The question isn’t new. Modifying humans has been a persistent fantasy for hundreds of years. Shelley created Frankenstein. The film Gattica created a society driven by genetically manipulated people. And then there’s Tom Cruise, who created himself. 2016 gave this world potentiality with the emergence of CRISPR, a genetic modification tool that’s currently on track to quite literally change the world. For those unaware, CRISPR is essentially a highly precise copy-paste genetic tool that allows for gene editing—think of it as a genetic re-do button: Oh, don’t like that gene, well, here’s a new one. And it has polarized the science community.
What’s so cool about this type of gene editing? Well, for starters, it could cure genetic diseases. It could also save endangered species or even resurrect extinct animals. Of course, all of that sounds great to the science community, but it’s the ethical implications of innovating such technologies. Perhaps most controversial is the potential to customize the genetic makeup of embryos, meaning…”build-a-baby.” Some scientists argue that manipulating the genes of embryos with genetic defects like Huntington’s Disease can save countless times. At the same time, scientists ponder how far this genetic modification will go: If science can manipulate a cancer-causing gene, then what’s to stop a scientist from altering a little extra?
Who’s right in this debate? Well, who knows?
Point: It Could Eliminate Genetic Disorders
Those who say embryo modification is unnatural or “playing God” focus too much on the concept of natural being “good.” Diseases are natural. Hurricanes are natural. Fourteen-year-old boys with erections in math class are natural. Natural isn’t always “good,” and technologies like CRISPR can change that.
Thus far, researchers using CRISPR have been able to treat animals carrying an inherited liver disease and muscular dystrophy. In 2015, Chinese scientists successfully modified a gene linked to a blood disease in human embryos (quick note: these embryos were alive but damaged, so they could not become babies), and, last year, the same group edited the embryo genes to make them HIV resistant.
Why is this so great? By eliminating “bad” genes from sperm and egg cells—the “germline”—scientists could fix—and theoretically wipe out—almost any genetic abnormality, be it muscular dystrophy or cystic fibrosis; but, moreover, this technology also possesses the ability to edit genes that could potentially become life-threatening like genes that carry various types of cancer or even MS.
As of right now, there are more than 6,000 known genetic disorders—and that’s not including those disorders that predispose someone to a future ailment. Now, imagine a world without these. That means: No cystic fibrosis. No Tay-Sachs. No more genetic breast cancer or colon cancer or heart disease. No more suffering and death caused by a shitty, genetic lottery. That’s the point John Harris, professor emeritus in science ethics at the University of Manchester, emphasized in an article for National Geographic.
Harris went on to add that we can’t “delay” the research, either, because each decision to delay costs lives. Too many lives.
At last year’s International Summit on Human Gene Editing, during a debate discussing the ethics of gene editing, one audience member, a mother to a son who had lived just six days, tortured by seizures due to a genetic ailment, drove home the need to start implementing this technology now, “If you have the skills and the knowledge to eliminate these diseases, then freakin’ do it!”
Counterpoint: What About Future Implications? Isn’t This Awfully Close to Eugenics?