Introduction
Biological innovation has paved the way for designing life by reshaping the human genome. Changing the genetic composition of DNA strands to prevent children from succumbing to hereditary disorders is a contemporary scientific approach that seems acceptable to many people around the world. However, there are many questions about the extent of this biotechnological practice, as it may pose severe ethical issues in the future. The most compelling relevance of a new gene-editing technique CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) has elicited controversial debates on the modification of human genomes to eliminate genes that cause certain disorders.
In 2018, a Chinese geneticist He Jiankui revealed that his lab had unveiled a gene-editing system, namely Crispr-Cas9, that will be used to produce the first genetically-modified human babies. China’s Southern University of Science and Technology planned to explore his claims because some officials believed that he had committed various academic violations. Based on the geneticist’s claims, the experiment could achieve essential milestones and result in profound ethical issues in society. Given this knowledge, there is still a controversy on whether research on the tweaking of genes should continue. This research paper explores the ethical dilemma surrounding genome modification on human embryos as an issue that can have distressing effects for future generations.
Maximizing Human Fitness versus Respect for Differences
The idea of predetermining the biological characteristics of future generations creates an uncomfortable and hotly contested ethical issue among many professionals and institutions. The study of eugenics is linked to dreadful extremes of the millennium, such as involuntary sterilization and genocide. The most obvious lesson that human beings should learn from gene editing is to allow nature to take its course and embrace the diversity it engenders without human interference. Although this statement may sound ethically reassuring, the choice of just sitting back without doing anything is a decision in itself (Rothschild, 2020). The thought that humans are perfect, natural creations that should not be meddled is a misconstruction since nature’s jobs may be considered substandard and awash with mindless slip-ups. Indeed, evolution’s way of eliminating the most alarming mistakes is to let children agonize horribly and succumb to disorders at a tender age.
Genome-editing tools are innovative tools when they are used appropriately to invoke the biotechnological revolution in human pathology. The technology can be detrimental if it falls into the wrong hands. Some individuals may use the opportunity to abuse and misuse in unsuitable ways, such as the manipulation of germline genetics. Nonetheless, the future of the approaching biotechnological revolution seems looming and irrefutable. The pressing need to eliminate some malicious disorders demands harmonious and regulated research on the most efficient and safe methods for molecular medicine interventions.
Research on Gene Editing in Humans Must Continue
Researchers have been forced to focus on the greater good in the short term, considering the well-being of humans. Today, many countries, including China, have legalized the editing of genomes, especially among children with genetic disorders. In February this year, there was yet another case involving the new gene-editing technique CRISPR-Cas9 in the United Kingdom. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) allowed the Francis Crick Institute in London to alter the genetic composition of human embryos (Rothschild, 2020). Geneticists at the Institute claimed that they were focused on shedding light on early embryo development, an approach that may yield safer and better fertility treatments.
Accepting Gene Editing on Human Embryos
The Chinese biophysicist Jiankui shocked the world when he announced that he had accomplished a DNA modification in embryos using CRISPR-Cas9 in an attempt to increase immunity against HIV. The embryos were then implanted to the woman who had donated them, who later delivered twin girls. This genetic alteration was deemed highly experimental and unethical by many experts around the globe, escalating an intense debate about the implications of the practice not only for the twins but also for society. When this procedure is conducted on human eggs, sperms, and embryos, CRISPR can generate modified genomes that can be carried on to future generations, completely changing the gene pool of the human species.
Many controversies arise from this practice as experts question the safety of the experiment. Patients undergoing in-vitro fertilization donate embryos that are used in the genetic transformation. However, the embryos are not allowed to develop beyond seven days. It is believed that CRISPR could play an essential role in altering disease-causing genes in children by eliminating the defective script from the genetic code of the patient and that of his or her progenies. Many supporters of this biotechnology claim that it can avert severe genetic diseases among human beings worldwide (Rothschild, 2020). Challengers assert that the modification of human embryos is rather unsafe and an unnatural process that does not consider the consent of future generations. This viewpoint brings about the question of who is right versus who is wrong.
In America, the perceptions of altering a baby’s genetic traits depend mainly on the intended purpose and the availability of human embryos to examine the technology. While many people in this part of the globe support the notion of modifying genes to achieve probable health benefits for babies, some of them feel that its application to improve intelligence is surpassing the limits of technology use on the human body (Rothschild, 2020). About 74% of Americans say that altering the genetic structures of an unborn baby as a medication for a severe condition is appropriate.
