelines.
Comentários