Almost every cell in all living organism has genes which define who we are and the composition of our bodies. Scientists and researchers are capable of redefining the human body composition and making alterations to our attributes using scientific procedures like CRISPR. However, some boundaries should be regarded before doing any sensitive scientific methods such a CRISPR, especially on humans to ensure long-term health outcomes, moral, and ethical aspects are considered (Belluck, 2017; Belluz, 2018; Yong, 2017). This article will strive to analyze the ethical, moral, and long-term lineage issues related to editing DNA to create ‘Designer Babies’. The technology is not viable on creating ‘designer babies’ yet as the technology is still under research. The technology is still not well developed to allow CRISPR tinkering in human beings and therefore still requires more study to be conducted.
The topic of genetic engineering which is concerned with altering and redefining the genome system of organisms; attracts much attention from the scholars, researchers, as well as the general public (Bruinsten, 2018). However, on human beings, the technology has been restricted because of the ethical, moral, and long-term lineage issues related to editing DNA and cloning. According to Brunstein (2018), the system that is well developed and allows for selection of the unique genetic loci and modifying them is called Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR). Belluz (2018) and Brunstein (2018) note that the primary tool used in the CRISPR process is restriction enzyme which recognizes a fixed, short DNA sequence and in turn provides a cut in the backbone of a sugar-phosphate. As a result, the cuts created can then be used to splice in exogenous DNA sequence that forms compatible ends with Enzyme DNA ligase thereby reforming the covalent backbone bonds. However, given that the topic is attracting much attention, it still needs more research before being rolled into clinical trials involving the delivery of healthy babies by couples who have such problems. While even illegal under federal law, the technology would be of great benefit especially in eradicating diseases caused by gene mutation or modifying children born with resistance to inherited mutations such as Huntington’s, beta thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, and even Alzheimer’s disease.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
CRISPR in humans is still under research and scientists advise that the technology should be taken slowly with most of them believing that the technology is not yet ready for ‘tinkering' in humans (Belluz 2018). The National Academies of Sciences (NSA) conducted a study in 2017 which revealed that clinical trials could inspire great potential for severe medical conditions only under stringent supervision (Sugarman et al . 2017). During the study, the scientists also discovered that embryos could repair themselves which formed the basis of CRISPR (Belluck, 2017). The NSA believes that there are risky limits to what CRISPR can do like wiping out and rearranging large DNA swaths that could endanger the health of human beings. Consequently, recent studies proved that technology could give rise to edited cells that can unintentionally cause cancer.
He Jiankui, a Chinese scientist, however, went against the norms and ethics of applying CRISPR in humans and claimed to have created the World’s first genetically modified twin babies (Yong, 2017). He’s claim has attracted criticism and praise from many different researchers, scholars, and scientists. He’s case opened up many deliberations on ethics, moral, and long-term concerns of CRISPR. Belluz (2018) asserts that if researchers can tinker quietly in a lab and go against the medical norms to experiment with the human genome to feed their scientific curiosity and ego, there is a concern that several risky CRISPR applications could be taking place to enhance human qualities which could usher in new genetic inequality eras. The reason behind his experiment, He alleged that, was to disable CCR 5 gene to make the twin girls resistant to HIV/AIDS because the father of the girls was HIV positive and he wanted to ensure the children never contracted HIV/AIDS like their father (Belluz, 2018). Additionally, He asserted that the CRISPR CCR 5 was a studied vastly and that it had “real-world medical value” like using the technology to prevent HIV/AIDS. However, top scientists have bashed the experiment; calling it monstrous and profoundly disturbing, with some saying that they were horrified to learn of He’s news.
Many scientists have criticized He’s actions in many ways: Firstly, according to Yong, He did not address the unmet medical need he claimed to have adopted (2017). Yong says that, although the twin's father was HIV-positive, the children were HIV-negative and normal. Even if He was concerned about the safety of the infants, Yong asserts, many ways can be used to control the disease such as by use of anti-retroviral drugs and through safe-sex education. Secondly, Yong notes that scientist such as Sean Ryder claimed that the actual editing of the genome was not correctly executed. The CCR 5 genes were not all deleted thereby delta 32 mutation was not present in the girls’ genome (Belluz, 2018). As a result, the mutation could lead to any benefit to the girls' immunity to the HIV. Thirdly, Ryder and Kruglyak assert that it is not clear the consequences of the mutation facilitated by He could do to the girls (Yong, 2017). Yong further explains that He used the girls and their mother as test objects and not animals as is usually done to vet animals and blatantly disregarded all the conventions and rules that guide the clinical procedures.
Furthermore, bioethicists such as Kelly Hill noted that He did not use an informed-consent process to notify the participants of the process of CRISPR technology. Accordingly, the consent form used by He used technical terms that could not be well-understood by the participants. Moreover, Hill states that He was not qualified enough to administer the consent process to the participants alone and that taking consent requires special skills to deliver.
According to Doudna in an interview at “Ted Talks”, although scientists have previously mapped the human genome and effectively related their understanding of the functions and structure of genes to correct defects and help in the healing of many mutations, human germline is illegal in many countries around the World (TedGlobal, 2015). However, He’s actions sparked many ethical and moral concerns of the rogue CRISPR technology he used (Klipstein, 2017; Sugarman et al ., 2018). Firstly, if He can edit genes of healthy living babies and get away with it, the concern is that there is a possibility that wealthy individuals would seek for rogue scientists like He to edit their children’s DNA through unscrupulous means to influence their intelligence and appealing physical attributes for black market business (Belluz, 2018). Secondly, the technology is very costly and is only affordable to wealthy individuals who would use it to their advantage to influence the physical characteristics and modification of their children’s intelligence (Yong, 2017). Thirdly, Klipstein (2017) asserts that technology can affect a significant risk of a gene mutation that could be difficult to alter over time.
