1 Patel

Jiya Patel

Mrs. Fezjullai

American Literature II

20 March 2023

The Downfall of Science

Are people en route to becoming the next Frankensteins? With more people deciding to

have their children and themselves undergoing genetic modifications, it appears that way.

Frankenstein, a literary classic novel by Mary Shelly, describes a genetically engineered monster

that becomes murderous due to isolation and loneliness faced by society and the abuse faced by

its creator. The novel provides a parallel to a possible future society, in which science has been

taken too far. As genome editing methods, such as CRISPR, are brought into the spotlight,

individuals’ interests in the field are peaked. CRISPR is a powerful means of genetic editing, in

which DNA is cut with precision, letting DNA naturally repair the cut segment. The negative

consequences of this technology, on the other hand, are disregarded. Genetic modifications have

paved way for unethical behavior, and a disregard for one’s quality of life and creates a hierarchy

between those with and without genetic modifications.

Scientists that are conducting genetic modifications on embryos are disregarding all

established ethical grounds. Curiosity is rooted in human nature, so it is expected that scientists

are trying to push the limits to see the possible beneficial outcomes of genetic editing

technology. Yet, when the limits are pushed too far, the ethical basis that the technology has

been built on entirely ends up being disregarded. As a consequence of that, not only is it harming

those who are in the society, but entirely discrediting the moral and ethical foundation that the

medical and scientific community is praising themselves on. There is no doubt that the ethics of
 2 Patel

genetic editing have been taken too far, a prime example being Chinese scientist He Jiankui, who

had disabled the CCR5 gene, preventing the experimented gene-edited children from inheriting

their father's HIV infection by using CRISPR-Cas9. It was shocking to the scientific community,

because he disregarded morals and ethics, implanting the genetically edited embryos in the

mother’s womb for reproductive purposes (Botting 1). This event sparked internal outrage, as

there were much safer and effective ways to achieve that goal which were must less controversial

(Stein 2). Although this may have seemed a beneficial approach to prevent the couple’s future

children from having a difficult life, it was entirely unethical. Producing two children who have

undergone genetic alterations unknowing of how their life will come to pass throughout their

lifetimes. This did not only make them susceptible to the judgment of others but to their own

health and well-being.

Scientists propose that there was no purpose for the twin’s genetic engineering. Professor

Julian Savulescu stated, “It had no moral or scientific justification, given that the medical

profession can successfully prevent fathers from transmitting HIV without genetic engineering”

(Botting 1). Further more Dr David King, Human Genetics Alert director argues that, “there are

already reliable ways of avoiding the conditions: “This is high-tech medicine at its worst and

most unnecessary” (World's First 'Three-Parent' Babies Could Be Born in the UK 2). This

exemplifies the fact that the genetic alterations were futile, furthermore indicating that scientists

will do specific immoral tasks for their own gain and fame. A question poses itself; If there was

no motive for these genetic modifications for the embryo, then why has it been done? The role of

ethics has been discussed extensively by researchers and bioethicists, stating that they are,

“concerned that any genome editing, even for therapeutic uses, will start us on a slippery slope to

using it for non-therapeutic and enhancement purposes, which many view as controversial,” and
 3 Patel

generally agree that, “until germline genome editing is deemed safe through research, it should

not be used for clinical reproductive purposes; the risk cannot be justified by the potential

benefits.” (NIH 1). As a whole, the scientific community has agreed that genome editing is not to

be used for reproductive purposes, but still many people have and will continue to use this

technology for erroneous intents. Whether that be to prevent a treatable disease, enhance certain

traits and characteristics of a human, or for their personal benefit. Genetic editing carries risks

that far outweigh any potential advantages. Ultimately, doing something wholly unjustifiable for

one’s own scientific gain is disingenuous.

In this current era of ever-evolving science, quality of life is frequently disregarded.

There is exclusively a focus on the short-term outcomes, as the long-term effects have yet to be

observed. Quality of life, over an immediate result, is what most desire, to live a happy and

healthy life. In spite of that, the people who undergo genetic modifications, such as savior

siblings, don’t get to experience such joys of life. A savior sibling is defined as, “a child who is

born to provide an organ, bone marrow or cell transplant, to a sibling that is affected with a fatal

disease”(Zuniga-Farjuri 1). With the help of genetic editing—in vitro fertilization and

preimplantation genetic diagnosis, these children are able to help their sick siblings treat their

fatal disease. In reality, to support and take care of their siblings, they are being neglected and

dehumanized.

