In Most Cases, Genetic Editing Is Too Dangerous To Be Practiced For Now But Has Fantastic Possibilities In Future

Genetic editing is a new practice that allows a geneticist to remove any gene from an embryo and replace it with a more desired gene. This could eliminate diseased genes before the embryo is even born. Some geneticist believe that genome editing could be used more much more, like enhancing the physical characteristics. Although gene editing could potentially cure diseases and change the traits of a human, it’s too problematic for the clinical setting because the practice is premature and unpredictable. Negative effects from genetic editing far outweigh the benefits. A few genetic modification experiments have been able to cure diseases, but a frightening amount of mutations and side effects have come along with it.

The most recent technology for gene editing, CRISPR-Cas9 is a very precise process of cutting out a gene and replacing it with the desired gene (“Price Tag on Designer Babies” 321). When a technique is as detailed as CRISPR-Cas9, any mistake could result in disease, mutation or even death. Recently, “Off Target” mutations have been a major issue with the CRISPR-Cas9 method. An “Off Target” mutation occurs when a newly changed gene matches the gene of an already existing disease (320). In the clinical setting, a mutation prone process like CRISPR-Cas9 could be available to any client. Junjiu Huang, a Chinese geneticist, believes that human embryos could be more prone to “Off Target” mutations than other organisms (Cyranoski and Reardon 594). The development of “Off Target” mutations in human embryos is very unpredictable and can be passed on throughout generations.

Not only are “Off Targets” a major issue for gene editing, but there are other side effects that are just as concerning. Using CRISPR-Cas9 in the clinical setting could cause many issues with future generations. CRISPR-Cas9 not only has a record of “Off Target” mutations, but has accidentally removed vital genes from the genome (“Price Tag on Designer Babies” 329). If vital genes are completely removed from the genome, they may not return through reproduction. If important genes are removed from many people in a clinic, the result could be an entire generation deprived of a vital gene. It is possible that the patient won’t see the effects a removed gene has on their body in their lifetime, but the replaced gene could develop overtime and effect the next generation (321). Once passed on through reproduction, it’s impossible to fix the mistake.

The main cause for all the side effects is the technology being used for the gene modifications. CRISPR-Cas9 is the current technology used today for genetic editing, but the practice has its fair share of flaws. Currently, CRISPR-Cas9 is only being used to eliminate diseases, but there are geneticists who believe it could be used for physical enhancements. These enhancements include, changing height, eye color, hair color and almost any other physical trait imaginable. This may seem like a benefit of CRISPR-Cas9, but the margin of error in physical enhancement experiments is small. The physical enhancement process requires extreme precision, otherwise, death may occur (Brokowski and Mazhor 91). CRISPR-Cas9 has a reputation for being inaccurate, and that is a major issue when using it for physical enhancements.

Many experiments done by geneticists all over the world have proven the inaccuracy of CRISPR-Cas9. CRISPR-Cas9 negative experiment results prove that the technology is not accurate enough to use in the clinical setting. In China, a scientist, Junjiu Huang, conducted an experiment using CRISPR-Cas9. Huang and his team began editing eighty-six embryos. Seventy-one survived and fifty-four were eligible for testing. Of those fifty-four, only four embryos were successfully given new DNA (Cyranoski and Reardon 593). A success rate this low isn’t ideal, especially if it was seen in the clinical environment. There was another CRISPR-Cas9 experiment in China, where the researchers attempted to remove a gene associated with a blood disorder. The experiment failed, and the embryo was left with a mutated gene (Price Tag on Designer Babies 330).

The researchers were unaware the new gene would negatively react to the surrounding genes. CRISPR-Cas9 has not been studied enough, and it’s too premature to make available for civilians. CRISPR-Cas9 is too premature for the clinical setting, and should be researched more thoroughly. Using CRISPR-Cas9 for genome editing is new, so there are no long term studies of the changed genes (321). If using CRISPR-Cas9 was available in the clinical environment, it would be hard to regulate everyone that has underwent a genome change procedure. A large number of people could experience a mistake in the editing operation and it would be impossible to fix once they’re born (Sas and Lawrenz 88). Clinical use of CRISPR-Cas9 would lead to a mass spread of genetic mutations and side effects, and it would only get worse as it spreads throughout several generations. Not only does CRISPR-Cas9 come with many alarming scientific side effects, but the ethical concerns for genome editing are just as detrimental. Genetic editing brings up several ethical concerns, especially regarding the identity of the embryo.

