By Sonia Husain - Brazil
Introduction
The twenty-first century is widely considered to be the heart of the genetic revolution, as the early 2000s brought with it the ability to sequence the human genome, followed by other breakthroughs of similar magnitude. These last two decades have seen genetic discoveries and innovations unparalleled to the years before, not simply because of scientific developments but because of society’s increasing willingness to accept ideas. Science–medical biology, specifically–has always walked a tightrope between innovation and ethical quagmire, most notably, the recent controversy involving the ethics of abortion, which reopened on a global scale with the repeal of Roe vs. Wade in the United States. Ideas of genetic engineering, even when spotlighted on powerful platforms such as the New York Times, tend to garner more debate about their dystopian and otherworldliness than the realistic possibility of their widespread implementation in healthcare. Why is that? Probably because more people have gene editing technologies like CRISPR, a revolutionary genetic editing tool associated with the story of Dolly The Goat, the first ever cloned mammal, than with the many children who attend Kindergarten completely healthy, thanks to CRISPR trials that dealt with their Trisomy-21— otherwise known as Down Syndrome. Perhaps the capability of these technologies is just too much—too fantastical—for even the most progressive of us; society isn’t ready for genetic editing, and all the controversies that cloud the subject are merely there to hide people’s fear.
Ethical Constraints: Progress vs. Playing with Fire
It’s not an irrational worry. Repeatedly, the medical research field has introduced innovations designed to address genuine medical issues, only to witness their unintended and sometimes controversial applications when they become widely accessible (Rainie). A prime example is Ozempic, which was initially developed to assist diabetic patients in managing their blood sugar. However, the drug, with its weight loss side effect, is now priced at several hundred dollars per injection post-insurance, catering to individuals seeking its elective use. The same can be said about Botox, facial fillers, and Adderall (Methamphetamine). In the same vein, it’s entirely likely that CRISPR may be misused for cosmetic purposes at the cost of patients who genuinely need it. It begs the question: how far is too far? The prospect of editing genes to eliminate life-threatening conditions is one thing, but what about regularly manageable ones? If a family carries a mild allergy trait, inconveniencing but not life-threatening, is it ethically justifiable to erase it through genetic editing? The ethical dilemma deepens when considering cosmetic alterations. If CRISPR can be used to make life more convenient, could parents decide to give their children blue eyes simply for aesthetic reasons? The argument arises that being attractive can ease one's path in life. If elective CRISPR interventions become commonplace, there's the risk that body dysmorphia rates could surge among the natural-born population. As the first generation of CRISPR-edited embryos matures into tweens and teens, they might set unrealistic beauty standards, triggering comparisons with their non-genetically modified counterparts. Those with natural features would no doubt compare themselves to their lab-engineered counterparts, whose physical traits were hand-picked to satisfy societal beauty standards. These possibilities highlight the societal consequences and responsibility associated with wielding such powerful genetic technologies.
Impact on Disabled Communities
The tightest-knit communities in the world are Orthodox religious ones and medical ones. Those born with or develop physical or mental differences, particularly, hold this life-changing trait as an incredibly large part of their individual identities and are usually closely connected to others with the same life experiences. Take the global Deaf community, for example, who have worked incredibly hard to incorporate aspects of their life into society. In the United States, American Sign Language (ASL) is offered as a language class in almost every public school, and there are 97 schools worldwide that only cater to Deaf students, in addition to the esteemed Gallaudet University, a university for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. The Deaf community is large, with an estimated 70 million fully deaf people worldwide and approximately 466 million people with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Deafness can be a genetic trait for those who are born Deaf rather than slowly losing hearing over the course of their life. CRISPR has the potential to treat this, which, many argue, should be the course of action (Kaiser). Despite this, the Deaf community and many other people don’t agree; to begin deleting the Deaf gene from embryos would significantly shrink the Deaf community, in addition to sending a harmful message indicating that Deafness is something to be rid of (Kaiser).
The possibility of “avoiding” Deafness enrages people for these reasons exactly— the Deaf community suffers, shrinks, and slowly reverts back to being a stigmatized minority in society until it ceases to exist completely. Furthermore, a common argument against CRISPR targeting things like Blindness and Deafness is that these conditions are not fatal and, therefore, open the door to deleting all sorts of small medical conditions. At a glance, this doesn’t seem to pose an issue, but without a limit to CRISPR’s abilities that is set in stone, humans could potentially press on to create the “perfect human”, which is inexplicably dangerous in countless ways— for society, medicine, and the future of mankind (Kozubek).
