Gene Editing and the Question of Ethics

Imagine a world where expecting mothers and fathers could guarantee that their child would not inherit any genetic diseases such as muscular dystrophy, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and Down syndrome. A world like that may seem too good to be true, but recent medical advances have made this medically idealized world a real possibility. A new, complex tool called CRISPR-CAS9 has the ability splice, delete, and insert portions of genetic code. This, "gene editing" is a process that can remove inherited diseases from human embryos, eggs, and sperm. The technology is not widely used nor tested because, while it is promising, the science is not perfected. The procedure is rare and has worked in some cases, but in others it has not and has instead increase the chances of genetic disease. Because of the great risk involved, ethics have forced scientists to ask: should research be spurred to perfect the science of genetic editing considering the risks involved? 

It is certain that more research is needed to eliminate the risks involved with genetic editing, but some would argue that research should be stopped altogether. Halting any practice of genetic editing would consequently halt any advances, but would guarantee that no child suffer the adverse effects of a high profile science experiment.

              Reversely, some scientists would say that research should be hastened and even practiced in clinics. The increase in procedures performed would result in the testing of thousands of human embryos and would surely risk negative results in some cases; however, some cases would yield positive results. Eventually, the procedure could be perfected and inherited diseases would be irradiated from our DNA and future generations would never be afflicted with such impairments.

              Moreover, it’s important to consider the option of simply continuing research at the current rate, which is slowly, but surely. In the United States, genetic editing research is only permitted in cases where it is predetermined that the child would, without the procedure, be born with major defects or die. This solution would take more time, but advancement after advancement would eventually yield enough research to guarantee the procedures success without risking a child’s health.

              If no more research is conducted, genetic disorders and diseases will continue to plague future generations. If research is spurred, many children could suffer at the expense of an experiment. And if research continues, albeit at a near standstill, it will take years to perfect the procedure and many who could have been helped, will live with a disease. One thing is certain. The subject in question, genetic editing and the CRISPR-CAS9 tool, exist in an ethical gray area.

Matt Mietchen
BIOL 1610-008
Dr. Dr. Gazdik Stofer

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/health/human-gene-editing-panel.html?_r=0