The identity of an embryo is extremely controversial, and the debate makes genetic editing a very touchy subject (Brokowski and Mazhar 92). Whether or not an embryo is classified as a human being, or group of cells, the identity still causes many problems with decision making. If genome editing was allowed in the clinical environment, the directly affected individual, the embryo, wouldn’t be able to make the decision of taking part in the operation (Ormond 171). Of course, this sparks a lot of conflict and puts the geneticist and mother in a tough position. It’s hard for several groups to agree on one status for the embryo (Brokowski and Mazhar 92). There will always be pressure from society to give the embryo the correct identity, therefore, there are still too many issues that need to be worked out before gene editing is allowed in the clinical setting. If nonidentity is accepted, and something goes wrong with the edit, it’s not necessarily considered “wrong” or “unethical” because the embryo isn’t considered a person (Holm 104). When an operation goes wrong and it’s not classified as unethical, then there is no effort to change the mistake.

All identity concerns aside, the safety of the embryo needs to be secured before genome editing is ever available for universal use. The safety of the embryo must be considered when performing a genome modification. Whether or not the identity of an embryo is confirmed, the safety of the embryo inside and out of the womb determines if the edit was done successfully or not. The main goal of a genetic edit is to ensure the embryo’s DNA was changed successfully, and the embryo can continue to live without issues. Some geneticists are claiming that if the benefits of the procedure outweigh the negatives, then the operation was done safely (Holm 103). If there are still some negatives, then the genetic edit didn’t work the way it was supposed to. The embryo’s DNA wasn’t successfully changed and the future safety of the embryo wasn’t secured.

When the good outweigh the bad, scientists consider the operation ethical (103). Geneticist should work to eliminate all negatives of the edits before they operate on several embryos in the clinical environment. The safety of the embryo is very crucial, but the role of the mother is equally as important to consider before CRISPR-Cas9 is ready for clinical use. If CRISPR-Cas9 is introduced into the clinical setting, it would be the mother’s decision to accept the editing modifications. Giving the mother the decision to genetically modify the embryo puts a lot of pressure on her to make the right decision. If the genetic edit goes wrong then the mother is to blame for deciding to have done the operation in the first place (104). CRISPR-Cas9’s inaccuracy puts a mother in a bad place because the chances of her child being successfully edited are low. The mother also has the power to determine the traits of her child if CRISPR-Cas9 is used for physical enhancements.

When the mother decides the future traits of the child the mother gains more from the genetic edit than the child does (Ormond 171). The enhancements chosen by the mother only suit the mother’s desires, and may not suit the situation the child is in after birth. Instead of the embryo being viewed as a child, it’s viewed as a product, therefore, the future child’s situation is ignored (Olson 4). This causes many issues because the desired physical traits that are popular now, may not even benefit the child in its own lifetime. When mothers are given the decision to genetically modify their child, they choose to use the best technology available to them. A large concern is that the women will decide to use private gene editing procedures (10). Allowing CRISPR-Cas9 into the clinical environment makes it possible for people to use it privately, making the gene alterations hard to regulate. The overall availability of CRISPR-Cas9 in the clinical setting can cause many issues in society. Making CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing available for everyone can create severe societal issues regarding the wealth separation.

Although CRISPR-Cas9 would be available for everyone, it would most likely only be used by the rich, because the price of genetic editing would be very expensive (Das 1349). The rich would be able to afford to remove diseased genes from their future children, and the poor would be stuck with however their child is naturally made. Not only would there be separation in class in just one country, but the availability of genome editing would widen the gap between rich and poor countries. A country like the United States, has money to fund the use of genetic editing, but a third world country may not (1349). Genetic editing in a clinical environment would widen the wealth gap between rich and poor countries, which is a problem the entire world has been trying to fix for ages. If CRISPR-Cas9 was approved to be used for physical enhancements, even more societal issues would arise. Genome editing to enhance physical traits would cause many conflicts between different groups of people. Geneticist believe CRISPR-Cas9 has the capability to treat any sort of disorder, including Down syndrome.

