Salmi-Perry 1

Julian Salmi-Perry

Prof. Goldman

Language Arts B2

December 17, 2019

The Ethics of Genetic Engineering with a Focus on Human Genome Editing

Earth.

It’s a big place. It’s a big place that, for better or for worse, is packed full of stuff.

Flowers, trees, birds, bees, and people are just a fraction of the life that inhabits this beautiful

planet. On the surface, life seems different. A slug bears no resemblance to a porcupine, nor does

a pickle look like a flamingo. But all living things are, in actuality, made of the same stuff. And

no, “stuff” doesn’t refer to atoms, which can refer to approximately 118 (a number which will

inevitably go up) different things. “Stuff” refers to bases, or nucleotides to be more precise.

These four bases comprise a universal language for (nearly) all life on the planet. It’s probably

obvious by this point; “stuff” is DNA. Deoxyribonucleic acids are what those trees, birds, bees,

and people are made of, and while it seems like the building blocks of life are largely

uninfluenced by humans, that couldn’t be further from the truth. The influence on these building

blocks is known as genetic engineering, and it will have a profound impact on the world.

Genetic engineering has been around for thousands of years, unbeknownst to the very

people utilizing it. This process is called selective breeding and was the beginning of genetic

manipulation. It was also the first step for humans toward perfect gene editing. The second major

step (that wasn’t the discovery of DNA) took place in 1890 when a rabbit was the first animal to
 Salmi-Perry 2

be born using in-vitro fertilization. This feat proved to the scientific community that it was

possible to grow animals, and potentially humans, outside the uterus. 78 years later, in 1968,

endonucleases were discovered. Endonucleases are enzymes that can precisely cut DNA, so this

meant that, in theory, humans would be able to insert genes anywhere we want. And, just as

people hypothesized, the first genetically modified animal, a mouse, was created and born in

1974.

Four years after, something groundbreaking happened. Louise Brown came into the

world on June 25th, 1978 and was the first human to be born using in-vitro fertilization. The

gates on human genetic engineering had been opened, and there was no going back. This event

helped bring genetics towards the most promising, and perhaps most controversial,

accomplishment in human genetic engineering to ever take place. An international group of

scientists used a gene editing system to change a human embryo’s gene that caused heart disease.

This meant that any potential flaw within a person could be corrected. Some prefered the word

tampered, or changed, or destroyed, but the fact remained; when it came to genetic engineering,

nothing was impossible.

Genetic engineering is the process of intentionally adding new, foreign DNA into an

organism. The purpose is to give an organism traits that it did not previously have. Sometimes

it’s to enhance; sometimes it’s to change; and sometimes it’s just to see what’ll happen. A type

of genetic engineering called gene editing or genome editing allows scientists manipulate the

DNA of any organism they choose. Recently, there’s been a focus on animals or, more

specifically, on humans. The overall best method of gene editing (as of 2018) is CRISPR.

CRISPR stands for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, and is a

naturally occuring system of processes that is meant to help bacteria while they defend
 Salmi-Perry 3

themselves from viruses. The process starts with a sample of viral DNA captured by bacteria.

Then, an RNA copy is made and delivered to an enzyme called Cas9. The elite, assassin-like

enzyme scans all the genes it comes in contact with for DNA that matches perfectly with the

RNA it’s using for reference. Once it finds a perfect match, it cuts out the viral DNA, so it can’t

harm the bacteria. The reason this matters is because all of these processes already exist, which

makes scientists’ jobs incredibly easy. It’s so easy that they can literally just inject a copy of the

target DNA into a CRISPR system, place it in a cell, and it’ll cut the cell DNA in exactly the

right place almost every time. Because of the accuracy of the Cas9 enzyme, scientists (or any

layperson) have the ability to insert DNA in between genes with mind-boggling precision. The

cell’s own repair proteins will even connect the foreign DNA to the cell DNA, no extra work

required. CRISPR is ahead of its gene editing competition because it’s faster, cheaper, more

accurate, and more efficient than other existing genome editing methods.

There can be many positive effects from editing genes. On a microscopic scale, people

can remove individual genes from an organism to remove traits. Conversely, we can add genes to

add traits. An example of this is the process removing genes that cause an increased risk of

disease in order to improve an organism’s future health. In fact, Stanford Medicine has recently

found that the currently incurable sickle-cell cell disease, a condition that causes red blood cells

to break down, can potentially be cured via CRISPR (Shwartz). Sickle-cell is just one of the

many gene-related diseases that CRISPR could impact.

Perhaps the most infamous, most talked about disease that gene editing could positively

affect is cancer. Cancer is directly linked to malfunctions in cells and, consequently, genes. With

gene editing, scientists could remove any predispositions to cancer someone has before they are

even born. Cancer can run in families, but tools like CRISPR would be able to cut off that
 Salmi-Perry 4

inheritance cycle people have been struggling with for so long. Researchers are very close to

finding the right path to the cure for cancer: “Researchers have genetically engineered immune

cells and improved the ability of these cells to kill cancer cells in mice” (National Cancer

Institute). Gene editing is so powerful that people may even be able to let their own bodies to the

work. This would be the safest, easiest, and most cost-effective solution. As CRISPR has

demonstrated, the mechanisms inside organisms are powerful, so they might as well be utilized.