Many experts, sociologists, and religious leaders deem embryo modification unnatural and can be equated to playing God’s creation. This claim hinges on the premise that natural processes are inherently moral and acceptable. Without human interventions, all diseases can be considered natural. This perspective resonates with the fact that millions of humans get sick and succumb to diseases prematurely, which may be regarded as natural. Nonetheless, protecting creatures and ecosystems based on the argument that they are natural cannot pave the way for the production of medicine to kill harmful bacteria. Fighting drought, famine, and pests would also be challenging (Rothschild, 2020). Today’s healthcare systems maintained in any part of the world can be considered as moves to frustrate or intimidate natural processes. This idea leads to the thinking that nature is neither right nor wrong, and anything that occurs through its influence is incontestable.
Many experts have contemplated that altering the germline affects future generations without their consent. Along this line, Francis Collins, director of the national institutes of health, strongly opposed engagements in gene-editing, claiming that it was unethical and socially undesirable. Following this understanding, parents should “seek permission from their unborn babies” before giving birth! Nonetheless, failure to carry on research and practice on gene modification based on the premise that no consent is sought from future generations is senseless. Human beings are programmed to make decisions for coming generations without seeking any advice. To demystify this ideology, it is agreeable that parents do many things to their children without their permission either because they are unborn or too young to consent. Evidence also shows that people always wish their children to inherit various characters such as attractiveness and intelligence quotient.
On a topic suggesting to produce a child, Isadora Duncan stated that playwright George Bernard Shaw had a magnificent brain and that a combination with her glorious beauty would give rise to a fantastic baby. In response, Shaw could not fathom siring a child with Duncan’s brain! In this discussion, Duncan was proposing a thoughtful decision on a move that would affect their future child with Shaw, who saw another possibility of a non-consensual outcome (Rothschild, 2020). In this case, none of the partners thought of the decision to wait for permission from the anticipated child. Perhaps, parents and scientists should engage in thoughtful and responsible decisions on the determination of future generations based on a considerate combination of evidence and arguments. Nonetheless, their decisions hold no water and cannot encompass the consent of future children.
It is believed that modifying genomes is inherently risky since scientists do not yet know the ways and extent to which it can affect individuals. However, those who dread the dangers of gene editing fail to consider the inherent hazards involved in the natural way of reproduction. Scientific studies show that about two out of three human embryos develop unsuccessfully within the prenatal period. Substantial evidence also indicates that about 6% of the 8 million children born each year have severe genetic or partial-genetic disorders (Rothschild, 2020). While many experts acknowledge that the decision to stop research on the modification of genomes should be abandoned, there is a need to ensure that all possible risks of the process are well-known.
Should Doors to Editing Gene in Future Humans be Opened?
The development of the CRISPR gene-editing tool a few years ago elicited controversial debates on whether the approach was appropriate to engineering the genetic codes of future children. The question of who will be accountable for propagating the modified genes to upcoming generations remains unresolved. Discussions on the validity and risks of eugenics are not new. Long before the emergence of CRISPR, the world witnessed confrontational headlines about designer babies. Lee Silver, a Princeton mouse biologist, had an idea of coming up with fertility clinics to “Organic Enhancement” (OE) for all people, including those who had no fertility problems (Rothschild, 2020). This millennial shift sparked divergent conclusions about the genetic options for safe, effective, and affordable gene therapies. This technology gained increased support from policymakers, which was the hope of many scientists. Nonetheless, germline modification was disallowed, and over 40 countries passed laws against CRISPR, considering the next ethical issues.
The legalization of human germline modification is a challenging task for many governments and policymakers because the process is not yet safe. Many unresolved issues, such as off-target results, and partial gene edits, have proven that DNA altering is a severe ethical issue that can be risky for future generations (Rothschild, 2020). While scientific bodies and policymakers regroup to come up with a more explicit approach, the debate is taking a different direction. Human germline modification has been receiving constant rejection because it involves changing gametes and embryos permanently. Experts start focusing on the modification of somatic cells in an experiment in which changes only affect the patient in whom the process is executed.
The border between germline and somatic genome alteration remains obscure. Nevertheless, there is a mounting sense of certainty that gene editing will be legalized in the future on the condition that it will be safe for upcoming generations. Many geneticists are eager to make permanent changes in humans that will eradicate intractable diseases. However, scientists should give a deep thought as each biological intervention on the human body has its own merits and may harbor a vast range of issues that may surpass safety.
