Alyssa Lee
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event #19
3/13/19
With the advent of new human technology, gene-editing has become a hot-button topic worldwide. Scientists, geneticists, and other biologist have developed a way in which the genetic information encapsulated in the DNA of an early embryo can be modified to reflect certain more favorable characteristics in an unborn child. While this has the potential for doing an incredible amount of good for the world (including the eradication of physical deformities or debilitating illness), the emergence of this revolutionary technology is also responsible for a harrowing ethical question to arise: should we allow gene editing? If so, on what terms? In the article “Geneticists Push for a 5-Year Global Ban on Gene-Edited Babies” by Tina Hesman Saey, the author discusses the push from geneticists for a moratorium banning the birth of genetically-modified children for five years until the scientific community can come to a consensus as to the limits of gene-editing in babies. Additionally, this would “buy time for scientists to further test and refine CRISPR/Cas9 and other gene-editing tools to make them safer.” CRISPR-Cas9 is a gene-editing tool that facilitates simplified and more accurate gene editing, specifically in CRISPR, specialized stretches of DNA. This utilizes Cas9, an enzyme that can be used to truncate pieces of DNA from the overarching strand. Due to the controversial nature of gene editing (especially in light of the incident where Jiankui He, a scientist in China, edited the DNA in the genes of embryos that resulted in the birth of two baby girls), a large proportion of the scientific community has agreed to try and put forth a moratorium to apply a moral argument in support of a temporary ban on gene editing due to the fact that scientists are still uncertain as to any potentially malevolent side effects of gene editing and the ways in which this power can be used in a morally incorrect way. Among the signatories of this moratorium include two of the original innovators behind the CRISPR gene editing technique, Feng Zhang from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University and Emmanuelle Charpentier from the Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens in Berlin. Despite some backlash against the document for being essentially “useless” (due to the fact that it is simply a matter of semantics, geneticist Paul Berg of Stanford University is one of many who insist on its significance, commenting, “Given that both conferences declared as irresponsible this kind of experiment, but in fact, it went ahead, says that we needed a little bit more than just clucking at the end of things. We needed to say a little bit more and actually call for a moratorium.”
Gene editing on its face is not necessary a “bad” thing- in fact, it has boundless potential for curing terminal human illness, ensuring a longer human life expectancy, and generally raising the quality of life for human beings across the globe. I myself know many individuals who suffer from birth defects and ailments that could be solved with the advent of gene editing, from Down Syndrome to cancer. However, gene editing can also be used in malevolent consequences on human beings; for instance, what if someone were to find a certain race or physical characteristic “unattractive” or “inferior” and attempt to eradicate that characteristic from human genetics forever through CRISPR-Cas9? Not only is this detrimental for human beings in terms of a reduction of genetic diversity, but it also presents the greater community with a moral conundrum: is it morally correct to be able to eradicate a gene completely from the gene pool simply because it is deemed “inferior” to others? Many, if not most, would argue no- while it would be immensely helpful to use CRISPR in order to cure an incurable illness, it is outrageous to think that we could essentially “murder” a child on the basis of an unfavorable characteristic. This situation that we find ourselves in is precisely what makes gene editing one of the defining debates of our era. It is a particularly unique issue because it blends scientific advancement and ethical reasoning together to give the global community- both scientific and not- quite a bit to think about. This also demonstrates the importance of a five-year moratorium, during which the scientific community could both further experiment with CRISPR to ensure its safety as well as educate the general population in order to provide us with a better understanding of where we as human beings stand in the midst of this scientific crisis.
Personally, I thought that the author did an excellent job offering a number of different perspectives on the controversial issue of gene editing. Due to the heated atmosphere surrounding the debate, it is necessary to add a number of viewpoints concerning a possible moratorium. I also found the author’s description of the moral argument to be very compelling, especially since she added a number of quotes from experts in this field to bolster her ethos as a reporter. However, one aspect that I found this article to be lacking was a more in-depth scientific summary of CRISPR and the incidents surrounding its creation. Providing some background and history on the topic would have appealed to more readers who were perhaps not as knowledgeable about the issue, as opposed to readers being forced to do some research beforehand. Additionally, the author could have explained why the scientific community did not try to appeal to the court in order to pass a law prohibiting gene editing for five years rather than just a moratorium.
