The success of a modern society is largely based on the technology that is developed and available to
them. In present day, the development of technology has changed our lives and continues to change the
way we function in our daily lives. Many of us would be lost without our cellphone or wi-fi connection,
which displays how dependent we have all become on present technology. In my personal opinion,
society seems ready to adapt and try new developments rather quickly and without much question. For
example, each iPhone release becomes larger and more anticipated without anyone really knowing the
details of the product that will be offered. The fast pace at which society adapts to new technological
advances and change should strongly be considered when referring to the current ethical debate
regarding gene manipulation in the human species. As many of the researchers and scientist stated
during the talks and interviews in Module 1, once the door has been opened it cannot be closed. Once
the door is opened, the rate of development and impact on society could continue at an alarming rate.
Although there are many benefits to potential gene manipulation in humans, there is always a balance to
every scale. Altering the human genome will have long and short-term effects on society. Other areas of
interest to consider would be the impact on human rights and moral obligation.
The technology development being referred to is called CRISPR, co-invented by geneticist Jennifer
Doudna. The primary function of CRISPR uses a protein called CAS9, which can be programmed to
identify specific sections of DNA and effectively cut out that particular section. The possibilities of a
technological development such as this seem to be endless. However, I would like to focus on the
specific use of CRISPR on human embryos and the effects it may have on society as a whole. The
potential benefits include eliminating disease and defects from a human before they are born. For
example, if a particular fetus has been identified as being predisposed to Huntington’s disease, CRISPR
could be used to eliminate the at-risk section of DNA. Not only would the risk be removed for that child,
but in addition those new genes would be passed down to all of its offspring. Overtime, this could
completely eliminate certain disease and illness from the human race. However, the main point of
discussion is the potential for “designer babies”. In theory, CRISPR could also be used to remove
undesirable traits and replace them with desirable ones. Parents could choose their offspring’s eye color,
height, athleticism, intelligence, and the list goes on. This is where the debate of ethics comes in to play.
Is it ethical to allow CRISPR technology to be tested on human embryos? Jennifer Doudna recognized the
potential ethical issues of her own technology, and in fact called for a “global pause” during her 2015 Ted
Talk.
On the topic of designer offspring, there are several concerns that come to mind immediately. The first
involves accessibility and societal segregation. Commonly, when new technology becomes available to
the public it is extremely expensive. Therefore, only a small portion of the public would be able to reap
the benefits. The result would be a small percentage of the population with genetically “gifted” children.
As explained by Biologist Paul Knoepfler, these children may end up in special schools for the gifted
which allow them better opportunities to progress in life. It would be difficult for other children to
progress or be given the same opportunities, as they literally would not be physically or mentally capable
of competing. These gifted children would likely become our next generation of the wealthy and
powerful, taking up positions in government, science, media, etc. The movie Gattaca from 1997, depicts
an extreme example of society where these techniques are employed regularly. In order to be
considered for a position of caliber the candidate would likely only be considered if they had been
genetically altered, also called “valid”. Any individual without gene modification was considered “in-
valid” and therefore a less-than member of society. Overall, the potential impacts on the human race
and modern culture could be endless. The secondary concern regards individual rights. Parents would be
taking choice away from their children that could never be reversed. What impact might this have on
behavior later on in life?
In reviewing this topic, it is my opinion that the scientific community must say yes to everything or no to
everything. As stated previously, once the door is opened on human testing it cannot be close and there
is no way to know what direction it will take society permanently. In the respect of fairness and justice, I
do not believe CRISPR should not be used for human testing. The outcome could diversify society and
politics in ways never seen or imagined before. I believe there are still many ways CRISPR can be used to
development treatment and cures, but this can be done without opening the door to human testing.
Ultimately the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, and in this case the disadvantages would
become permanent. The impact CRISPR could make on society cannot be ignored, and people deserve to
have choice as well as access to the same opportunities as one another.
REFERENCES
Paul Knoepfler. (2017). The ethical dilemma of designer babies. Youtube. Retrieved October 15,
2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOHbn8Q1fBM.
Jennifer Doudna. (2015). How CRISPR lets us edit our DNA. Youtube. Retrieved October 15,
2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdBAHexVYzc&t=726s
Gattaca. Directed by Andrew Niccol. Columbia Pictures Corporation, 1997.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