On a macroscopic level, gene editing is much easier to understand. This is partially due to

the fact that people are constantly and unknowingly seeing it in action. Everyone knows about

GMOs when it comes to plants, like how genetically modified crops can be made to have larger

yields, be different sizes, and even taste different. But there’s another side to GMOs people are

largely unaware of. Because scientists are able to insert genes from one organism into another,

there has been a lot of haphazard experimentation. One of the most well known instances of

seemingly useless gene experimentation, at least on the internet, was the glow-in-the-dark rabbit.

Researchers put a bioluminescence gene from a jellyfish into a rabbit to see what would happen,

and it made the rabbit glow. It sounds too simple to be true, but that’s really it. Nowadays,

genetically modified, glow-in-the-dark organisms are pretty mainstream. The glowing, neon fish

found at most pet stores, dubbed GloFish by the company that engineered them, are

commercially available, and most people don’t even realize they are genetically modified

organisms.

While all of these amazing, futuristic wonders are made possible because of CRISPR and

tools like it, there are a number of ethical dilemmas associated with the ability to alter the genes

of human beings. The first and most widely debated dilemma is the concept of designer babies.

The idea of designer babies is that a parent could, quite literally, customize their child before
 Salmi-Perry 5

birth. More specifically, they could decide the eye color, skin color, hair color, and so on while

the baby is an embryo. Even the sex of the baby would be a choice. They could decide what

body type it has, and even influence its intelligence, way of thinking, natural talents, and

emotions. Anything that genes control could be a potential customization option in the world of

designer babies that may or may not be coming. This is a real hurtle in the field of gene editing,

as people aren’t quite sure where the line between customization and remedy is.

To go even further, the possibility of enhanced humans is not an unlikely one. According

to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, “...genome editing brings up a number of ethical

challenges, including whether or not it would be permissible to enhance normal human traits.”

This dilemma is one that Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director of the Center for Genetics and

Society, speaks about:

From a policy perspective, how would we draw the distinction between a medical and

enhancement purpose for germline modification? In which category would we put short

stature, for example? We know that taller people tend to earn more money. So do people

with paler skins. Should arranging for children with financially or socially “efficient”

varieties of height and complexion be considered medical intervention? (Harris and

Darnovsky)

Because there are inherent genetic benefits that normally would come down to luck, the idea that

these benefits could be chosen is widely seen as wrong by Darnovsky and people like her.

The furthest one could take the idea of enhanced humans is the eventuality of

superhumans. If there is nothing to stop gene editing from making people super strong, super

fast, and super intelligent, then it will happen eventually. Stanford bioethicist Hank Greely thinks

people are blowing this idea out of proportion. He says, “People are worried about enhancement,
 Salmi-Perry 6

using CRISPR to give babies superpowers, but we don’t know any genes that give people

superpowers” (Shwartz). So even though the ability to change genes is very real, the ability to

give people superpowers is far less real.

There is also a darker side to gene editing. Some think it’s a way to practicalize

something as radical as eugenics (King). Something that was once considered a pseudoscience

could be made very, very real. In the book Designer Babies, this idea is expanded upon: “The

use (and abuse) of advanced fertility technology that evokes fears of Gattaca, Brave New World,

and, of course, the Nazi’s quest for a blonde, blue-eyed race of Aryans continues apace” (Naff

33). People can only hope that in the modern world this idea is just fantasy, but others like

Darnovsky are not so positive:

In opening the door to one kind of germline modification, we are likely opening it to all

kinds. Permitting human germline gene editing for any reason would likely lead to its

escape from regulatory limits, to its adoption for enhancement purposes, and to the

emergence of a market-based eugenics that would exacerbate already existing

discrimination, inequality, and conflict. We need not and should not risk these outcomes.

(Harris and Darnovsky)

The list of equality-based issues doesn’t end there. The National Human Genome Research

Institute states, “As with many new technologies, there is concern that genome editing will only

be accessible to the wealthy and will increase existing disparities in access to health care and

other interventions” (NHGRI). If gene editing is commercialized, that could lead to a world

where the rich are genetically superior to the poor; quite an unsettling thought.

Another plight of gene editing is the notion that “it’s impossible to obtain informed

consent for germline therapy [gene editing that is hereditary] because patients affected by the
 Salmi-Perry 7

edits are the embryo and future generations” (National Human Genome Research Institute).

Basically, if the embryo and future generations are unable to consent to the editing of their genes,

it shouldn’t be allowed. This idea of consent is countered by John Harris, professor emeritus in

science ethics at University of Manchester, U.K. Regarding consent, he flatly declares that “this

makes no sense at all.” Harris further states, “We have literally no choice but to make decisions

for future people without considering their consent. All parents do this all the time, either

because the children are too young to consent, or because they do not yet exist” (Harris and

Darnovsky).

