Verrone 1

Mya Verrone

UWRT 1104

March 29, 2018

Playing God, Ethical or not?

Let’s imagine a world where scientists have the ability to eliminate a medical condition

that could alter the course of your life before you are even born. Let’s then imagine a world

where you could be hand designed to be genetically superior: more beautiful, strong, intelligent,

talented. The idea of this, yes, sounds amazing. But how far is too far? Just because we are

scientifically able, should we proceed and essentially play God and decide the fate of one's life

before they are born? My topic of inquiry throughout the semester thus far has led me to

analyze the aspects of this concept and discover what scientists and technology make us

capable of in the 21st century. With the use of a piece of scientific equipment called the

CRISPR, it is possible to alter the genetic material of DNA in an embryo in the early stages of

development. The CRISPR works by isolating a specific part of genetic material and actually

eliminating it from the embryo, and replace it with a new piece of genetic material. Recent

scientific research and experimentation have shown that with the use of this technology, it is

possible to remove malfunctioning elements of DNA and replace them with genetic material that

works properly. However, research and trials have been heavily restricted due to fear that this

will come with repercussions and possibly lead to designer babies. My inquiry has lead me to

understand the process, research conducted, and debate surrounding this topic.

The process of altering embryonic genetic material seems like a fairly complex process.

Through research, I have learned that with aid from scientific technology, it can be done quickly

and efficiently. Specifically, the technology that makes this possible is called the CRISPR. The

CRISPR is a “gene editing tool comprised of two molecules that can zero in on individual genes
 Verrone 2

and make very precise changes to the DNA,” according to Rob Stein from ​NPR.​ With the aid of

this tool, scientists can take the genetic material of two mothers and a father and combine the

material to eliminate diseases that might be genetically inherited by the embryo. This can also

be done with an embryo from one mother and one father. Although this has not been performed

so far on a viable embryo, donor embryos have been donated and tested. The embryo is

carefully thawed and prepared for testing. The CRISPR is then injected into the thawed embryo

and can target a specific area of the DNA and alter it. After the DNA is altered, it is then left to

develop. Research has shown that the embryo will still develop normally, despite the

modifications that were made. With this procedure, it has been successful in eliminating

diseases and preventing miscarriages so far. Only minimal research has been done so far due

to heavy restrictions placed on research by the government. However, when editing genes that

cause disease, it is easy to target the one specific malfunctioning gene. To alter physical

characteristics like height or eye color, this is much more complex. There is no single gene that

is responsible for these traits, many different genes work together to produce physical

characteristics. With this knowledge, it can be concluded that designing babies would be far

more complex and may not be possible with only the CRISPR. This leads us into whether or not

it is appropriate to do research on gene editing that could potentially lead us to being able to

hand craft babies. This is where debate regarding the ethical aspects of this argument come in.

Despite the benefits that this could offer, scientific research is heavily monitored by the

government due to fear of what this power could do to society. Although this process can be

done in many different ways to target many specific disease, an article found from the ​NCBI

website explains that the CRISPR can give us the ability to alter a genetic sequence in utero

and fix the sequence to eliminate the possibility of death in a fetus. Without this technology,

fetuses with a malfunctioning element of DNA will die in utero. Despite all of the lives that could
 Verrone 3

be saved and diseases that could be eliminated, this research continues to be restricted and

prohibited until further ethical discussion and debate by the public, government officials, and

members of the scientific community. Recent discussion shows that it comes down to the pros

being enough to outweigh the cons of playing God and being willing to risk the potential, non

reversible consequences.

Next when looking at this topic of inquiry, it is important to understand both sides of the

argument. Scientists like Lanner, who support this movement argue that research on this

movement will be a “game changer.” In an article done on ​NPR, ​Lanner also reveals that “if they

can understand how these early cells are regulate in the actual embryo, this knowledge will help

us in the future treat patients with diabetes, or parkinsons, of different types of blindness and

other diseases.” Along with Lanner, many other scientists have expressed that not allowing this

research would be counterproductive. Research of this sort would benefit society and even

improve the quality of life for thousands of people. On the other hand, scientists fear that

research on this would lead to designer babies and possibly create new diseases if a mistake is

made while altering genetic material. Marcy Darnovsky tells ​NPR ​that “when you’re editing the

genes of human embryos, that means you’re changing the gene of every cell in the bodies of

every offspring, every future generation of that human being,” then she goes on to express that

“these are permanent and probably irreversible changes that we just don’t know what they

would mean.” In addition to the biological concerns of this, there are concerns on how it would

affect social classes. With the potential of advanced research leading to altering the genetic

material of aesthetic features such as height, beauty, intelligence, and talents, there is fear that

this would widen the social gap. Concern that resentment would build between the social

classes could lead to conflict and possibly rebellion against the genetically superior. In addition

to this fear of a widened social gap, it is also possible that this would cause a new social class
 Verrone 4

all together. This social class would be referred to as the genetically superior. To counter argue

this concern, a professor from the article “Designer Babies” states that life many other medical

procedures, this process of genetic manipulation would soon become less expensive, and

affordable for most people. It has also been argued that through natural reproduction, the

superior genes that do not contain genetically inherited diseases will be weeded out, therefore

eliminating certain disease altogether. This would be tremendously beneficial to society and

improve the quality of life for many. However, those who are not for genetic manipulation say

that by weeding out certain diseases could increase the lifespan of the average human to

