Skipwith 1

Anyah Skipwith
Pre-English 9
Dominika Szybisty
9 August 2017

Audience analysis

This is for the parents of children that are interested in genetic modification for their

embryo and scientists who perform genetic modifications using the CRISPR. Parents should be

more responsible when thinking about modifying human genomes. This technique could possibly

result in the embryo having a disarranged gene, or even worse termination of the embryo. It is

not fair that the embryo has no consent when they are the ones who must live with the

manipulation the parents allowed to occur in their childrens bodies. Scientist should remain

analytical because thinking innovatively would result in taking technology and doing what they

see as changing the world. Scientists innovation lead to the use of CRISPR being for

modifying phenotype instead of solely using CRISPR for its original purpose.
 Skipwith 2

Designer Babies: Gucci, Louis, Fendi or Prada?

When one pictures a science laboratory what is there to envision? Probably a lot of test

tubes filled with unidentified solutions, tools, stainless steel tables, things amongst the lines that

is seen on the popular tv show Greys Anatomy or House. What people do not ask

themselves is what really goes on in a science laboratory? That test tube filled with the

unidentified substance could really be filled with genetic construct, waiting to be injected into a

human embryo, changing the embryos whole genetic makeup. Genetic scientists are experts on

DNA and Genomes. Scientists have a lot of freedom to go against the original purpose of

studying genetics, freedom because they have knowledge. Although scientists have knowledge,

what they are now doing could hurt the society more than anyone could ever imagine. Genetic

modification in human embryos is the cause.

What is genetic modification? Genetic modification/ genetic manipulation is the altering

of genetic material to provide a desired characteristic. Genetic modification is usually performed

on crops and other foods such as corn to resist pest and herbicides. In the early 20th century,

Chinese scientists were accused of holding an experiment which used genetic technology to alter

viable human embryos (Adams, paragraph 1). A new technique was used called the CRISPR.

The CRISPR allowed scientists to edit the genome of living cells by cutting out one gene and

replacing it with another (Adams, paragraph 2-5). In order for manipulation to take place, the

desired genetic construct has to be injected into the embryo, replacing the undesirable genes.

There are two reasons why the CRISPR is sought to be used: To potentially eliminate an

inherited disease gene, or to produce an offspring with certain phenotypes. With a result of

eliminating disease, the embryo will not contain the hereditary disease gene. With a result of

modifying phenotype, scientist can alter the genome giving an embryo different phenotype. For
 Skipwith 3

example, giving the embryo blue eyes instead of brown eyes and even modifying the gender of

the embryo. Although new and easy to use, scientists began to question the CRISPRs safety,

reliability and how the embryo is affected by it.

This paper will explain Genetic modification and how scientists exceeded over their

boundaries to make life threatening ideas come true. I will first discuss the CRISPRs original use

for genetically modifying but then I will refute that fact by proving the CRISPR is not safe at all.

After I will explain why scientists condemn other scientists for using the CRISPR and lastly, I

will describe how genetic modification lacks consent with the fetus. Although CRISPRs original

purpose was to get rid of inherited disease, genetically engineering in human embryos should not

be a technique used in the medical field because it is dangerous, unreliable and lacks consent

between the parent and fetus.

The CRISPR was praised once scientists found a way to eliminate inherited disease

genes. Jill Adams, current Ph.D. holder in pharmacology from Emory University, describes how

scientists could fix a defective gene that causes an illness just by tinkering with the genomes of

human embryos (Adams, paragraph 2). Gene therapy works by harnessing the powerful

technology of recombinant DNA to connect disease genes in a patients cells, which are then

reintroduced back into the patient to replace diseased cells (Hix, paragraph 4). The genes placed

in the embryo would completely eliminate the disease gene, which also prevents future

generations from obtaining that same disease. Although eliminating hereditary disease sounds

great, there are a lot of downfalls that comes along with using the CRISPR. Safety being one of

them.

The CRISPR has many safety hazards while performing the procedure. These safety

hazards could potentially hurt the embryo. Nicholas Wade, science journalist for the New York
 Skipwith 4

Times claims Though highly efficient the technique occasionally cuts genomes at unintended

sites (Wade, paragraph 12). If the genome is cut at unintended sites, the embryo could

possibly be left damaged or terminated, and this happens occasionally. Edward Lanphier and

other scientists said that the use of current technologies would be dangerous and ethically

unaccepted. (Wade, paragraph 18). Using the CRISPR to genetically manipulate an embryo is

not proven 100% safe, which when dealing with human embryos, scientists must be very careful

because it is a life at stake. Safety is not the only problem with using the CRISPR to genetically

modify human embryos. The genetically modifying process is unreliable. It is not the CRISPR

that makes the technique unreliable, but the scientists.

