With new technology comes new problems. A recent example of this is with the development of genome editing or genetic engineering. Most people probably are aware of recent advances in this technology, but for the purpose of this blog I am going to delve a bit deeper into the specifics of it.
As outlined by Genetics Home Reference gene editing allows scientists to alter to DNA of an organism. Recently, the new CRISPR-Cas9 system has been making headlines because it is a cheaper, faster, more accurate and more efficient way to edit genes. Without going into too much detail about the process, it basically allows scientists to target specific sequences of DNA to cut out or add pieces of genetic material. With this tool it is becoming easier and more likely for editing to occur that would potentially enhance traits like height, permanently altering genetic material in the germline cells (sperm and egg cells that pass on genetic material).
This is precisely what a Chinese scientist did last year when he claimed to have edited the genes of two twin baby girls. Scientist He Jiankui claims the alterations he made in the genes will prevent the girls from being able to contract HIV. This has not been confirmed though, as of now it is a claim made by the scientist. To conduct his experiment, Jiankui was able to secure funding and find volunteer couples in order to do this experiment on his own, without oversight. The twin girls were born this past November and are currently under medical supervision, whereas Jiankui has reportedly been placed on house arrest after the government found out about his experiment.
Legally, there is not currently a good standard for laws regarding human genetic modification. In China, government officials have said, He Jiankui “blatantly violated China’s relevant laws and regulations” but it seems unclear about what the particular laws and regulations are. According to Issues.org many European countries have outlawed any modification to germaline cells—effectively preventing creating genetically modified or engineered babies. In the United States the rules are not quite as clear. As the laws stands now, there are very strict regulations and lots of hoops to jump through in order to have a process for genetic modification (like CRISPR) approved by the FDA. But, once it is approved there is very little in place to stop doctors or scientists from using the technology as they please.
The laws in the U.S. seem to pose a potential problem. By allowing physicians and scientists freedom with this new technology, not only would there be many ethical dilemmas to face, but it could potentially hurt the further development of gene editing. For example, if one of the twin babies in China were to die, even if it was of a disease unrelated to their edited genes, it would put people off of gene editing and turn investors and the public off from wanting to further develop this technology. At this point, it simply is not reasonable to risk setting ourselves back in development of this technology.
Also, there is a potentially huge ethical issue that comes with the advancement of genetic editing. Should we be able to edit our DNA for non-medical reasons? Bill Gates recently has said, “this might be the most important public debate we haven’t been having.” This topic is a lot deeper than simply being able to edit specific traits and potentially create “designer babies.” Without proper regulations in place it is not reasonable to think that genetic modification would be cheaply available to all who could benefit from it, or who want to utilize it. There is a distinct possibility that editing in the germline cells would only be available for the wealthy. This would create even more inequity between the classes as there would be the possibility for wealthy families to buy their children the opportunity to be born with “superior” or more desirable genes.
The issues go even deeper than this. For many in the religious communities gene editing is morally unacceptable. As reported in a 2016 Pew research study, only 15% of highly religious Americans viewed human gene editing as morally acceptable—even if it was to give babies a reduced risk of disease. As a whole it seems like Americans may not be quite ready to accept human gene editing quite yet.
Human gene editing is an area of the medical and science world seeing huge growth recently. As we have witnessed the first use of gene editing in humans we have also seen the response by governments and scientists alike to the gene editing and it may seem as if the world is not ready to face the moral and ethical issues that arise with gene editing. It is clear that genetic modification of humans is something that should be illegal or at least not available to the public. Until more tests and experiments occur and until people change their overall view on gene editing it is not reasonable for the there to be human gene editing.