This proposal addresses whether regulation or legislation against gene-editing technology is necessary to address its potentially negative implications at such an early period in its development. (The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, whose information can be found below.)
Big Picture:
CRISPR–Cas9 is an emerging gene editing technology that can be used in the treatment of chronic diseases and cancers. Early research has shown that patients involved in clinical trials have seen improving outcomes because of the technology’s effectiveness. Other uses include engineering plants to withstand the effects of climate change and mutating mosquitos to be less transmissible for malaria. However, ethical controversies arise when considering the technology’s use in early human germ lines (sex cells). Though it is not fully feasible today to use this technology for genetic enhancement, such as designer babies, the ethical questions this technology generates remains an issue. Equity and accessibility are the primary ethical implications of the usage of CRISPR-Cas9. Because CRISPR-Cas9 is such a new technology — with the landmark paper having been published in Science in 2012 — the potential for off-target effects and unintended consequences emerging in later years is a concern. In the case of gene enhancement, it is necessary to make sure that introducing these enhancements will not put the embryo at greater risk. As research and clinical trials involving the usage of CRISPR-Cas9 technology continue, further scientific, medical, and ethical implications will likely emerge. It is important to note that this technology has developed quickly and is even available to the average person who, equipped with the necessary biological knowledge, can perform basic CRISPR experimentation through the internet. This information would suggest that there are less serious implications that emerge from CRISPR-Cas9 experimentation. Rather, the ethical questions emerge at the therapeutic and human embryonic levels. The question remains whether regulation or legislation against this technology is necessary to address these implications at such an early period in its development.
Operative Definitions:
Important Statistics and Facts:
3-Point Plan:
Why This Initiative is Important:
When a treatment is developed for a single disease or condition, it must be thoroughly evaluated for its efficacy. When a technology like CRISPR-Cas9, which has the potential to treat a multitude of conditions, emerges, it is essential to make sure that it is efficacious at all levels and in all patients. The use of CRISPR technology as a therapy to treat genetic diseases is commonly accepted; however, its use as a means of genetic enhancement - especially in the case of the ethical question of designer babies - remains to be seen. There exist a number of ethical, scientific, technological, and economic implications that could arise from the use of this technology for genetic enhancement reasons that do not exist when using the treatment as a gene therapy for a genetic disease. A potential low-to-moderate risk for off-target effects might be justified in a patient with a malignant or fatal cancer, but not for an embryo for which parents would desire to choose certain characteristics or traits (blue eyes, intelligence, athleticism, etc.). It is necessary to evaluate the potential risks this technology poses and also to determine the ethical implications of genetic enhancement.
Acknowledgments:
The following student worked on this nonpartisan proposal: Sahiti R. Karnati, Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health.
Note: Not all participants agree with every aspect of this proposal. To arrive at a proposal that takes multiple views into account requires compromise and difficult decisions. For individual commentary on this proposal and more detail, go to ournationalconversation.org. We invite you to add your comments as well.
Works Cited:
Angelakos, Christopher C., and Ted Abel. “Molecular Genetic Strategies in the Study of Corticohippocampal Circuits.” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, vol. 7, no. 7, July 2015, https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a021725.
Balch, Bridget. “The Future of CRISPR Is Now.” AAMC, Association of American Medical
Colleges , 2 Dec. 2021, www.aamc.org/news-insights/future-crispr-now.
Cyranoski, David. “The CRISPR-Baby Scandal: What's next for Human Gene-Editing.” Nature
News, Nature Publishing Group, 26 Feb. 2019, www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00673-1.
Evers, Matthias, and Michael Chui. “The Promise and Peril of the Bio Revolution.” McKinsey &
Company, McKinsey & Company, 26 Jan. 2021, www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/in-the-news/the-promise-and-peril-of-the-bio-revolution.
“Gene Editing Market Size to Reach USD 18.50 Billion in 2028: Industry Trend – Extensive Use of
Gene Editing in Development of Personalized Medicine.” BioSpace, BioSpace, 15 Feb. 2022, www.biospace.com/article/gene-editing-market-size-to-reach-usd-18-50-billion-in-2028-industry-trend-extensive-use-of-gene-editing-in-development-of-personalized-medicine/.
“United States: Therapeutic / Stem Cell - Global Gene Editing Regulation ...” Global Gene Editing
Regulation Tracker, Genetic Literacy Project, www.crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/united-states-gene-therapy-stem-cells/.