Gene Editing

By Griffin Donaldson '18

As researchers continue to develop techniques for genome alteration such as the recently discovered CRISPR- Cas 9, it raises a moral question within the scientific community: Is it morally correct to “play god” and create humans with both enhanced intelligence and beauty? Analyzing this problem with immense focus, scientists have pondered the effect of interfering with human evolution. According to some, the long term consequences could potentially outweigh the short term benefits, creating a societal divide between people who can afford gene modifications, and those who cannot.

In understanding this issue it is imperative that one first grasps the concept of the CRISPR- Cas 9 system, which, among others, is the gene editing approach that is currently causing the most controversy. Allowing scientists to remove, add or repair portions of a DNA sequence, the discovery of CRISPR- Cas 9 has enabled scientists to edit genes both faster and more efficiently– an unlikely set of improvements for such a complex process. While it is widely debated over who originally applied the CRISPR technique to prokaryotic cells, many believe that after a break through at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Feng Zhang, the assistant professor in Biological Engineering at MIT, was able to adapt the CRISPR system to manipulate mammalian DNA.

In the following months of Zhang’s discovery and especially recently, there has been much discussion over what kind of processes this system could be applied to. Ethics come into play as soon as you change the DNA in reproductive cells. By altering genes that would be inherited for all future generations, it would bring up an issue of denouncing entire disability groups by taking their condition out of the mix, not to mention the issue of creating super humans… yikes.

But before you jump to the conclusion that scientists could completely change the nature of humanity with a snip of DNA here and there, it must also be understood that researchers mainly focus on applying CRISPR towards a range of medical conditions that involve a genetic component. These conditions include things like hepatitis B, multiple different forms of cancer, and even high cholesterol.

In order for a preliminary line to be drawn on where curing genetic diseases, and the conception of upgraded humans meets, a panel consisting of members from The National Academies of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine convened to articulate guidelines on the use of CRISPR and other gene editing tools. Making significant progress, the panel decided that heritable changes will only be made when evidence suggests that a patient is at severe risk of a disease or condition, and when their regular genetic code is found. Additionally, scientists should only intervene when there is no other option available to a family.

Will the discussion end there? Of course not. However, science is definitely moving in the right direction. I guess the good news is Vogue won’t start genetically creating models…. At least not anytime soon.

Brown, Kristen V. "Here's Why Today's Decision on Who Invented CRISPR Matters." Www.gizmodo.com. N.p., 15 Feb. 2017. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.

Editorial Board, ed. "A Way Forward For Gene Editing." Www.WashingtonPost.com. N.p., 18 Feb. 2017. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.

"Gene Editing, Clones, and the Science of Making Babies." Www.theeconomist.com. N.p., 18 Feb. 2017. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.

Harmon, Amy. "Human Gene Editing Receives Science Panel's Support." Www.nytimes.com. N.p., 14 Feb. 2017. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.