Another question that arises is the predictability of the causes of certain disorders based on genetic factors. There are many issues to consider before settling on the application of germline modification since it is evident that the genetic predictors of many traits are still unknown. Depending on the desirability of particular characters, individuals may decide to reduce the prospect of highly defamed qualities such as homosexuality or to gain desirable ones, including stature and athleticism (Rothschild, 2020). From this viewpoint, it would be highly recommended to edit genes to eliminate most of the undesirable human characteristics. Many of the decisions within this inclination may reside with good parents, but they should be well thought even when they are personal. Thus, there is a need to engage in more rigorous ways in public conversations about genome modification.
Decisions affecting society at large should take an approach that uncovers all the possible issues, even beyond the safety of future generations. What a small group of genetic engineers and policymakers do can have profound changes in the combined population, even for untargeted clusters. Human germline genome editing is a biotechnological development that can have far-reaching effects on individuals and groups, distressing society as a whole. The ability to select traits for future children has a direct influence on parent-child relationships and the desirable virtues intended for the entire community.
Some professionals have also warned that the control of genomes may result in the sense of “hyper agency,” in which human beings may perceive children as objects as opposed to gifts (Rothschild, 2020). It is also uncertain whether children whose genomes have been edited will have more significant desirable characteristics to satisfy the wishes of their parents in a way that will surpass the abilities of ordinary children. Gene editing can also lead to a “genetic arms race” where parents compete at higher levels to ensure that their children have the most potent human features. For instance, parents would do anything possible within their capacities to ascertain that their children are born healthy and with brilliant minds.
The control of the human genome is still far from implementation based on current knowledge of the actual factors that lead to the development of certain traits or disorders in human beings. Continued enhancement may eventually reduce variation in the human species in case the technology is entirely accepted, and it may result in sub-speciation. A philosophical group of transhumanists who advocate for this plan also postulates that new developments in biological alterations will radically alter the nature of the human species. Ethical issues may arise in cases where individuals later find out variations in their genetic traits. Nonetheless, it is crucial for scholars, policymakers, and interested groups to think about the implications of the process beyond safety as germline biotechnology will pose a vast range of economic, social, and ethical issues.
Social constructs of society, such as taboos, are also an exciting part of the decision to implement gene editing if public opinion matters in the legalization of the process. Different cultural groups hold diverse beliefs and values that are deemed unbreakable and indisputable. Although these taboos tend to change with time and from one generation to the next, it is a common tendency for societies to have defined boundaries of what is considered morally right or wrong (Rothschild, 2020). History proves that moral absolutes do not withstand the passage of time and are prone to evolving across cultures and eras. For instance, the enforcement of religion, inflexibility of class formations, restraints on sexual appearance, and gender roles have transformed tremendously over the centuries. However, particular taboos that transcend generations such as murder and incest leave no chances for mitigation even with the new genetic modification technology.
The development in genetic engineering tends to progress incrementally following small logical steps that are based on the results of a previous experiment. However, the discovery of disruptive technologies, such as CRISPR, redirects research to find out other possible means of eliminating certain life-limiting disorders (Rothschild, 2020). In opening the opportunity to implement one form of germline modification, scientists may gain the power to practice it in all possible ways. Like many other technologies, the change of genomes can overwhelm regulatory limits and land to people with gainful intentions. For instance, the adoption of the technology for enhancement reasons, and the introduction of market-based eugenics can intensify discrimination, inequality, and social conflicts.
Conclusion
Although many professionals and scientists have done extensive work to ensure that gene editing is put into practice as soon as possible, there are still many ethical implications that need to be addressed. Human society still holds profound values for both secular and religious reasons. With divergent perspectives that are impossible to resolve, the likelihood to stick to agreeable factors such as safety while ignoring the repercussions of the technology on future generations is conceivable. An immature decision on the modification of genomes can have far-reaching effects on society since it defies the laws of nature. However, focusing on a narrower scope of application, genome modification can play a vital role in eliminating some undesirable disorders from being transferred from one generation to the next. Preimplantation of tissue to save a child from a life-limiting illness is unobjectionable among many people.
A parent would want to do anything to ensure that future children are freed from the devastating effects of a hereditary disorder. Under such circumstances, it is better to improve the condition of the baby than to let it succumb to the illness. However, germline genome modification implies that technology cannot benefit the medical needs of any existing person. Considering the issue of consent, which may seem pointless, there will be a violation of the human rights of the unborn child since its gene composition will be determined by individuals involuntarily.
Reference
Rothschild, J. (2020). Ethical considerations of gene editing and genetic selection. Journal of General and Family Medicine, 21(3), 37-47.