Authored by: Charlene Lin
Art by: Julia Chen
Genome editing allows scientists to alter an organism’s DNA. In particular, CRISPR-Cas9 is one of the many approaches developed to make such edits. It adapts a preexisting bacterial immune defense system mechanism to edit DNA. What makes this method so fascinating is that it is more cost-effective and makes editing more accurate in comparison to older methods. CRISPR can work as a potential treatment for genetic diseases, improve crop resilience, and even eradicate certain viruses. In 2020, Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this discovery. However, despite the promising outlook of CRISPR and how it can change the research and clinical worlds, it can also bring potentially dangerous consequences. At Cornell, introductory biology classes like BIOMG already give students an overview of how this cutting-edge technology works. This exposure to CRISPR early on in students’ college life is amazing given the impact that this revolutionary discovery has on the scientific community. This article will examine the ethical implications of gene therapy.
Currently, genome editing is only supposed to be conducted on somatic cells, and the editing of germline cells is strictly prohibited in several nations because of how changes can be passed down through generations [1]. The consequences of permanently altering entire generations’ genes have lasting implications.
There have been efforts to regulate the use of gene therapy. Specifically, there has been “an international effort led by the US, UK, and China to harmonize regulation of the application of genome editing technologies. The effort was officially launched in December 2015 with the International Summit on Human Gene Editing in Washington, DC” [2]. Furthermore, in 2019, the World Health Organization established an international registry of all trials involving human genome editing aiming to establish a more transparent approach to gene editing.
However, there are examples of individuals ignoring the risks of genome editing. For example, He Jiankui, a scientist in China, sparked international outrage when he genetically modified 2 twin girls to make them resistant to HIV. He did so in the pursuit of personal fame and fortune. He managed to conduct illegal embryo-editing by evading supervision and privately conducting recruitment of related personnel [3]. As a result, one can see how dangerous it is for people with skewed morals to gain access to such powerful technology.
Unnecessary genetic enhancements could include changing someone’s genome to make them smarter or increase their muscle mass. While genome editing can be used to help fight against disease, there is an ethical concern that this gives scientists the power to commence unnecessary genetic enhancements, which will disproportionately benefit the wealthier populations that can afford them.
Stanford associate professor Stanley Qi explains his views on the ethical considerations of CRISPR. He is frightened of the rise of designer babies — babies whose genetic makeup has been altered to remove unfavorable traits and enhance desirable ones [4]. As mentioned earlier in the article, the effects of germline editing are conserved throughout generations. Germline editing is illegal, but the lack of firm international regulations may lead to the creation of an entirely new human species. How can that power be vested into the hands of a scientist? How can any single person have that sort of authority?
Moreover, such technology is relatively new and its safety in genome editing has yet to be tested. According to the National Cancer Institute, “CRISPR sometimes cuts DNA outside of its target gene” [5]. Such incorrect edits may lead to cells turning cancerous as it attempts to stitch itself back up. This is just one of multiple risks of the CRISPR technology. Determining whether altering a human genome could lead to significant long-term health complications is challenging. Only through extensive clinical studies and monitoring of individuals receiving gene therapy can we fully understand the extent of CRISPR’s potential drawbacks. Of course, with the continual fine-tuning of the technology, genome editing can become increasingly specific and accurate.
Ultimately, it is imperative for further international guidelines on genome editing to be established and firmly enforced. CRISPR can do a lot of good for humanity, but the abuse of such technologies could have disastrous consequences.
References
U.S. National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). What is genome editing? MedlinePlus. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/genomicresearch/genomeediting/
National Human Genome Research Institute. (n.d.). What are the ethical concerns of genome editing? Genome.gov. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns
Griffiths, J., & Wang, S. (2019, January 21). China confirms scientist behind gene-edited babies acted illegally. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/health/china-gene-editing-babies-intl/index.html
Stanford University. (2024, June). Stanford explainer: CRISPR gene editing and beyond. Stanford News. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/06/stanford-explainer-crispr-gene-editing-and-beyond#therapy
National Cancer Institute. (2020). CRISPR: Revolutionizing cancer research and treatment. Cancer Currents Blog. https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2020/crispr-cancer-research-treatment
