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(Introduces

genetically modified embryos) 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
 Verrone 2

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

and make very precise changes to the DNA,” according to Rob Stein( How the process of

genetic modification works and equipment that is used) 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(addresses

both sides of ethical debate surrounding the topic) could offer, scientific research is heavily

monitored by the government due to fear of what this power could do to society. Although this
 Verrone 3

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 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 (discusses

both sides of the argument around this topic) 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
 Verrone 4

biological concerns of this, there are concerns on how it would affect social classes. With the

potential of advanced (how social classes will be affected by ghe genetically modified embryo

morement)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 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,(impact this could

have on the enviorment) 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

 Verrone 5

(possibility of designer babies turning into consumer goods)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(discusses parent child bond) style in

loving and raising 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(case study

examples that have been done) article that describes 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
 Verrone 6

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.

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 (concludes the pros and cons discussed in the

paper) 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
 Verrone 7

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
 Verrone 8

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

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

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.