This is a swaying argument, but there is a rebuttal for even that: “Germline alterations

pose much greater ethical concerns. A mistake could harm future individuals by placing that

mistake in every cell” (Andrew). So, even though a fixed gene would be passed down to a

person’s descendants (sparing them from needing gene editing in the future), a botched gene

would as well, potentially harming people that have yet to even be born.

There are certainly many ethical dilemmas concerning human genome editing, and until

now, these dilemmas have simply been speculation. But recently, on November 26, 2018,

Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced that he had made the world’s first genetically modified

babies. He used CRISPR to edit twin embryos in order to make them resistant to HIV. The twin

girls were born safely and appear normal, but He has been condemned by scientists all over the

world. Not only is the use of genetically modified embryos in pregnancies illegal in most

countries (including China), but many scientists think it’s far too soon to begin trials on live

humans. Professor Julian Savulescu, an ethics expert at the University of Oxford, was horrified

at the news, and said that the experiment “was monstrous.” He elaborated by saying, “Gene

editing itself is experimental and is still associated with off-target mutations, capable of causing
 Salmi-Perry 8

genetic problems early and later in life, including the development of cancer. This experiment

exposes healthy normal children to risks of gene editing for no real necessary benefit” (BBC

News). While many like Savulescu have rejected He’s experiment vehemently, John Harris had a

completely different response:

Certainly we need to know as much as possible about the risks of gene-editing human

embryos before such research can proceed. But when the suffering and death caused by

such terrible single-gene disorders as cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease might be

averted, the decision to delay such research should not be made lightly. Just as justice

delayed is justice denied, so, too, therapy delayed is therapy denied. That denial costs

human lives, day after day. (National Geographic)

It seems that the human race is rapidly moving towards a world where genetic customization is

the norm. In this soon-to-not-be theoretical world, virtually all disease would be eliminated,

including most cancers. If parents wanted their kids to have red eyes for only aesthetic reasons,

they could. The enhancements might never end, at least until humans reached their peak

potential, if there even is one.

Genetic engineering, more specifically genome editing, will be a monumental influence

on human society in the coming years. Whether it’s because it might lead to the next step in

human evolution, or because the debates will lead to massive conflict, there’s no denying how

important it will be (and is) to the entire world. Soon, there will be massive change, and Earth

will be a completely different place. Famine? Nope, there are currently crops being developed

that can be mass produced, require barely any water, and have massive yields. Disease? Nope,

that’ll be gone too. Genetic defenses can be engineered for just about anything nature can throw

at humans. This future of seemingly utopian glory is possible, but it’s up to society push towards
 Salmi-Perry 9

it. Progress doesn’t happen on it’s own. Will people keep pushing the limits of humanity and

ethical boundaries, or will they decide that something or someone has gone too far, and stay safe

from potential peril? Right now, it’s impossible to say for sure, but one thing is certain: humans

have the power to change themselves, and it’s up the people to decide how they use it.

Works Cited

Andrew, Elise. “Genome Editing Poses Ethical Problems That We Cannot Ignore.”

IFLScience, IFLScience, 20 Mar. 2018, www.iflscience.com/health-and-

medicine/genome-editing-poses-ethical-problems-we-cannot-ignore/.

“CRISPR Gene-Editing Tool May Help Improve Cancer Immunotherapy.” National

Cancer Institute, National Cancer Institute, 20 Apr. 2017, www.cancer.gov/news-

events/cancer-currents-blog/2017/crispr-immunotherapy.

“'Gene-Edited Babies': China Halts Work of He Jiankui.” BBC News, BBC, 29 Nov.

2018, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-46382662.
 Salmi-Perry 10

Harris, John, and Marcy Darnovsky. “Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed

on Human Embryos?” National Geographic, National Geographic, 26 Nov. 2018,

www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-gene-editing-pro-con-opinions/.

King, David. “Editing the Human Genome Brings Us One Step Closer to Consumer

Eugenics | David King.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 4 Aug. 2017,

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/04/editing-human-genome-consumer-

eugenics-designer-babies.

Naff, Clay Farris. Designer Babies. Greenhaven Press, 2013.

Shwartz, Mark, et al. “CRISPR Is a Gene-Editing Tool That's Revolutionary, Though Not

without Risk.” Stanford Medicine, Stanford Medicine, 2018,

stanmed.stanford.edu/2018winter/CRISPR-for-gene-editing-is-revolutionary-but-it-

comes-with-risks.html.

“What Are Genome Editing and CRISPR-Cas9? - Genetics Home Reference - NIH.”

U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 18 Dec. 2018,

ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/genomeediting.

“What Are the Ethical Concerns about Genome Editing?” National Human Genome

Research Institute (NHGRI), National Human Genome Research Institute, 3 Dec. 2017,

www.genome.gov/27569225/what-are-the-ethical-concerns-about-genome-editing/.