Introduction
Researchers have embarked on a mission to rewrite the human genome through a process known as genome editing. Genome editing alters the DNA of organisms thereby affecting their physical traits as well as disease risks. Genome editing makes use of gene editing tools that search for unwanted genes in humans and either deletes or replaces them with wanted ones. Genetic engineering has formed the basis of many discussions on the effectiveness and viability of the practice, as well as the ethical considerations involved.
Human reproduction is the field that is most affected by genome editing. Recent times have seen the development of designer babies that display enhanced traits. The traits enhanced for these babies include gender, appearance and personality, intelligence and disease traits. Designer babies have their genetic makeup altered before their birth, usually just after conception. The enhancement of qualities has led to a new crop of three-genetic parents, whereby genetic changes are made based on the characteristics of three individuals. Genome editing is made possible through the use of In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) through a process known as the pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Several ethical issues face the application of PGD in altering human DNA. PGD poses dangers to changes made on the germ-line, which is the DNA available in reproductive cells that are passed on through generations. As such, the field of genetic engineering faces various ethical implications, chief among them being the safety of embryos. Changes made to the DNA may cause severe damages to the cells as a result of unsuccessful alteration. Such loss may lead to lifelong implications on the part of the embryo, thus negatively affecting their future lives. Furthermore, the death of embryos during genetic engineering is another primary ethical concern.
Historical Timeline
The concept of designer babies dates back to as early as the 1970s. IVF was popularized in this era, with the first IVF conception being witnessed. Louise Brown became the first test-tube baby, thus proving a significant step in human reproduction practice.
Later on, scientists continued researching genetic alterations that would be done on the DNA. Various studies were put across to document the research. In the year 2000, the investigation was put to the test before its commissioning as an appropriate medical intervention to be used in human reproduction. Adam Nash became the first designer baby to be conceived and born. Adam’s conception was met with gene selection that was conducted through the pre-implantation process. The process witnessed successful gene alteration that saw Adam Nash being born with specific genes that resisted disease.
Furthermore, Adam’s conception was meant to serve as a cure for his ailing sister. His sister suffered from Fanconi’s anemia. Hence Adam’s genetic material was coined to resist the disease. Through the process, a total of fifteen embryos were created whereby the one lacking the Fanconi’s trait was used and implanted on the mother. After his birth, Adam donated blood to his sister, which in turn facilitated her treatment and survival.
Adam’s birth was made possible through the existence and development of biotechnology to facilitate the procedure. New technology dubbed Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat (CRISPR) was developed and was meant to target a specific area of a gene that required alteration, thereby altering the genetic material in the cells. Moreover, CRISPR relies on the engineered CRISPR- associated protein (Cas9) (Erickson, 2015). The CRISPR-Cas9 subjects the human DNA to either respond to or eliminate a genetic adaptation to achieve adaptive immunity. As a result, the DNA acquires a new genetic composition different from the original.
Statistics
Various people display varying opinions on genetic modification in human reproduction. In the US, there are several people for the idea and similarly those against the idea. According to a survey conducted by Funk, Kennedy, & Sciupac (2016) 46% of Americans view the development of designer babies as an appropriate use of medical advances. This percentage of people believe that technological advancements have caused a significant change in the society; therefore designer babies are just part of the application of this advancement.
However, 83% of Americans are of the opinion that designer babies serve as proof of taking medical advances too far (Funk, Kennedy & Sciupac, 2016). Most of the people making this opinion are those who believe that it is morally wrong to alter the genes of an embryo. Most people from a religious point of view, cite disrespect for God’s creation as the reason for the dissatisfaction with the particular medical advances.
“It is wrong to change the DNA of an embryo to produce smarter, healthier and more athletic children,” (Funk, Kennedy & Sciupac, 2016). Approximately 66% of Americans are of this opinion as genetic modification should only be reserved for therapeutic reasons such as preventing the spread of disease. On the other hand, 26% of Americans view this change as a positive thing.
Owing to the ethical issues raised concerning genetic modification of embryos, the application of PGD in testing for genes with inherited diseases through IVF cycles has declined to about 5%. Scientists have limited the research on viable embryos to allow for evidence that proves the success of the practice.
Furthermore, various science companies have taken up genetic modification and turned it into a commercial venture. As opposed to 2009 when the genome editing was priced at $50,000, current prices are set at $1500. “Science for safe and effective PGD is likely to exist sometime in the next 20-40 years,” claims Ball (2017). As a result, sex would no longer be required for procreation.
Stakeholders
Genome editing attracts many interested parties. Shareholders involved in the practice include scientists, ethicists, parents, lawmakers, and science companies. Each of these stakeholders has a different perspective, interest, and relative powers on genome editing.
Scientists view genome editing as a breakthrough in genetic studies. However, the practice requires being safe and effective-aspects that scientist seeks to achieve. As a result, some scientists believe that the research should continue, but on non-viable human embryos instead of viable ones. As such, there would be no pregnancies resulting from the studies. The National Academies of Sciences & Medicine (2017) claims, “the current technology is unfit and therefore unpredictable. It would cause negative effects on future generations.”
On the other hand, ethicists raise concerns human germ-line editing. “The changes are passed down to future generations hence affecting future development,” ((NHGRI, 2017). Ethicists believe that genome editing should be stopped and prohibited since it affects future generations.
Parents are other stakeholders who believe in having children that possess the best health and traits. Parents wish to know and control the type of children they want, hence their acceptance towards genome editing.
Lawmakers regulate the application of this technology, which is banned in European countries. They also conduct public deliberation to collect the public’s views on the practice. In countries such as the US where the method is not banned, the federal government refrains from funding any research on the topic. “The federal government prohibits any funding of research conducted on human embryo, whether dead or alive,” (Erickson, 2015).
Science companies, on the other hand, believe in commercializing the technology, thus supporting gene editing. Furthermore, they fund research on genetic modification.
Debates/Disagreements/Controversies
The most significant debates and discussions raised on the matter concern ethical considerations. In matters safety, studies exist that seek to ensure the practice is conducted for therapeutic reasons only and is safe in its application (NHGRI, 2017). Informed consent is another issue raised whereby the victims (embryos) do not provide their consent, hence affecting future generations (NHGRI, 2017). However, some people argue that parents have autonomy over their children and therefore justified to make decisions on their behalf. Another argument is on equity of the service, which may be limited to the wealthy, and in turn cause disparities in the society and healthcare provision (NHGRI, 2017).
Conclusion
In conclusion, more information is required on the use of CRISPR and its regulations as well as relevant statistics on genome editing. Future research will look further into the ethical considerations in genome editing, by answering the question ‘is genome editing in human reproduction ethically viable?’ Moreover, it is essential to understand the guidelines on the application of genetic engineering and the development of designer babies.
References
Ball, P. (2017). Designer babies: an ethical horror waiting to happen. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/08/designer-babies-ethical-horror-waiting-to-happen
Erickson, B. (2015). Editing Of Human Embryo Genes Raises Ethics Questions. Retrieved from https://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i26/Editing-Human-Embryo-Genes-Raises.html
Funk, C., Kennedy, B., & Sciupac, E. (2016). 2. U.S. public opinion on the future use of gene editing. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/26/u-s-public-opinion-on-the-future-use-of-gene-editing/
National Academies of Sciences, & Medicine. (2017). Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NHGRI. (2017). what are the ethical concerns about genome editing? Retrieved from https://www.genome.gov/27569225/what-are-the-ethical-concerns-about-genome-editing/
