The (im)morality behind Human DNA Editing

Kira Siebrecht

Headlines such as, “Designer babies aren’t futuristric. They are already here.’, and ‘Scientists can Design ‘Better’ Babies’. Should they?’ give humanity an eerie, eye-opening insight into the fact that modifying our next generation is more of a reality rather than a dystopian fairytale. CRISPR, a gene editing technology, enables scientists to precisely change a human’s genome and select certain traits upon birth acts by removing and subsitute DNA. This technology allows humanity to dictate their “genetic fate”, explains Dr. Doudna, co-developer of gene-editing technology. While CRISPR offers exceptional potential medical benefits, are humans being ignorant and hubristic in their attempt to assume the position of ‘God’?

CRISPR techology has been left relatively on the back burner until the 21st century. It wasn’t until the 2010s that Rodger Novak, founder of CRISPR Therapeutics,a leading corporation in gene editing, and Ante S. Lundberg, senior executive of CRISPR Thereputics, said that the recent exponential growth of the CRISPR technology began attracting great public debate. With growing pressure, government and scientific officials are trying to delineate certain moral and legislative limitations for the expansion of this technology. However, the technology’s imminent high risk and potential of large rewards makes drawing these limitations quite complicated.

Marcy Darnovsky, a scientist from the Center of Genetics and Society, thinks “no researchers should have the moral warrant to flout the globally widespread policy agreement against modifying the human germline” as the dangers and ethical hazards are significant when modifying a human embryo. The complexity of gene editing leads the experimenter to almost inevitable failure. Firstly, the off-target effect (selecting the wrong DNA sequence to modify) can cause the offspring to develop significantly worse problems than initially presented. Smolenski estimates DNA is incorrectly cut during CRISPR experiments up to 60% of the time. Secondly, the existence of repeating genes increases risk for error. Out of 3.2 billion base pairs in a human genome, certain sequences of base pairs may be repeated in more than once. Scientists must then perform their intended DNA modification on all related base pairs, growing the risk of unreliability of the procedure. Two scientists Chiarella and Guevin from Ethics and Medics, a highly respected research organisation, explain that modifying more than one sequence of DNA may lead to unknown mutations and hazards. These additional ‘related base pairs’ may affect different bodily processes, causing unpredictable effects on other body systems or traits. Furthermore, we must remember the high stakes of such procedures. These experiments would be carried out on unconsenting offspring, who will risk permanent damage to their well-being if any margin of error occurs. At least currently, the high risks do not seem worth the level of reward.

However, that is not to say CRISPR technology will remain this risky. Researcher Ben Merriman from the University of Chicago remarks that with continued experimentation, CRISPR has the potential to become reliable. If so, applications may include having patients succesfully evade fatal, hereditary diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, mental and nerological disorders, which are all monogenic (controlled by one gene) diseases. In 2019, scientist He Jiankui’s genetically modified two twin girls born from a HIV positive father. He attempted to modify the girls’ DNA so they possessed a gene that prevents HIV infection. It is not confirmed if He was successful in his attempts because he was thrown in jail for this illegal project and unable to further study the DNA of the healthily born twins. It is difficult to classify the actions of He as moral or immoral. What if He’s work kept the twins from contracting HIV from their HIV positive father? What if He’s research could be extended to further cases, keeping another child from developing a fatal hereditary gene in a future experiment? Would He’s projects still be deemed illegal? The morality of CRISPR technology once again becomes a bit hazy. In order to develop CRISPR technology to become reliabile enough to save lives, governments must allow the technology to keep developing without strict limitations.

However, the idea of allowing CRISPR technology to advance further leads to another roadblock of potential issues. If governments allow CRISPR technology to advance, officials risk being unable to regulate who has access to the technology. Just as Einstein regrets creating the atomic bomb, saying “ Had [he] known that the German would not succeed in producing an atomic bomb”.. He “would have never lifted a finger”, governments may regret allowing the creation of potentially dangerous technology. Individuals may use DNA editing for negative purposes such as biological weaponization. Unsuprivised individuals will be granted the tools to enable them to play God and modify human and animal life.

Biological weaponization is not the only fear. If CRISPR is left unregulated, humanity may have the option to design the phenotype of the upcoming generation, which can lead to greater ethical concerns. Dr. Doudna, who won a Nobel prize for her work in CRISPR, explains a reality where doctors, “offer a menu of traits and say, check off” to expecting parents. In a time where physical image is constantly emphasised by globe-dominating social media and advertising platforms, it seems like a naive idea to allow the advancement of a technology where modification of a couple’s offspring’s appearance is plausible. The morality of Human DNA editing will continue to be a contraversial, volatile subject as development in CRISPR technology either halts and continues to advance.

Works Cited:

The Imperative Need to Consider the Bioethics of CRISPR-Cas9 Technology- The National High School Journal of Science

CRISPR’d babies: human germline genome editing in the ‘He Jiankui affair’- National Center for Biotechnology Information

The CRISPR-baby scandal: what’s next for human gene-editing- Nature

I’ve Created a Monster!’ On the Regrets of Inventors- Atlantic

Designer babies aren’t futuristic. They’re already here.- MIT Technology Review

Is “Snapchat Dysmorphia” a Real Issue? -PMC

Should you Choose Your Baby’s Eye Color? - The New York Times The New Frontier of Genome Engineering