The CRISPR Caste

Gabriela Hull

In November of 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui used CRISPR-Cas9 technology to genetically alter the embryonic DNA of two twin girls to make them immune to HIV. He targeted the CCR5 gene, which acts as an entrance cell to HIV, and “manufactured” the first CRISPR-Cas9-edited infants. CRISPR-Cas9 technology allows scientists to target specific human genomes using guide RNA and a Cas9 protein. Combining both, scientists can sever a specific DNA sequence and repair it using a donor DNA template containing the desired sequence. When CRISPR-Cas9, or any gene-editing technique, is used for human embryo modification, the altered genes are passed down to the next generations, altering the human species. Human germline editing through CRISPR-Cas9 is currently prohibited by the Oviedo Convention, an international institution attempting to prohibit biomedical misuse and protect human dignity. The benefits of potentially eradicating illness and disease do not outweigh the social consequences. The use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology will exacerbate income inequality, further dividing social classes, and inherently create a more rigid social hierarchy. As a result, a new resulting genetic ruling class will emerge. Therefore, the United States should ban any form of genetic modification of human embryos. 

With genome editing, scientists are able to eradicate fatal and non-fatal illnesses, thereby improving the quality of life of millions of people. From cancer to blood disorders to blindness and muscular dystrophy, CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing could potentially cure any human genetic disease. However, in the United States, the government does not directly fund assisted reproductive technology nor does it cover advanced fertility treatments. Considering only a mere 1.7% of the American population use IVF, as each attempt can cost anywhere between $10,000 and $15,000, many will not be able to afford genetic engineering. For the average income-earner, the $1,100 cost per genome sequencing becomes a barrier that leaves these technologies inaccessible. For rare diseases, these costs jump to a staggering $373,000 to $1 million per patient per year. The expense of the procedures will aggravate the already existing income inequality as only wealthy families will be able to afford such treatment.

Eventually, CRISPR-Cas9-engineered improvements will not only cover disabilities and diseases, but also physical and intellectual characteristics which influence success. Genetically determined characteristics, like athleticism and height, are not only controlled by thousands of genes, but also by how certain genes interact with one another. Height, for example, is estimated to be affected by 100,000 variants across the genome. As a result, scientists remain unsure what it would take in order for CRISPR-Cas9 to be able to edit these genes. The process of editing thousands of genes would only lead to a drastic increase in cost. 

Those that are wealthy enough to pay for genetic engineering will acquire the role of the ruling class. Almost all Fortune 500 CEOs are 6’ 2” tall and physically beautiful according to cultural norms translating to higher earnings. This will inherently create a “Huxley-like” dystopia where class structures are even more rigid than present. Society will develop an intolerance to imperfection and detatch into groups of enhanced and unenhanced. 

The benefits of genetic engineering are clear: elimination of diseases and disabilities. But for whom are they eliminated and at what cost? Access to genetic engineering is limited to those who can pay. While at present the modifications treat diseases, genetic engineering is a Pandora’s box—it will be near impossible to control. Granting access to improvements to the general public, wealthy individuals will cement their place in society and become a new genetic ruling class. The poor will only become even more disadvantaged and disenfranchised. It is within the United States’ best moral and ethical interest to ban the genetic engineering of human embryos before it is too late. 







Bibliography


  1. Raposo VL. The First Chinese Edited Babies: A Leap of Faith in Science. JBRA assisted reproduction [Internet]. 2019Jul [cited 2021Apr25];23(3):197–9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6724388/

  2. Kiessling K. Designer babies may lead to further class division [Internet]. The Michigan Daily. 2021 [cited 2021Apr25]. Available from: https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/designer-babies-may-lead-to-further-class-division/

  3. Park A. Experts Are Calling for a Ban on Gene Editing of Human Embryos. Here's Why They're Worried [Internet]. Time. Time; 2019 [cited 2021Apr25]. Available from: https://time.com/5550654/crispr-gene-editing-human-embryos-ban/

  4. v. Hammerstein AL, Eggel M, Biller-Andorno N. Is selecting better than modifying? An investigation of arguments against germline gene editing as compared to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. BMC Med Ethics [Internet]. 2019Nov21 [cited 2021Apr25];20(83). Available from: https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-019-0411-9#citeas

  5. Bayefsky MJ. Comparative preimplantation genetic diagnosis policy in Europe and the USA and its implications for reproductive tourism. Reprod Biomed Soc Online [Internet]. 2016Dec [cited 2021Apr25];3:41–7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5612618/

  6. Pray, L. Embryo Screening and the Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering [Internet]. Nature Education. 2008; 1(1):207. [cited 2021Apr23] Available from: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/embryo-screening-and-the-ethics-of-human-60561/

  7. Fernández CR. Eight Diseases That CRISPR Technology Could Cure [Internet]. Labiotech.eu. 2021 [cited 2021Apr25]. Available from: https://www.labiotech.eu/best-biotech/crispr-technology-cure-disease/

  8. United Nations . Playing with genes: The good, the bad and the ugly [Internet]. United Nations . FRONTIER TECHNOLOGY QUARTERLY; 2019 [cited 2021Apr25]. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/FTQ_May_2019.pdf

  9. Sherman E. Genetic Engineering Will Make Income Inequality Much Worse [Internet]. Forbes. Forbes Magazine; 2017 [cited 2021Apr26]. Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/08/20/genetic-engineering-will-make-income-inequality-much-worse/?sh=6c5e145f3d75

  10. Harris R. Why Making A 'Designer Baby' Would Be Easier Said Than Done [Internet]. NPR. NPR; 2019 [cited 2021Apr30]. Available from: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/02/719665841/why-making-a-designer-baby-would-be-easier-said-than-done

  11. Thiessen M. Opinion | Gene editing is here. It's an enormous threat. [Internet]. The Washington Post. WP Company; 2018 [cited 2021Apr23]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gene-editing-is-here-its-an-enormous-threat/2018/11/29/78190c96-f401-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html

HanoverGabriela HullHanover