Aside from the safety risks, human genome editing poses some hefty ethical questions.

For families
who have watched their children suffer from devastating genetic diseases, the technology offers the
hope of editing cruel mutations out of the gene pool. For those living in poverty, it is yet another
way for the privileged to vault ahead. One open question is where to draw the line between disease
treatment and enhancement, and how to enforce it, considering differing attitudes toward
conditions such as deafness.

In an ideal world, we would like to think gene editing is beneficial as long as it benefits the human
life at stake. However, the world does not operate on a ceteris paribus. There are several other
factors in play and implications on other parties for gene therapy. The technology definitely offers a
breakthrough to get rid of the disabilities but only for the economically privileged. Families finally
have a way out to save their kids from terminal and life threatening diseases. But to what extent can
this be considered ethical? Using genetic modification to get rid of devastating diseases is perhaps
saving someone’s life, but scientists have also come up with genetic enhancement i.e. to tailor the
fetus according to the demands of the parents. Even though the principle of genetic engineering may
be the same, enhancing features and qualities is not the same as avoiding diseases. There needs to
be more research on whether altering features and creating the perfect “fetus” is ethical or not.

Since gene therapy is a fairly new innovation, there are considerable risks associated with it. A gene
cannot be directly inserted in the cell, it has to be transferred, placed via a vector. Most common
vectors used are viruses which have the potential to be rejected by the body. The modified gene
could also be mistakenly inserted in the incorrect place and damage the healthy cells around them.
There is a chance this may lead to more complications. If the corrective gene settles in the
reproductive organs - the sperm cells or the egg cells - the improper targeting would lead back to
square one with faulty genes being carried throughout generations. It also raises the concept of
autonomy where the individuals affected by gene therapy have not been born yet and hence they do
not have the authority to decide where to be a part of this innovation or not. This is probably why
political authorities are not releasing funds to be used in gene therapy for people.

The Mayo Clinic discloses the risks associated with it. These risks of failure to implement gene
therapy are also corroborated by the Genetic Science learning center at the University of UTAH. Both
these institutions are grounded in academic research, so their word on such matters can be
considered valid. These claims are supported with historical cases as well. There have been cases
where the human body fails to accept a foreign object (in organ transplants) and shuts down. From a
utilitarian point of view, for the benefit of many generations to come, gene therapy must be tested
on willing individuals to modify the procedures so a procedure can be determined. However, from
an individualistic school of thought, which holds the individual as a minority on its own, it would not
be ethical to test this technology on humans until there is surety of no repercussions.