{"id":130507,"date":"2024-09-16T12:07:56","date_gmt":"2024-09-16T16:07:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=130507"},"modified":"2024-09-23T12:10:07","modified_gmt":"2024-09-23T16:10:07","slug":"ethical-issues-of-crispr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/ethical-issues-of-crispr\/","title":{"rendered":"3 Ethical Issues of CRISPR Technology & Policies They Inspired"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Is it ethical to edit human genes? What are the potential consequences of CRISPR<\/a> technology?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Walter Isaacson explores the ethical issues of CRISPR technology in his book The Code Breaker<\/em>. He wades into the debates surrounding germline editing<\/a>, medical interventions versus enhancements, and the potential for increased inequality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Continue reading to discover the complex moral landscape of this groundbreaking technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Ethical Issues of CRISPR Technology<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In his book, Isaacson discusses what the advent of CRISPR technology means for society. First, we\u2019ll introduce the ethical issues of CRISPR gene editing. Then, we\u2019ll explain how scientists and policymakers have addressed these issues so far.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ethical Issue #1: Germline Editing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Isaacson says that most people think it\u2019s morally OK to edit somatic <\/em>cells\u2014non-reproductive cells that affect only an existing person\u2019s bodily composition. But people disagree about whether it\u2019s OK to edit <\/strong>germline <\/em><\/strong>cells<\/strong>, which include eggs and sperm. When you edit germline cells, you genetically modify potential future offspring, and the changes you make could be inherited by their <\/em>offspring as well. Isaacson describes a few opinions on each side of the debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some people who are against <\/em>germline editing argue that it\u2019s wrong because it\u2019s heretical or unnatural<\/strong>\u2014either God or nature (via evolution) designed our genes the way they are for a reason, so humans shouldn\u2019t interfere. Isaacson says this argument may not be logical: If nature or God endowed us with the ability to develop and use CRISPR, then using it can\u2019t <\/em>be unnatural or heretical. He also notes that genes aren\u2019t distributed fairly\u2014some people suffer more than others for no reason other than the luck of the genetic draw\u2014and we may be morally obligated to even the playing field. However, Isaacson recognizes some existential risks<\/a> of germline editing: We might develop hubris and become ungrateful for what nature or God gave us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some people who are in favor of <\/em>germline editing argue that we have a moral duty to set our children up for success.<\/strong> Philosopher Julian Savulescu calls this stance \u201cprocreative beneficence.\u201d Isaacson says that germline editing would accomplish this goal more efficiently than somatic editing. To illustrate, consider the blood disorder called sickle cell disease: Somatic edits can cure individuals, but germline edits could prevent their descendants from developing sickle cell disease in the first place. Theoretically, this would improve human life by leaps and bounds. But there\u2019s also a downside to making germline edits\u2014we might decrease genetic diversity, which is an evolutionary disadvantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ethical Issue #2: Interventions vs. Enhancements<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Isaacson says that scientists aren\u2019t likely to abandon germline editing research, so society must determine under what conditions <\/em>germline editing should occur. He describes a continuum of conditions that are under heavy debate by experts in the field. Many people believe germline editing is only OK when it serves as a medical intervention<\/em><\/strong> (with sickle cell, for example). They don\u2019t believe it\u2019s OK to unnecessarily enhance <\/em>germline cells (like editing genes to make children conventionally attractive). They view genetic enhancements the way most people view the use of performance enhancement drugs in sports\u2014they give people an unfair advantage and undermine the significance of talent, merit, and success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But Isaacson explains that the boundary between interventions and enhancements is sometimes unclear<\/strong>\u2014for example, acne is both a medical and cosmetic issue. This issue becomes even murkier when we consider that certain genes often have disadvantages and <\/em>advantages. For example, inheritable mental illnesses are associated with higher creativity. If we edited out mental illnesses to reduce suffering<\/a>, it might have a negative effect on the arts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ethical Issue #3: Inequality<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Finally, Isaacson says that many people are concerned that the advent of human gene editing technology could exacerbate inequality.<\/strong> Gene editing therapies of all <\/em>types\u2014somatic and germline, interventions and enhancements\u2014are likely to be extremely costly. Therefore, they\u2019d only be available to wealthy people. In the case of germline edits, the edits would be inheritable, which means wealthy people\u2019s descendants would be genetically advantaged. Over time, this could significantly widen the gap between rich and poor people\u2014wealth and poverty would be inscribed in our genetic makeup, leading to clearly apparent differences in our features and abilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Shortform note: It\u2019s possible that non-human<\/em> gene editing could exacerbate global inequalities, too. Experts note that CRISPR is<\/a> transforming the agricultural industry, as scientists use gene editing to produce more nutritious food sources<\/a> that are less susceptible to blight, other diseases, and drought. This seems like a good thing on its face\u2014but these methods are costly to research, develop, and implement, and they may not be accessible to low-GDP nations<\/a>. Thus, CRISPR\u2019s use in agriculture may widen the gap between rich and poor people on a global scale, which may in turn be genetically inscribed due to the inheritable epigenetic consequences of poor nutrition<\/a>. Some experts are therefore calling for the democratization of CRISPR gene editing technology<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For this reason, writes Isaacson, some detractors<\/a> argue that gene editing should be strictly regulated (if it\u2019s allowed at all) so that it can only benefit society, not make it worse. On the other hand, some proponents of gene editing believe that free-market capitalism<\/a> entitles us to make the best choices available to us given our individual means. For those on this side of the debate, individual freedoms outweigh any concern for the potential cumulative effects gene editing may have on society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Shortform note: When it comes to public health, barriers to regulation are growing. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1905 that the government has the right to supersede individual freedoms to protect public health<\/a> when necessary; this ruling served as the basis of government-mandated health regulations like quarantines and mask requirements during the Covid-19 pandemic, and it\u2019s also used to justify the enforcement of vaccination programs. But the growing tension between individual freedom and collective responsibility (exacerbated by the anti-vaccination movement<\/a> and Covid-related political developments<\/a>) may result in ideological barriers to CRISPR regulation alongside already-existing bureaucratic barriers to regulation<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n