ADMN2406010
FINAL PROJECT
MUSTAFA NASEEM JAFRI
HARSHIL VAISHNAV
Title: Human Gene Editing Should Be Banned: A Moral and Ethical Analysis
Introduction
Gene editing in human beings especially through CRISPR-Cas9 system has been noticed to be
one of the most significant revolution in biotechnology. It means that scientists can change code
of individual organism with a great accuracy; this can lead to gene therapy for genetic disorders
eradication, change of meritorious and pernicious traits, and even human’s life span
prolongation. However, the given options put forward raise important ethical considerations.
Again, somatic editing has use in curing several diseases, as it only impacts the person being
treated while germline editing (or heritable editing which refers to the alteration of the DNA in
the reproductive cells and hence passing the changes to off springs) is a different story all
together.
This paper seeks to explain why germline editing specifically should not be allowed for some
reasons such as genetic predestination, misuse, violation of the principle of consent and dignity,
and risks and impacts on society. Using the supporters of gene editing and the arguments above,
this paper will argue as to why gene editing should not be legalized for use on humans.
Stakeholders
The first is the prospective parents and many of whom would want protect their offspring from
suffering from painful and terminal diseases that may be as a result of genetic disorders. As this
intention is quite reasonable, it should not be an excuse to modify the genetic system of the
future generations against their wish.
Future children are, in fact, the most affected stakeholders falling under the direct category as
they have to live with the consequences of energy practices for a long time. Germline editing
refers to the ability to modify something that becomes a permanent and inherited addition that
extends to the future generations. This children cannot consent for enhancement or
experimentation and may be affected adversely such as social prejudice.
The customer power is also created excluding people with disabilities as an important
stakeholder group. Critics within the disability rights movement say that Gene editing is taken in
a pretext of a eugenics frame thus implying that the lives of disabled person’s are not worth
living. This goes against all the social measures being taken to ensure equality, implementation
of inclusive design, and respect for the pre-instated value of human life irrespective of the
physical or mental condition of the individual.
This is because the resulting stratification down the line makes individuals related to the medical
profession, including scientists, stakeholders in the society. Some supporters see advantage in
eradicating diseases when they are one, while others are shocked by the shortage of trials and
possible consequences - a natural slide into voluntary enhancements.
Government and relevant authorities must also be taken into account. Some of the roles include
decision making in the formulation of public health policy and issues to do with emergence of
new technologies. As mentioned, there is no agreement on rules or ethical standards concerning
the use of gene editing, and this might result in international disparity and bioethical abuses.
People’s concerns rooted in religious and philosophical beliefs and the religious-philosophical
concerns of humanness, the preservation of life, the creation by God and its purpose, and the
impermissibility of playing God. Such groups play an important role to bring the moral compass
into the public sphere.
Pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are also a financial interest that significantly
benefits from the commercialization of gene editing services with little regard towards certain
moral checks on its applications.
Ethical Issues Involved
Of all the problems, one of the most concerning is consent violation. Germline editing impacts
future generations that cannot assent on the changes ailing or accommodating them. This poses a
couple of queries regarding the issue of autonomy, which is one of the principles of ethical
practice.
Another concern is related with the certain negative effects of the editing process. Negative
effects characterized by altered other parts of the genome are possible, which may lead to
mutations, diseases or developmental disorders. They can also be passed on the future
generations, which only aggravates the situation.
There is also the equity issue For instance, roll-out is usually characterised by disparities
concerning the amount of equity affecting various individuals. If gene editing is allowed, it will
probably be very costly, and only roughly right for the elite social class; this will produce a class
of people with limited genes and increased social inequality. This could lead to a form of genetic
classism which should not be a desirable outcome of the practice of pre-implantation diagnosis.
Also, there is the negative aspect associated with the idea of a slippery slope. If the society
accepts gene editing for treatment purposes only where it has the capacity to provide treatment
for certain diseases, then where does it draw the line when individuals decide to use it for either
beauty or intelligence purposes’? This leads to the conception of a society of people that will be
genetically created a priori from厂Xi-29
Another factor is what is referred as commodification of human life, where a human being is
reduced to nothing more than a mere piece of property. In this case, children are looked at as
commodities with characteristics that can be altered disregarding their value as humans and
parenting becomes a business of modifying them.
Applicable Laws and Policies
The Assisted Human Reproduction Act of Canada has banned germline genetic modification
exclusively for the purpose of conception. Any violation is punishable under the criminal law
and such a punishment may include the imposition of a fine and/or imprisonment.
Current there is no federal ban of germline editing in the United States, but the FDA is prohibited
from reviewing such applications, thus put in limbo germline editing’s clinical application for
now.
Forty years later the European Union has opted for the law signed in Oviedo, Spain that prohibits
any heritable modification of the genome.
Other examples include the 2018 CRISPR baby scandal where in China, He Jiankui who
conducted experiments that regarding embryo editing led to the public outrage and eventually the
enhancement of laws regarding the same. He was sent to jail, and China provided more
information on human embryos modification.