150-200 years, and this would have negative effects on the earth and environment that we live

in. We do not yet know how this type of alteration will affect the resources available to us, and if

it would cause damage to the earth and decrease quality of life. The duration of life now is

anywhere form 60-90 years old and is only increasing with advancing medical availability and

knowledge. Concern as to what this advanced access to medical procedures is concerning to

many and this inhibits us from progressing with research as of now. Another concern that has

been expressed that closely relates to a widened social gap, is the potential for these

genetically manipulated embryos to turn into consumer goods. If an embryo is manipulated to

be genetically enhanced, the “good” traits will be highly sought after. This would give parents a

sort of dominance and pressure over the child. How the child will be affected for the rest of its

life is hard to gage without experimentation. Many behavioral scientists think that children will

turn into more of a “trophy” or a consumer item for the parent to show off and push to succeed

in certain aspects of their lives that will bring in money and fame for the parent. Some say that

a parent with a child that was genetically modified will be incapable of loving their child the same

way as if it was conceived and born naturally from the two parents. Others argue that the parent

will love the child the same either way. Every parent has a different style in loving and raising
 Verrone 5

their family and having one that is genetically modified will not change how the parent will raise

them or love them. It can easily be seen that without trial and error, we can not know for sure

how this type of technology will affect society or the way a child is raised. As I continued to ask

questions regarding my inquiry topic, another element of research that I found that supports this

movement is various case studies that have been done, legally and illegally.

In different parts of the world, research to further understand genetic manipulation is not

as heavily restricted. For example, in China, a research group “published an article that

described the genetic modification of human embryos,” according the Jeremy Sugarman. This

research was done in non viable embryos that were not far enough developed to for life. Despite

this element of the research, an uproar was expressed by the public. Discussion on whether or

not this should be legal will require many public debates, legal research and ethical expression

from the scientific community before this will be made legal. Another element that makes this a

difficult issue to tackle is that it is not a “uniform, global approach to ensuring the novel clinical

approaches using reproductive technologies are scientifically, medically and ethically

sound”(Sugarman). With that being said, some scientists who do not agree with the restrictions

on research regarding this topic are taking their studies elsewhere. Places like Mexico and the

Ukraine, recently “announced human experiments with mitochondrial manipulation,” (Darnovsky

and Hosman) is not restricted. Word of this reached a doctor in New York, leading him to

Mexico where he continued his research. His research involved conception of a child using the

CRISPR to modify its genetic material. The baby was “born on April 6,” according to Darnovsky

and Hosman. Situations like this cause issues and discussion regarding consequences and

legal actions that must be made to protect a procedure like this to take over and be integrated

into the scientific community and practiced on human subjects before we know the risks and

consequences of this.
 Verrone 6

In conclusion, my topic of inquiry has lead me to analyze and research lots of different

elements of this debate. It is evident that there is much complex debate around this topic, and a

lot of brilliant research being done. Through the process of inquiry, I have learned that although

this technology that we have access to is brilliant and could be potentially revolutionary to the

field of science and medicine, there are many elements of both good and bad. Is it fair to restrict

research that could save thousands of people affected by genetically inherited diseases? Many

argue that we do not have the right as humans to tamper with this type of genetic manipulation.

I have found that those who are pro genetic manipulation say that it would be unethical to have

the ability to cure someone of a fatal disease and not proceed to help them. Others say that it is

unethical to tamper with this type of research due to the dangers that it could cause for society.

Another interesting aspect of this topic that is widely discussed is how it will affect social

classes, parent-child relationships, and the biological elements of a humans life. I think it is

evident that at this time, thorough ethical boards need to be assembled that bring together

medical professionals and public opinions to ensure that all aspects of this new technology are

analyzed and then decide whether research should be able to continue.

Citation Page

Darnovsky, Marcy, and Elliot Hosman. “The Social and Political Dangers of Germline

Intervention.”​ Gene Watch,​ January-March, 2017,

 Verrone 7

www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=582.

Accessed 10 March, 2018.

Masci, David. “Designer Babies.” ​CQ​ ​Researcher​, 18 May, 2001.

http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2001051800&type=hitl

ist&num=19. Accessed 1 April, 2018.

Stein, Rob. “Breaking Taboo, Swedish Scientist Seeks To Edit DNA Of Healthy Human

Embryos.”, Gene Editing Raises Hopes, Fears: ​NPR,​ 22 September , 2016.

www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/22/494591738/breaking-taboo-swedish-scie

ntist-seeks-to-edit-dna-of-healthy-human-embryos. Accessed 9 March , 2018.

Sugarman, Jeremy. “Ethics and Germline Gene Editing.” ​EMBO Reports,​ 16 August, 2015,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552475/. Accessed 9 March, 2018.