Furthermore, Brunstein believes that technology is of great societal concern because CRISPR could have long-term implications that would affect the future generation without their consent (2018). Moreover, Klipstein asserts that gene-editing technologies would alter how the societies envision the future offspring whereby children and people with disabilities would not be viewed as rational human beings and their dignity would be affected. Also, according to CBS News (2010), the technology has unforeseen implications that could not be realized presently, and while the primary intent of gene altering is only for addressing severe health conditions, some rogue scientists like He could use the technology for other non-health related purposes. CBS News (2017) argues that this aspect could go against the natural ability of future offspring being created based on the manipulated genome that is different from their parent's genome.
As discussed, the CRISPR technology has its benefits as well as implications that could negatively impact the health of future generations. Before being used in clinical settings, the technique requires thorough research on its integrity in addressing health-related conditions as well as long-term physical attributes to avoid future complications that would be difficult to curtail (Sugarman et al ., 2018). Moreover, there should be public engagement on the matter to create awareness of the implications of the technology on the health of future generations. Furthermore, Sugarman and the colleagues (2018) believe researchers and the general public should be cautioned that the technology is only meant to address matters of health and therefore should not be done for other purposes away from clinical medicine. Also, the medical research communities and authorities need to enforce stringent measures that would discourage application of the gene-altering technologies by rogue scientists such as He who would want to feed their ego and for non-scrupulous scientific mileage. According to Belluz, technology is still not well developed to allow CRISPR tinkering in human beings and therefore still requires more research to be conducted.
Lists of Cited Works
Brunstein, J. (2018). “CRISPR Gene Therapy Makes its Mark.” A Guide to Molecular Diagnostics: The Most Kindest Cut of All? The Prime . 50(7), 60-61.
John Brunstein is a holder PhD and a member of the MLO Editorial Advisory Board. Brunstein serves as the President and Chief Science Officer for British Columbia-based PatholD, Inc.; which is tasked with implementing consultancy co-operations on the development and validation of molecular assays. In his work, "CRISPR Gene Therapy Makes its Mark," Brunstein gives as an overview of the procedures used in the CRISPR gene editing technique from the selection of target DNA element to the end of the process. Furthermore, Brunstein explains in his work how scientists can create mutation-free genome in the body cells. Brunstein work is significant to this study because it enlightens scientists and those students aspiring to take medical courses on the usefulness of the technology. Additionally, Brunstein's work expands the knowledge of medical personnel in eradicating diseases such as sickle-cell anemia.
Yong, E. (2018). “The CRISPR Baby Scandal Gets Worse by the Day.” The Atlantic . Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/12/15-worrying-things-about-crispr-babies-scandal/577234/
Ed Yong is a contributor at The Atlantic , where he covers topics on science. In his work that was written on December 3, 2018; “The CRISPR Baby Scandal Gets Worse by the Day,” Yong in his article explains the details of the experiment conducted by He Jiankui, a Chinese scientist, who went against the norms and ethics of applying CRISPR in humans and claimed to have created the World’s first genetically modified twin babies. Yong gives an overview of the types of criticism and praises He attracted from many different researchers, scholars, and scientists. Yong highlights the moral, ethical, and long-term concerns of CRISPR technology through He's experiment. Furthermore, Yong reveals the risks associated with conducting scientific trials by using human genome by rogue scientists. Moreover, Yong emphasizes the ethical issues related to experimental trials such as CRISPR. Yong's work is crucial to all scientists who would be tempted to conduct CRISPR technology in future for curiosity and scientific mileage. Moreover, the article highlights that there are instances where CRISPR technology is not necessary especially in the prevention of diseases such as HIV/AIDs in infants.
References
Belluck, P. (2017). In Breakthrough, Scientists Edit, a Dangerous Mutation From Genes in Human Embryos. The New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/science/gene-editing-human-embryos.html .
Belluz, Julia. (2018). Is the CRISPR Baby Controversy the Start of a Terrifying New Chapter in Gene Editing? Vox . Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/30/18119589/crispr-technology-he-jiankui.
Brunstein, John. (2018). CRISPR Gene Therapy Makes its Mark: A Guide to Molecular Diagnostics. The Most Kindest Cut of All? The Prime . 50(7), 60-61.
CBS News. (2017). Gene editing fixes harmful mutation in human embryos . Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gene-editing-crispr-fixes-dangerous-mutation-in-human-embryos/.
Klipstein, Sigal. (2017). Parenting in the Age of Preimplantation Gene Editing. Hastings Center Report 47 , no. 6: S28‐S33. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.792.
Sugarman, J., Shivakumar, S., Rook, Martha, et al ., (2018). Ethical Considerations in the Manufacture, Sale, and Distribution of Genome Editing Technologies. The American Journal of Bioethics, 18( 8), 3-6. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2018.1489653.
TedGlobal>London. (2015, Oct 20). How CRISPR Let Us Edit Our DNA [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely?language=en
Yong, Ed. (2018). “The CRISPR Baby Scandal Gets Worse by the Day.” The Atlantic . Dec 3, 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/12/15-worrying-things-about-crispr-babies-scandal/577234/