Scientists cause the technique to be unreliable by simply taking matters into their own

hands. Originally, the CRISPR was supposed to solely be used for the purpose of eliminating

disease genes. Once scientists discovered they could do more, they began manipulating

phenotype. Marcy Darvosky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, states

Permitting human germline gene editing would most likely lead to its escape from regulatory

limits, to its adoption for enhancement purposes.. that would exacerbate conflict.. (Darvosky,

paragraph 11). If scientists are given access to manipulate human genomes, they would go above

and beyond their limits. Scientists have now taken the CRISPRs original use of eliminating

hereditary disease in DNA to eliminating undesirable phenotypical genes. Craig Holdrege, Ph.D.

holder and director of The Nature Institute, explains how scientists pursuing research on

modifying human genomes can be remarkable as it is disturbing. Holdrege then states They

may truly have the best intentions and they may also be seduced by the sirens of technology

doable for its own sake ( Holdrege, paragraph 13). Scientists are intrigued by new technology,
 Skipwith 5

but once present, they may use the technology in ways that goes beyond its limits. Once

phenotypes have been manipulated, who must live with these changes?

Embryos have no consent in this procedure whatsoever, yet they are the ones who have

to live with the genetic manipulations. Once the genetic construct is injected into the embryo, the

embryo must live with whatever manipulation performed on them when they were an embryo

forever. Francis Collins, director of the National Institute of Health Sciences states that there are

Ethical issues presented by altering the germline in a way that affects the next generation

without their consent (Harris, paragraph 4). Children have no say in what goes on in their

bodies. If a genetic malfunction occurs during the process the embryos would have to live with

it, if they live. Harris, professor emeritus in science ethics at University of Manchester, claims

parents do this all the time, either because they are too young to consent or because they do

not exist. The embryos affected have no consent so parents are creating them to be perfect not

knowing what the child wants. If every parent had scientists manipulate genomes in their

embryo, who in this world will be different? There is lack of consent and individuality involved

with the genetic engineering process.

There are a lot of problems that are acquainted with genetically modifying genomes. If

genetic modification were nonexistent, embryos would remain pure and unmanipulated and

scientists would not feel the urge to be innovative and create other techniques that could

potentially be life threatening. Parents trust scientist to manipulate embryos because scientists

are experts in DNA and genetics. Since scientists are credible for being experts they obtain a lot

of freedom to go against the original purpose of studying genetics. Although genetically

modifying genomes for the purpose of eliminating hereditary disease genes is wonderful, the
 Skipwith 6

genetic modifying process is dangerous, unreliable and lacks consent between the parent and

fetus.
 Skipwith 7

Works Cited

Regalado, A. Dont Edit the Human Germ Line Nature, 25 Mar. 2015.

https://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.17111!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/p

df/519410a.pdf?origin=ppub. Accessed 8 Aug. 2017

Freidman, Theodore, Roblin, Richard Gene Therapy For Human Genetic Disease?, Science,

Vol. 175, 3 Mar. 1972. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/175/4025/949. Accessed 8

Aug. 2017

Brown, Hannah. Worlds first genetically modified human embryo raises ethical concerns The

Conversation, 26 Apr. 2015. http://theconversation.com/worlds-first-genetically-

modified-human-embryo-raises-ethical-concerns-40766. Accessed 4 Aug. 2017

George, Anna. Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting

Cloning and Inheritable Alterations HeinOnline,

http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/amlmed28&div=15&g_sent=1&co

llection=journals. Accessed 2 Aug. 2017

Harris, John. Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos National

Geographic, http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-gene-

editing-pro-con-opinions/. accessed 28 jul. 2017.

Darnvosky, Marcy. Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos

National Geographic, http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-

gene-editing-pro-con-opinions/. accessed 28 jul. 2017.

 Skipwith 8

Holdrege, Craig. Manipulating the Genome of Human Embryos: Some Unforeseen Effects The

Nature Institute, http://natureinstitute.org/txt/ch/human_gmo_embryo.php. accessed 28

jul. 2017.

Hix, Laura. MODERN EUGENICS: BUILDING A BETTER PERSON? Northwestern

Reasearch, 23 jul. 2009, https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/modern-eugenics-building-

better-person. Accessed 28 jul. 2017.

Adams, J. U. Manipulating the human genome CQ Researcher, 19 jun. 2015,

http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2015061900&type=hitl

ist&num=0. Accessed 28 jul. 2017.

Wade, Nicholas Scientist Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome The New York

Times, 19 mar. 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/science/biologists-call-for-

halt-to-gene-editing-technique-in-humans.html. Accessed 28 jul. 2017.

Word count: 1390