Today, we stand on the verge of a completely new medical and biological era. With the advent of novel gene editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9, our future now holds possibilities previously only possible in science fiction. These technologies offer so much potential – as put by Nature, they can do everything from completely eradicating bacterial diseases to treating the most complicated genetic afflictions. At the same time, our usage of such technology raises profound ethical dilemmas and questions about how we are impacting future generations with this technology. I believe gene-editing technologies should be used to exclusively affect the current generation, as any changes to future generations may be unwanted and unnecessary.

The key distinction is in somatic and germline gene editing. The former is incredible, in its ability to administer personalized treatments to people and cure the uncurable. The latter, however, is quite the opposite – it raises ethical dilemmas that we’ve grappled with for years, predominantly that of consent. Altering future generations at such a fundamental level without their approval completely violates personal liberties and rights. Such germline editing may start for initially beneficial reasons, such as curing genetic defects(even still, this is problematic in its potential ramifications). Even still, this can turn malicious, quickly. Take, for instance, the case of He Jiankui, who with deception and forgery, implanted genetically-edited embryos into women – for his actions, he was jailed for 3 years. He completely forewent the informed consent of the women and fundamentally changed babies that otherwise had no defects. Informed consent is so important because people need to know what they are getting themselves into. When our ethical framework is as weak as it is now, cases of such misuse will abound if germline editing is widely allowed. 

More than just misuse, though, the technology is simply not ready to be used safely, especially on a germline scale. In an article by the National Institute of Health, it is shown that such gene editing technology is far too unsafe to be consistently used for germline editing. Any unintended editing can lead to cancer, and if not done properly, can lead to “genetic mosaicism” where only some cells see genetic alterations take hold. The article further illustrates the dangers of such changes – and, coupled with a lack of consent from the people the changes are being made to, it really is a complete ethical catastrophe. In addition to such ethical dilemmas, it can have ramifications for the human population as a whole in the future. Often, the goal of such gene editing is to remove disease-causing alleles. However, this may be secretly harmful to our population by reducing genetic diversity. According to the reputed PNAS, about a tenth of people in Africa are heterozygotic for sickle-cell anemia because it protects them from parasite-induced malaria from the mosquitoes surrounding them. If we blindly allow germline genetic editing with no regulation, we may remove all such disease-linked alleles, which could lead to a decline in evolutionary fitness in the long run by decreasing our diversity and adaptability. 

CRISPR and other gene-editing technologies will inevitably develop in the future. The best thing we can do to prevent such harmful uses of the technology, though, is to establish strong, global regulatory frameworks. Far-reaching international organizations like the UN, or the WHO, should dedicate a sector to regulating the technologies. More specifically, such germline editing should be completely banned until a scientific and moral consensus can be reached on whether or not the technology should be used. We also need to establish ethics committees to rigorously oversee all experimentation done with these technologies, as is common for all disciplines. The path forward is admittedly convoluted, but there is a future where gene editing is ultimately used for good. We just need to work to create that future. 

Bibliography

Li, Tianxiang, et al. “CRISPR/Cas9 Therapeutics: Progress and Prospects.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 16 Jan. 2023, www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01309-7.

Normile, Dennis. “Chinese scientist who produced genetically altered babies sentenced to 3 years in jail.” Science, 30 Dec. 2019. www.science.org/content/article/chinese-scientist-who-produced-genetically-altered-babies-sentenced-3-years-jail.  

Collins, Francis. “Experts Conclude Heritable Human Genome Editing Not Ready for Clinical Applications” NIH, 17 Sep. 2020. directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/09/17/experts-conclude-heritable-human-genome-editing-not-ready-for-clinical-applications/ 

Elguero, Eric, et al. “Malaria continues to select for sickle cell trait in Central Africa.” PNAS, 4 May 2015. pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1505665112