In most cases, these young children pose as donation machines, constantly giving and

never receiving. The negative impact that genetic modification has on them can be observed,

“Both bone marrow and live organ transplants have been related to a number of psychosocial and

physiological risks for both donors and recipients. HSCT studies on infant donors show an

increase in stress and anxiety and lower self-esteem in donor siblings, as well as moderate levels
 4 Patel

of post-traumatic stress. The physiological problems that infant donors face often have to do with

the medicines used for anesthesia during the transplant procedure and the adverse effects of the

transplant itself” (Zuniga-Farjuri 6). The period in which genetic engineering on embryos is

conducted is short, and the results are immediate after the birth of the child. Regardless, the child

is the one who lives with the condition from childhood to adulthood and experiences the

milestones of life. When viewed from their perspective, a savior sibling faces nothing but

physiological and psychological trauma throughout the various stages of their lifetime. They

have to undergo transplants regularly, becoming weaker as a result of their efforts to help their

siblings deal with the disease. They may also sense that there is increased attentiveness towards

their sick sibling, while they are unwell in other ways. The feeling that they are only alive to help

their siblings survive harms their mental health, and this will become more prevalent in the

future as more genetically modified babies are born.

New methods of genetic modification have created a superiority and inferiority complex

between those with and without genetic modification. Throughout time we have seen the thirst to

be on top, status, and hierarchy become engraved in society. Those who are wealthy are at the

top and those who aren't are below them, in that same way, genetic editing will create a similar

problem. Wealthy people who can afford the costs of genetic modifications will produce children

who have more benefits than those who are not able to afford or have access to genetic

modification. Creating this mentality that whoever possesses any form of genetic alterations is

automatically categorized as superior, compared to those who have not undergone any

modification. Scientist He Jainkui performed genetic modifications on twins to eliminate their

inherited HIV. As a result of his experiment, he “left the second twin vulnerable to HIV—and

the control subject for the twin with both copies disabled” (Botting 1). By conducting this
 5 Patel

experiment, and leaving one of the twins susceptible to HIV, he has already paved the way for a

superiority and inferiority relationship between the twins. Questions have also been asked by

other researchers, “Researcher Maria Jasin of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

pointed out that this experiment might hurt the “family dynamics” among the twins and their

parents. One twin has been deliberately and permanently enhanced more than the other. How

will that affect the siblings — not only their health but also their relationships and

society?”(Botting 1). As they grow older, the second twin might realize that they are different

from their sibling; they may also face demeaning and snarky comments for being different than

their sibling, even though they both underwent genetic editing. This can result in an outward

expression of their relationship, but also inward feelings of being inferior because their sibling

has more medical benefits than them. As genetic modification becomes more common in daily

life, it can be expected that a divide will grow and a hierarchy will be created.

Future genetic modifications will soon reveal these negative effects on society and one’s

personal well-being. The development of unethical behavior, disregard for quality of life, and a

hierarchy between those with and without genetic modifications are all negative effects of this

technology. There are significant consequences to consider when it comes to genome editing, as

it can lead to unintended and unforeseen harm to both society and individuals at large. Moreover,

the widespread use of genome editing could result in social inequality, as the limited number of

people who can afford it would have access to the technology. Ethical concerns also arise,

highlighting the need for responsible use and regulation of genome editing technology. Genetic

editing, in the long and short term, is not effective or beneficial, despite how positively it is

shown in media. In addition, given how widely used genome editing is becoming, is it not

inevitable that we will fall to our own scientific demise?

 6 Patel

Works Cited

Botting, Eileen Hunt. “Analysis | A Chinese Scientist Says He Edited Babies' Genes. What Are

the Rights of the Genetically Modified Child?” The Washington Post, WP Company, 7

Dec. 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/12/06/a-

chinese-scientist-says-hes-edited-babies-genes-what-are-the-rights-of-the-genetically-

modified-child/

Stein, Rob. “New U.S. Experiments Aim to Create Gene-Edited Human Embryos.” NPR, NPR, 1

Feb. 2019,

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/02/01/689623550/new-u-s-experiments-

m-to-create-gene-edited-human-embryos

“What Are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing?” Genome.gov,

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-

concerns

“World's First 'Three-Parent' Babies Could Be Born in the UK.” The Guardian, Guardian News

and Media, 17 Dec. 2014,

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/17/three-parent-babies-uk-mitochondrial-

transfer-dna-ivf.

Zúñiga-Fajuri, Alejandra. “Born to Donate: Proposals for ‘Savior Sibling’ Regulation in Latin

America.” Colombia Medica (Cali, Colombia), U.S. National Library of Medicine, 30

Sept. 2018, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6220490/.