Internationally, UNESCO has issued the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and
Human Rights which calls states to ban germline therapy which can be inherited as well as for
society to ponder the consequences for human dignity.
Deontological (Kantian) Arguments
For second, it also poses the question: against gene editing With all strictness of Kantian ethics
the principle of humanity shall be required never to use humans simply as a means to an end.
Using gene editing in embryos puts the child at the service of their parents or the society, in as
much as it is a product of the parent’s gene choice or a product of the society. This is a negation
of their dignified status and self-sufficiency.
In support of gene editing: There is much that pits utilitarian considerations,/resource
considerations, those moral obligations which require one to prevent suffering at the earliest
when one is in possession of the tools that can help alleviate suffering. As such if you can edit a
gene to save a child from a painful disease then it may be said that it is meeting some sort of
moral imperative to act beneficenly.
Utilitarian (Consequence-Based) Arguments
Against gene editing: The risks outweigh the benefits. This makes sense when thinking of the
several instances when mistakes carried in the germline can affect millions of people for
generations to come. While it may seem that certain diseases can be beneficial than to have
uncalculated interference with genes.
For Gene editing: If the diseases such as Huntington’s or cystic fibrosis could be eliminated by
gene editing it can be argued that the happiness and well-being of the entire humanity would rise,
thus this would be considered to be a positive action.
Other Ethical Theories
Divine Command Theory: There are many religious approaches which believe that every human
being should not interfere with the genome. Life is herein viewed as a deity that should not be
tampered with or changed by human whim.
On the same note, Socrates and Plato’s Healthy soul theory deals with the health of one’s soul as
well as the society. Taking the example of genetic manipulation, the toil of using such a science
is arrogance, and is characteristic of an irrational psyche, causing degeneration.
This paper identifies that according to virtue ethics a human being should possess virtues such as
humility, wisdom and virtues relating to nature. The act of an attempt towards changing human
genes can be seen as arrogance and an inability to avoid excess, especially for the purposes of
enhancing a person.
Enlightened Self-Interest (Egoism): It seems to be in one’s self-interest to edit to create “better”
offspring but one might need to consider such logical implications of editing: Mid and Long term
consequences, societal backlash, regulation, ethical implications of editing all nullify it.
Rawls Justice: The principle of justice states that if people had no idea about what position they
would occupy in the society, no one would agree to be in a society where only those who can
afford it can get genetic enhancements. Hence, a just society will generally safeguard the dignity
of the least privileged.
Ethics of care accepts the doctrines of relational or dependency on others and the doctrine of care
outlined by Feminist theories. It commercializes children denying their right to existence outside
of a narrow bubble, takes a toll on maternal-fetal relations and is based on efficiency rather than
empathy.
Case Studies
In 2018 a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui genetically enhanced embryos of twin girls so that they
would be protected from HIV. Many scientists considered this as reckless and unethical in the
global society. He faced imprisonment, however the accident cemented threat of misuse of such
technologies where there are weak or no controls in place.
Clinical trials of somatic editing and other applications (i.e., trials related to sickle cell anemia)
have been observed in the U.S.A. without the germline editing. These are the examples of using
gene editing for treatment with no inheritable risks that are involved.
Research work carried out by Pew Research Centre shows that today’s American society
supports the use of gene editing for treatment of diseases but does not support the use of gene
editing for non-therapeutic purposes such as increasing intelligence or beauty. This is in line with
general society’s perceived negative connotations associated with the technology.
Future Implications
Such normalization of human gene editing might culminate in making superpeople the new
privileged group of people in society. These are tendencies can cause the growth homophonic
pressure, which might result in genetic uniformity and make people more susceptible to diseases.
There’s the factor of genetic competition where nation seeks to produce superior stock in terms
of genetic traits, intelligence or even resistance to diseases. This can in turn contribute to the
threat of world peace and stability.
It is imperative to understand that the guidelines used in ethical standards and regulatory
practices need to be evolving in response to innovation and growth in technology. Nevertheless,
due to the risks and uncertainty, as well as the numerous ethical issues involved, the most
reasonable action today is to ban germline editing.
Conclusion
On the positive side, there is a limitless possibility when it comes to human gene editing but the
ethical issues are much higher. From consent and human dignity to inequality and misuse, the
problems associated with gene editing have much greater repercussions as compared to its
advantages. Ethical principles—from Kantian dignity to Rawlsian justice—demand caution,
humility, and restraint.
From this paper, one can derive that human gene editing, especially in germ cells, should not be
allowed. Any form of gene editing should only be allowed for somatic cells only because they
are not heritable and they should be under very tight regulation for the parameter of
therapeutic>not enhancement only.
References
1. UNESCO. (1997). Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights.
2. Baylis, F. (2019). Altered Inheritance: CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Genome
Editing. Harvard University Press.
3. Pew Research Center. (2020). Public Views of Gene Editing for Babies.
4. The Canadian Parliament. (2004). Assisted Human Reproduction Act.
5. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2018). Genome Editing and Human Reproduction.