ETHICS - Guidelines
The debate over whether or not using CRISPR technology on human embryos is prominant and ongoing within the scientific community. Although there are undeniable benefits to contorlling the makeup of the human body, invasive technology such as CRISPR-Cas9 has raised some red flags in regards to the moral justification of its use.
Dr. He Jiankui's Experiment
After He's experiment caught the eye of scientists all over the globe, massive questions were raised about whether or not the experiment was ethical. Through discussions with researchers, patients, advocates, and ethicists in both China and abroad, He and his team proposed five core principles that must be met for any gene editing experiment, anywhere in the world, to be considered ethical. These five principles were well acknowledged in the scientific world. The five principles are (1) a clear social purpose, (2) impermissible uses, (3) rights after treatment, (4) the human spirit's transcendence of DNA, and (5) a special duty to reduce economic inequality. The following are quotes from He himself regarding each of his principles.​
​​
-
(1) “For a few families, early gene surgery may be the only viable way to heal a heritable disease and save a child from a lifetime of suffering.”
-
(2) “Gene surgery...should never be used for aesthetics, enhancement, or sex selection purposes—or in any way that would compromise a child's welfare, joy, or free will. No one has a right to determine a child's genetics except to prevent disease...Performing gene surgery is only permissible when the risks of the procedure are outweighed by a serious medical need.”
-
(3) “A life is more than our physical body and its DNA. After gene surgery, a child has equal rights to live life freely, to choose his or her occupation, to citizenship, and to privacy.”
-
​(4) “Our DNA does not predetermine our purpose or what we could achieve...Whatever our genes may be, we are equal in dignity and potential.”
-
(5) “Wealth should not determine health. Organizations developing genetic cures have a deep moral obligation to serve families of every background.”
Opposing Opinions
There are two major viewpoints dominating the decision of whether or not gene editing should be brought into normal society and be made a common procedure. One one hand, there are people who believe human beings are inviolable and perfect as they are, so there is no need to modify them, and thus, no need for gene editing technology to exist. On the other hand, there are people who believe that if there is some way to improve the quality of human life, then society should accept and encourage gene editing. The ethical debate that arises there, however, is whether or not the modification should be only for one person's body, or if the modification should be inherited by that person's offspring: the issue of germ line vs. somatic cell editing. The Council for Responsible Genetics calls for a ban on germ-line manipulation. They say it is not necessary to cure people and it’s more dangerous. Additionally, inserting foreign DNA into germ cells could have unpredictable repercussion and could increase vulnerability to major diseases like cancer (Tagliaferro 75). However, some countries have become more open to the possibility of gene editing becoming the norm. In 2015, the U.K. passed a law curving the initial law deeming genetic modification illegal, and now allows genetic modification in hopes of preventing certain types of genetic diseases. Although in certain countries genetically modifying babies is still illegal, the U.S.'s stance on the matter remains a question, as there are no laws for or against the genetic modification of human embryos currently.