Many people argue that Down syndrome should be recognized more as a diverse aspect of society rather than a disability (Olson 4). Parents who find out their child has Down syndrome may decide to genetically change that gene. This discriminates against the people already existing in society who have disabilities. Genetic editing can cause conflict between people genetically engineered and those that aren’t. Everyone in today’s society haven’t had the opportunity to be genetically edited because it’s a new technique. Therefore, if genetic editing is allowed universally, those who grown up being genetically modified may be viewed at a higher status than those who haven’t been genetically changed (Baird 16). Allowing CRISPR-Cas9 to be used in the clinical setting will change people’s views towards those who haven’t been genetically enhanced. Geneticist who perform the gene edits could also be held at a higher status than the people that they are editing.

“Playing God” could cause the geneticist to believe they are in more control of the people in their society (Howard 12). Being in control of the physical traits of a person can boost the ego of many genetic editors, creating division in society. The elimination of undesired traits by gene editing isn’t exactly a new trend, it’s been seen in many different countries’ histories. The goal of genetic enhancement is to rid the society of “unfit” traits, which is very similar to Eugenics. The goal of Eugenics was to discriminate against the people that society didn’t think was normal or “unfit” (Suter 905). Eugenics received a negative connotation from the Germans when they attempted to eliminate an entire group of “unfit” civilians, more commonly referred to as the Holocaust (915). Genetic enhancement in the clinical setting could eliminate physical traits that are seen as “unfit”, and this could discriminate against those that have that trait and were never modified.

Eugenics gave “normal” a definition by discouraging those who were not “normal” for procreating (Ormond 171). People who have been genetically modified may not associate themselves with the people in society who aren’t fortunate enough to have their genes enhanced. Marcy Darnovsky, from the Center for Genetics and Society, stated, “Creating genetically modified human beings could easily lead to new forms of inequality, discrimination and societal conflict” (Gyngell 509). Allowing genome enhancements to be accessible for everyone would cause more problems in society than there already are today. Organizations have recognized the negative effects of gene editing and have voiced their opinions on it. Important organizations are voicing their concerns about genetic editing.

The International Summit on Human Gene Editing has made its stance on genetic editing very clear. They came to a conclusion that it is far too early to edit a human, because the CRISPR-Cas9 technology is premature and unpredictable (“Price Tag on Designer Babies” 326). Clinical use of genome editing is far too risky because of the inaccuracy of CRISPR-Cas9. The Committee also deemed it too unethical because the technique could threaten the safety of both the mother and the embryo (Das 1349). A premature technique like CRISPR-Cas9 could harm a large number of mothers and embryos, as well as threaten an entire generation. Not only does the Committee not approve of gene editing to cure diseases, but they also have concerns about genetic enhancements. A scientist from the International Summit on Human Gene Editing said it is too risky too add or delete a characteristic from the gene pool (1349).

Removing a trait from humans will slowly cause that trait to become rarer, until it’s completely gone. The International Summit on Human Gene Editing concluded the meeting by all agreeing that the world needs “healthy babies not designer babies” (1349). Making genetic editing available to everyone isn’t worth risking the safety of babies. The Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee agreed with the International Summit on Gene Editing and said it’s too early for any testing on human embryos. The inaccuracy of CRISPR-Cas9 clearly isn’t trusted by several genetic organizations. Countries are following the recommendations of the committees and forming their own rules and regulations for genetic editing. Countries all over the world have set up laws that either regulate or ban the practice of genetic editing.

Twenty five countries all over the world have completely banned genetic testing (“Price Tag on Designer Babies” 327). Genetic editing is too dangerous to be practiced in these countries. In the United States, regulations are set only allowing genetic testing for curing diseases only (327). Using CRISPR-Cas9 for physical enhancements isn’t safe, and many countries have banned it. The majority of countries aren’t ready to fully allow genome editing in the clinical setting. The genetic editing technology has the capability to change lives in a negative or positive way. However, genetic editing is far too inaccurate and unsafe to make available in the clinical setting. Although genetic editing could possibly cure diseases and enhance human features, the CRISPR-Cas9 Technique is too premature and has no long term studies. Before genetic editing is made universal in the clinical environment, it’s crucial to perfect the CRISPR-Cas9 technology and ensure that the safety of all humans is secure.