Introduction
“Gene-editing technology is poised to completely revolutionize all spheres of medicine” (“Diseases CRISPR could cure”, n.d.). Gene editing refers to the manipulation of genetic materials of a living organism by replacing, deleting, or to some extent inserting a DNA sequence to the living organism, typically with the motive of correcting a genetic disorder. From another perspective, gene editing can be attributed to being the ability to make and formulate concrete changes in the DNA sequence of a living organism vitally to customize the genetic makeup of the living organism (Gyngell et al., 2017). Restriction Enzymes, Zinc Finger Nucleases, TALENs Gene Editing, and CRISPR Gene editing are among the many forms of gene editing techniques (Wang et al., 2018). However, gene-editing is an attribute that should be given density in medicine because it contains advantages like tackling and defeating diseases and extending living organisms’ life span. Therefore, gene editing should not be abolished because it can cure diseases, increase scientific knowledge and improve environmental sustainability.
Reasons for not Abolishing Gene Editing
Modification of the DNA composition has one of the central places in the ideology of the treatment of certain diseases of living beings. One of the reasons given for the refusal to neglect gene editing is the fact that the life expectancy of more people and other organisms can significantly decrease due to the influence of other environmental factors. Gene editing will make individuals live longer because these technologies enable scientists to change the DNA (Danner et al., 2017). Therefore, causing certain changes to the physical traits like the rate at which the individuals and living organisms attain some diseases can become exceedingly valuable. In most cases, when people acquire some diseases, they weaken the individuals if they do not have strong immunity, thus the attribute claiming the lives of the individuals. Once they die, they balance the global number to have a free space of competing freely with the remaining resources because the population is managed. If the scientists take a step and consider changing the genes of each living organism, the population will be contrary to the living habitats of the organisms. After all, fewer living organisms will die living the others hipped in one place, thus resulting in reduced living standards because the remaining organisms will compete for the available resources.
Gene Editing Increases Scientific Knowledge
Scientists are in the frontline of frequently coming up with new ideologies to improve individuals’ living standards. Health and medical scientists have the role of improving the overall standard and quality of life and life expectancy (Jasanoff & Hurlbut, 2018). The mandate of helping diagnose and treat diseases and medical scientists has been in the front line to assist scholars in understanding medical principles studied in medicine. Therefore, gene editing, can be an attribute found in health and medicine, that has further facilitated medical scientists to increase their knowledge in research.
It is not wrong for medical scientists to increase their levels of research which is mainly centered on the ideology of improving the health quality of living organisms. To some extent, if the scientists continue with further research on the gene-editing attribute, some negative motives will accompany the entire research process. Centering the argument from an economic perspective, the researchers will have to increase some levies for individuals willing to be administered with the newly found gene-editing methods. This process will be more expensive, and not all individuals may involve themselves in the process. The process of furthering researchers’ knowledge in gene-editing means they can develop unique methods that are not conversant with individuals. Such inventions could make them worried about whether to go for the new gene-editing processes because they may be concerned if their lives would be endangered or improved.
Improving Environmental Sustainability
Gene editing concerns not only humans directly, but also animals and environment. Breeds of dogs and cats are always troubled by diseases mostly linked to their species, like Dalmatians (Leone, 2019). Dalmatians contain severe complications with their kidneys due to gene mutation that lowers their ability to eliminate metabolites from their body systems. However, researchers have ascertained that attempts to rectify the attribute using CRISPR-centered genome editing are in progress. In most cases, medical complications for Dalmatians have resulted from breeding for aesthetic qualities.
It is worth noting that the process of gene editing can have some negative consequences, for example, for the breeds of dogs being bred. The Bulldogs have been bred to be pushed in faces, a motive that has caused breathing difficulties to the animals, thus not enjoying their dwelling environment. Moreover, agricultural sector can benefit from implementing such innovative technology. Therefore, “applied to less economically advantaged countries, gene editing advances a “Second Green Revolution”” (Montenegro de Wit et al., 3). As a result, the agricultural sector becomes more productive, effective, and ethical by making crops naturally resistant to pests and diseases. Gene editing has the potential of making crops more resilient and harder. The attribute is important because average temperatures increase; thus, insect populations and appetites mostly surge in warm climates.
Scholar’s Opinions Towards Gene Editing
When analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of gene editing, it is necessary to consider the opinion of schoolers. Thurtle and Schmidt (2018) argued that the motive of disrupting control its effect on an organism’s phenotype is an indispensable tool in molecular biology. They explain how gene-editing techniques are critical for understanding how a gene product contributes to all living organisms’ cellular identity and development. Thurtle and Schmidt (2018) also provide their thoughts on how the explosion of genomic sequencing technologies, in harmony with recent genome editing techniques, has essentially modified the possibility of gene modification in numerous organisms. Bernabé‐Orts et al. (2019) argued in favor of Thurtle and Schmidt that microbiologists had identified a unique pathway that archaea and bacteria use to defend themselves from cellular invaders. Further shows how the microbiologists have identified the potential of the fundamental scientific discovery to cut genomic DNA at specific sites found in the eukaryotic cells.
Conclusion
In conclusion, gene editing is a critical and scientific milestone that has enhanced research and modification, which improves human life. Abolishing this concept will halt the progress that has resulted from applying this technique. Gene editing has brought forth enhancement of environmental sustainability, expanded scientific knowledge, and facilitated curing of diseases, among other benefits. Therefore, the essay has explained the attribute of gene mutation, primarily centered on changing the genetic content of organisms by altering DNA sequences. Gene alternation is done using different approaches; thus, scientists use a particular technique to solve a specific problem. The whole process is linked to the know-how of the medical and health scientists to determine the appropriate method of gene-editing processes.
References
Bernabé‐Orts, J. M., Casas‐Rodrigo, I., Minguet, E. G., Landolfi, V., Garcia‐Carpintero, V., Gianoglio, S., Vázquez-Vilar, M., Granell, A., & Orzaez, D. (2019). Assessment of Cas12a‐mediated gene editing efficiency in plants. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 17(10), 1971-1984. Web.
Danner, E., Bashir, S., Yumlu, S., Wurst, W., Wefers, B., & Kühn, R. (2017). Control of gene editing by manipulation of DNA repair mechanisms. Mammalian Genome, 28(7), 262-274. Web.
Diseases CRISPR could cure: Latest updates on research studies and human trials. (n.d.). Web.
Gyngell, C., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2017). The ethics of germline gene editing. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(4), 498-513. Web.
Jasanoff, S., & Hurlbut, J. B. (2018). A global observatory for gene editing. Nature 555, 435-437. Web.
Leone, L. (2019). Gene Editing for the EU Agrifood: Risks and promises in science regulation. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 10(4), 766-780. Web.
Matthews, K. R., & Iltis, A. S. (2019). Are we ready to genetically modify a human embryo? Or is it too late to ask?. Accountability in research, 26(4), 265-270. Web.
Montenegro de Wit, M., Kapuscinski, A. R., & Fitting, E. (2020). Democratizing CRISPR? Stories, practices, and politics of science and governance on the agricultural gene editing frontier. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 8. Web.
Wang, H. X., Song, Z., Lao, Y. H., Xu, X., Gong, J., Cheng, D., Chakraborty, S., Park, J. S., Li, M., Huang, D., Yin, L., Cheng, J., & Leong, K. W. (2018). Nonviral gene editing via CRISPR/Cas9 delivery by membrane-disruptive and endosmotic helical polypeptide. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19), 4903-4908. Web.