Ethical Concerns

Why is There Some Negative Buzz Around Crispr?

In short, many people are worried about altering the human genome when these inserted or deleted traits are passed down through reproduction. Many other people do not have a solid background on Crispr, therefore it is hard to form an opinion or make an informed decision regarding it. Another issue that arises is who gets to use this new technology? How expensive will it be? How will it be determined what can be altered and what cannot? There are many "what ifs" when it comes to Crispr that have a negative connotation. The general public is typically hesitant when it comes to new biotechnology since once it is used, there is no going back. If a scientist uses Crispr on a child to cure Hepatitis B, then it would be morally wrong to turn down other patients with the same health issue, and a cascade effect would ensue.

Private vs. Publicly Funded Laboratories

If private laboratories were to get permission to use Crispr, then there would be no means of regulating its usage. Private laboratories could use it to make "designer babies" or for uses that are not strictly to improve general health. Sort of like plastic surgery, these laboratories could use Crispr to change traits that people are fine with keeping, but do not desire or like. Not only could private laboratories do this, but they could place enormous prices on using Crispr, thus keeping it away from many of the people who need it most. Sufferers in a third world country would not be able to use it, and many average Americans would also be at a loss. Publicly funded laboratories would be able to set the use of Crispr at a reasonable price and only use it when necessary. Who is to say private or public? Some argue that private promotes business and the economy and prevents usage from spiraling out of control. Others argue that public laboratories are more ethically sound and accessible.

Another issue lies in funding for the actual genetic therapy itself. For families that want to have children but can pass down their diseased genes, there is a question on who would pay for the therapy. There are a few possibilities:

Insurance companies would cover the price of the treatment.
People would individually have to pay for the treatment, meaning only peole who are in the upper classes who can afford the treatmehnt will be able to receive it.
- If this happens, then members of lower socio-economic classes will have a disproportionate rate of disease burden. If only members of the lower classes are battling a certain type of disease, then there may not be enough attention on those diseases to receive research on treatment and care.

Who Gets to Use Crispr?

Two words come to mind when discussing Crispr usage: slippery slope. After using this biotech tool on some patients who are ill, it would be hard to deny it to others who are ill. If a mother and her sick child come to the office, who says they have the right to use it over another mother and her sick child? Living on a world that is already growing immensely in population, there is already a strain of resources. By taking away diseases and illness, there will be a significantly lower death rate and less resources. Some believe that this is the main reason Crispr is dangerous: with an increasing population, there needs to be death. Although this sounds grusome, it is a valid point that voices why biotech tools can be so dangerous. Earth can only sustain populations to a certain point, and with babies in future generations being born with ideal traits due to Crispr, there will be even larger populations. Then again, it is also unethical to keep this treatment away from those who need it. A family with a suffering child will not care about the larger implications if it gets to save their childs life. We have Crispr in our hands to use in the future, and in some ways, it would also be foolish not to use it. This is the reason why it is a slippery slope: it is unethical to use it on everyone due to the possible deterioration of the earth, but it is also unethical to keep it from those who are suffering.

How Could Crispr Alter the Genome?

Many biotech tools, including some applications of Crispr, focus on editing Somatic cells. Somatic cells are non-reproductive, therefore any changes made to them will not be passed down from a parent to their offspring. Any change to a somatic cell will produce less dramatic of a change, and virtually no change in the genome of humans. Germline cells, however, are now being introduced for usage with Crispr-Cas9. These cells are reproductive cells, and offspring of those with edited reproductive cells can pass these traits down. After many generations, the human genome would eventually change: traits would leave or enter the genome. Changes in the germline would be present in future generations. In the UK and many other countries, editing DNA using reproductive cells is illegal and likely will be for many years due to this fear. Crispr usage in somatic cells has proved in the past to be uncontroversial. In a small number of life threatening cases, Crispr has been used to save the day. Germline genome editing has not yet been proven safe through research, due to edits that may happen in the wrong spot or when some cells have the edit but others do not. Of course, to many it sounds like a great idea to edit harmful diseases out of the genome for therapeutic uses, but it may be taken out of context. If made legal, some would try to use Crispr as a means of enhancement or "designing" certain traits in their offspring. While using the CRISPR gene can help to eliminate diseases, it can also be used to eliminate certain physical features, so the issue lies in whether we will be able to control it. This is what would have negative effects in the genome because not everyone wants the same traits. The human genome, undoubtedly would become more homogeneous.

Report abuse