Impact on Incest and Incestual Relationships
Incest remains a highly taboo concept in society, with the act of marrying within one’s immediate or secondary family widely frowned upon in most communities. The stigma surrounding incest often stems from misconceptions, such as the belief that children born from such unions will exhibit extreme physical or cognitive abnormalities. While this isn't entirely accurate, there is a kernel of truth in the increased risk of inheriting recessive diseases, disorders, and conditions when both parents carry the recessive gene. In families, the likelihood of carrying recessive genes is higher, and when close relatives marry, the probability of their children inheriting serious conditions becomes elevated. CRISPR holds the potential to address the issue of children inheriting serious genetic conditions by eradicating recessive genes (Goodyear). This breakthrough could significantly reduce the risk of genetic disorders in offspring, making it possible for closely related individuals to have healthier children. The implications of CRISPR on incestuous relationships raise important questions about societal acceptance. While the technology offers a path to healthier outcomes for offspring, the acceptance of inter-familial procreation, especially between first cousins, varies across cultures. In Western societies, the stigma against incest is deeply ingrained in societal values, and the normalization of such relationships is unlikely to be embraced. In contrast, some cultures in the Middle East and South Asia have historically been more accepting of intra-family marriages. CRISPR potentially has the ability to change societal values regarding incest, and the potential shift in dynamics brought about by CRISPR prompts a nuanced exploration of cultural attitudes and ethical considerations surrounding these evolving reproductive possibilities.
Conclusion
Overall, the field of genetic editing stirs up a significant amount of debate, mostly regarding morality and ethical considerations. On one hand, proponents argue that technologies like CRISPR offer unprecedented opportunities to eliminate life-threatening genetic conditions, sparing future generations from the burden of debilitating diseases (Kozubek).The promise of eradicating hereditary diseases seems like a noble cause, emphasizing the potential to alleviate human suffering. However, the other side of the argument raises equally valid concerns about the ethical implications of playing "genetic architects." Many question whether humans should be tampering with the very fabric of life, citing possibilities of unintended consequences and unforeseen risks (Goodyear). Meddling with nature to enhance certain traits or eradicate mild inconveniences may lead us down a slippery slope, blurring the boundaries between medical necessity and cosmetic preference. The moral dilemma centers on how far society is willing to go in reshaping the future of humanity and whether the pursuit of perfection through genetic editing aligns with our fundamental values or crosses ethical boundaries.
Bibliography
Bergman, Mary Todd. "Perspectives on gene editing." The Harvard Gazette
[Cambridge, MA], 9 Jan. 2019, news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/
perspectives-on-gene-editing/. Accessed 18 Jan. 2024.
Farrell, James. "FDA Approves New CRISPR Gene-Editing Treatment." Forbes, 16
fda-approves-new-crispr-gene-editing-treatment/?sh=17350c31b492. Accessed
18 Jan. 2024.
"The Future of Gene Editing." Medical School Research, 3 Jan. 2020. Columbia
University Irving Medical Center, www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/
future-gene-editing. Accessed 18 Jan. 2024.
Goodyear, Dana. "Dangerous Designs; Gene Editing Gives Us Transformative Powers.
But Should We Use Them?" The New Yorker, 2 Sept. 2023, www.newyorker.com/
magazine/2023/09/11/the-transformative-alarming-power-of-gene-editing.
Accessed 21 Jan. 2024.
Kaiser, Jocelyn. "Gene therapy restores hearing in children with rare form of
deafness." Science, 27 Oct. 2023, www.science.org/content/article/
gene-therapy-restores-hearing-children-rare-form-deafness. Accessed 21 Jan.
2024.
Kozubek, Jim. "How Gene Editing Could Ruin Human Evolution." Time Magazine, 9
Jan. 2017, time.com/4626571/crispr-gene-modification-evolution/. Accessed
19 Jan. 2024.
Rainie, Lee, et al. "Americans are closely divided over editing a baby's genes
to reduce serious health risk." Artificial Intelligence, 17 Mar. 2022.
Pew Research Center, www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/
americans-are-closely-divided-over-editing-a-babys-genes-to-reduce-serious-health
-risk/. Accessed 18 Jan. 2024.
"What are genome editing and CRISPR-Cas9?" MedlinePlus, National Library of
Medicine, 22 Mar. 2022, medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/
genomicresearch/genomeediting/. Accessed 22 Jan. 2024.
"WHO issues new recommendations on human genome editing for the advancement of
public health." World Health Organization, 12 July 2021, www.who.int/news/
item/
12-07-2021-who-issues-new-recommendations-on-human-genome-editing-for-the-advance
ment-of-public-health. Accessed 20 Jan. 2024.
World Health Organization. www.who.int/health-topics/
human-genome-editing#tab=tab_1. Accessed 20 Jan. 2024.
Comments