Photo by Sangharsh Lohakare on Unsplash
In November 2018, a Chinese scientist named He Jiankui reworked an embryo’s genetic sequence in an attempt to develop immunity to HIV. Using CRISPR, a gene-editing mechanism, he altered gene sequences within the embryo. Soon after, the first gene-edited babies, Lulu and Nana, were born. His groundbreaking experiment, thought to win praise as a scientific milestone, was reacted as the opposite. He Jiankui was sentenced to three years in prison due to accusations stating that he grossly violated medical ethics.
While Jiankui hoped to improve these children’s lives, he neglected the ethical implications of his process. CRISPR holds life-saving potential, but society must set clear ethical boundaries in advance of potentially harmful side effects. So, are we on the brink of discovering a miracle cure, or on the verge of opening Pandora’s box?
CRISPR shows immense promise. In fact, in 2020, CRISPR, often known as the “genetic scissors” won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry since the technology exceeded massive expectations. Its potential to remove genetic diseases sets it apart. Specifically, it could have the ability to eliminate gene sequences that lead to diseases such as cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and even cancer. After his release, He Jiankui found thousands of messages urging him to develop therapies to cure Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a terrible muscle-deteriorating disease.
CRISPR opens doors to groundbreaking research in oncology, infectious diseases, and more. For instance, Casgevy is the first CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing therapy for diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and beta-thalassemia. Casgevy (Exagamglogene Autotemcel can be described as a miracle for struggling blood cell cases. Altogether, CRISPR proves to be a mechanism that could prevent suffering and reduce long-term healthcare issues.
However, we must weigh the consequences equally. Fundamentally, it carries the risk for unintended consequences and off-target edits. From chromosomal irregularities to gene-damaging mutations, CRISPR can lead to harmful outcomes. Also, it may inadvertently increase the risk of cancer or genetic instability.
One example of this is genetic mosaicism:While editing embryos, sometimes CRISPR only mutates DNA in some cells, but not all of them. Creating uncertainty, the resulting individual’s cells will be a mix of edited and unedited cells.
Yet, the largest concern of CRISPR is the ethical aspect. When it comes to gene editing, how do people know where to stop? It might start with disease prevention but it’s a slippery slope to non-medical enhancements such as a change in height, intelligence, and eye color. Creating ‘designer babies’ could divide society by genetic privilege. Only a few social classes would be able to afford these expensive enhancements, widening gaps between socioeconomic classes. Beyond class disparities, selecting specific traits can lead to discrimination and promote narrow ideas of beauty or worth. It risks devaluing diversity for those deemed genetically inferior.
Furthermore, the embryos cannot make decisions. In the modern world, where liberty and justice for all lie inside the U.S. national anthem, these future generations cannot consent to these permanent germline changes being determined by others. Many believe it is wrong to “play God” in these situations. We must decide whether CRISPR will be remembered as a tool of healing or a weapon of inequality.
In all, CRISPR proves to be an innovative technology with great promise; however, we have to be cautious of how it is used. In order to work with CRISPR, specific frameworks should be implemented to regulate the integrity of the change.
CRISPR can rewrite the human story, but only if we write the rules first.
Be First to Comment