Genetic Engineering of Humans, Immoral or Not?

In recent years genetic engineering has come under the certain scrutiny of whether or not it can be considered scientifically, and morally, ethical. Light has been shed on the research that proves it to make extreme scientific and medical advancements. While this sounds all great, many fear the repercussions it may withhold and the effect it may have on humans. This creates it to be a medical mystery and a moral conflict.

Genetic Engineering has its bonuses and has striking improvements that will change lives. And with the restrictions and bans that scientists have imposed, genome editing is safe… To start, genetic engineering can treat certain types of genetic blindness. Editas Medicine is working on a CRISPR therapy for Leber congenital amaurosis, the most common cause of inherited childhood blindness, for which there is no treatment. The company uses CRISPR to restore the function of light-sensitive cells before the child loses sight completely. According to evidence and increase of scientific research, non-germline editing can be determined safe and moral as it promises many with better lives without trouble. Science has deemed non-germline editing to be safe, but what about germline editing? Scientists have already declared germline to have many risks. They are taking the proper precautions by setting appropriate guidelines to protect against the dangers that germ-line editing may withhold. They are also working on oaths that will be tailored to the prevention of any negative outcome from Genetic Engineering. With scientists already creating and working towards a safer future for genetic engineering of humans, essentially blocking harmful uses of it, makes it moral.

On the contrary, Genetic Engineering is like shooting a gun into a pitch black room. There might not be anyone, and won’t hurt anyone. However, there is the possibility of a human standing where you shot that gun. We just don’t know what the effects are and we don’t know what’s in the dark room. To some this is undeniably immoral as it puts human lives at risk. The main thing that makes it dangerous is due to the simple fact that science isn’t ready. The scientists who use CRISPR and a global board of scientists have shown through it’s restriction on genome editing that it is impossible to predict the exact outcomes and avoid undesired side effects. To add to this, even the genetic variants that seem beneficial — lowering the risk of heart disease, for example — could have other harmful effects we don’t yet know about. This just ties into the potential concern that edited germ-line cells and altered DNA get passed onto future generations, forever changing our collective human genome. Not only is the technology not fully developed, with genetic engineering becoming the new norm, class differences in society will be further deepened. CRISPR is an expensive procedure, so a lifesaving procedure that can only help the wealthy is inherently immoral. Modern-day gene therapies often carry a $1 million price tag. That means insurance companies likely won't pay for treatments using CRISPR until there's enough data available that demonstrates its effectiveness. With such an expensive price tag, these treatments will only be available to the upper class. This will further the economic divide that is already prevalent in our society. By only having these procedures accessible to the upper class, the middle and lower classes won’t be able to keep up with the benefits that it may provide. Genetic engineering would only serve as another hurdle in the lives of the lower and middle class. For these reasons, it is fair for a portion of the public to consider genetic engineering to be immoral.

I find myself in a complicated debate when looking at the two sides of this question. On one had it can be argued that it is entirely safe due to moratoriums and restrictions placed on the harmful types of genome editing. And that genetic engineering can provide a life free of suffering. On the other hand, science is still yet to be concluded. Testing on humans is immoral, and it isn’t right to extend into areas of research we are unfamiliar with, that can put a person’s life at jeopardy. What do you think about this? I would love your opinion and input on this topic! Until next time!