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,

and talented. Although this has not yet been tested in human trials nor has it been made legal or

been approved by the government, we are quickly approaching a world where genetically

modified embryos will be very real and accessible to the public. This idea of this, yes, sounds

amazing. But how far is too far? Just because we are scientifically able, should we proceed with

this research and essentially play God? Should we decide the fate on an individual's life before

they are even 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

twenty first century. This scientific breakthrough is heavily debated and extremely controversial

when discussed by scientists, medical professionals and the public. Because of complex

controversies and ethical debates, research and trials have been heavily monitored and restricted.

Fear that this type of scientific breakthrough will come with repercussions and possibly lead to

designer babies keep scientists from being able to research this freely. 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. I

have learned that with aid from a single piece of scientific equipment, it can be done quickly and
efficiently. Specifically, the technology involved in making 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 from ​NPR. ​With the

aid of this tool, it has been proven by scientists that genetic material can be taken from two

mothers and a father and combine the genetic material from all parents. This can eliminate

diseases that might have been inherited by the embryo. Although this has not been made legal or

available to the public, according to BBC News, Professor Doug Turnbull, professor at

Newcastle University and Dr. Mary Herbert, scientific director at Newcastle Fertility Center

have been granted permission to work on developing embryos from two mothers and one father.

Something similar was successfully done in New Jersey not too long ago. Taking genetic

material from two mothers and one father can be valuable when trying to prevent a genetic

disease from being passed down from parent to fetus. In the particular experiment that Professor

Turnbull and Dr. Mary Herbert were conducting, the mitochondrial DNA of the mother was

malfunctioning. If this disease was passed down to the fetus, it could have severe consequences

or could even be fatal. In attempts to come up with a solution to prevent the fetus from inheriting

the malfunctioning mitochondrial DNA, a third party was brought into the equation. These

professors had the idea to take the mitochondrial DNA from a healthy mother, and insert it into

the embryo conceived from the mother and father. Up until now, there has been no cure for

mitochondrial DNA damage. Now, with the aid of the CRISPR, these professors and a New

Jersey doctor have successfully discovered how to replace the mitochondrial DNA that is

malfunctioning with DNA from a second mother. When performing experimentation with this

type of technology, precision is key. First, viable embryos must be donated to scientists who
have been granted permission by research funders and the government officials who regulate this

type of experimentation. The embryo must be carefully thawed and prepare for testing. The

CRISPR is then injected into the thawed embryo and can target specific areas of the DNA and

alter its genetic makeup. After the DNA has been 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, heavily monitored research has been successful not only in keeping

embryos viable after they have been altered, but also in eliminating diseases, disorders and in

prevention of miscarriages so far up to a certain stage of embryonic development. Of course,

because of all the controversy surrounding this topic, once the embryos develop to a certain stage

of development, the embryo is terminated. Only minimal research has been done so far due to

heavy restrictions by the government, but so far the results have been positive if executed

correctly. When editing genes that cause diseases, it is easy to target the one specific

malfunctioning gene. However, altering physical characteristics like height or eye color is much

more complex. ​To go back to the case of having two mothers and one father, the fetus will still

resemble the mother and father of the child.​ The mitochondrial element that was donated by the

second mother to eliminate the mitochondrial disease will not play a role in the phenotype of that

child. The scenario is due to the fact that no single gene is responsible for producing phenotypic

traits. Many different genes work together to produce physical traits like eye color, hair color,

height and many other traits. It is nearly impossible to identify all of the specific genes that work

together to produce a certain hair color, eye color, height etc. in an individual. This is why only

replacing a single element like mitochondrial DNA will have no effect on how the fetus looks.

With this knowledge, it can be concluded that designing babies would be far more complex and
may not be possible with only the use of the CRISPR. In order to go down the path of designer

babies, much more complex research needs to be conducted on how to isolate genes that

determine physical characteristics of an individual. If this is accomplished, than scientists will be

one step closer to developing a procedure capable of producing designer embryos. This leads us

into discussing if it is appropriate to do research on gene editing that could lead us to being able

to hand craft babies.

The technology and knowledge needed to genetically enhance embryos is available. With

proper funding and permission from the government, scientists have the potential to eliminate

diseases like blindness, epilepsy, sickle cell anemia and many other diseases that are passed

down to children from the parent, or genetically enhance certain features or phenotypes. This is

where debate regarding ethical aspects of this argument come in. Those that argue that genetic

manipulation is necessary to offer a better life for those that are affected by genetically inherited

diseases say that it would be unethical to have access to these types of life saving possibilities

and not take advantage of them by making it available to the public. A specific example

expressed by an article that is pro genetic manipulation 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 procedure, fetuses with a

malfunctioning element of DNA will die in utero. Scientist Fredrik Lanner, a developmental

biologist who supports the movement of genetically modified embryos argues that research on

this type of science will be a “game changer.” In an article done on ​NPR​, Lanner also reveals that

“if they can understand how these early cells are regulated in the actual embryo, this knowledge

will helps us in the future treat patients with diabetes, or Parkinson’s, or different types of
blindness and other disease.” Along with Lanner, many other scientists have expressed that not

allowing this type of research would be counterproductive. Research of this sort would benefit

society and even improve the quality of life for thousands of people. 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 have been conducted. On the other hand, many will argue

that it is unethical to alter genetic material and express concerns about the possible dangers that

this could cause for society.

In contrast to the arguments made by those who are pro genetic manipulation, many

people argue that messing with the genetic material of an embryo could lead to detrimental

consequences and that the concept of this contradicts many peoples moral and ethical beliefs.

Scientists fear that this type of new research on genetic manipulation could possible create new

diseases and genetic mutations if a mistake is made during the process. Like I mentioned before,

this is a process that must be executed very precisely. Because of the tedious and careful way

that this procedure must be execute, it leaves much room for errors to occur. Marcy Darnovsky,

who speaks and writes on human biotechnology, 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.” She goes on to express that “these are

permanent and probably irreversible changes that we just don’t know what they would mean.”

One error in this process could introduce a new strand of genetic mutations that could potentially

become even more life threatening than the ones previously eliminated. Once this mutation has

been introduced, it will be irreversible. In addition to the biological concerns, concern has been
expressed regarding how these new procedures would affect social classes. With the potential of

advanced research leading to the alteration of genetic features like height, beauty, intelligence,

and talents, there is fear that the social gap would widen even further, creating a resentment

between classes. It is possible and predicted that this resentment and genetic enhancement could

lead to conflict and rebellion between the genetically superior, and genetically inferior. The

upper class already has access to more resources; better medical resources, better schools to

enhance education. Overall, the upper class has access to more advanced resources that set them

far apart from other social groups. If they also have access to this advanced genetic manipulation

technology, it will set them even farther apart, causing more tension between classes. 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. It is argued that since

this procedure will be expensive and in high demand, the wealthy would have the most direct

access to it. This would propel them further than other classes, essentially creating a superior

race. Those that could not afford it would continue to pass along their genetic disease to their

offspring. Over time, it is predicted that the lower class will be bred out, leaving only genetically

superior humans. To counter argue this concern, a professor from the article “Designer Babies”

states that like 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 would

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 argue that weeding out certain diseases would increase the lifespan of the
average human to 150-200 years. 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

ranges from sixty to ninety years of age and is only increasing with advancing medical

availability and knowledge. 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 sense of dominance and pressure over their

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 more pressure will be put on the child to

succeed and perform extravagantly in certain aspects of their lives that will bring in money and

fame for the parent. In contrast to this argument, some say that a parent with a child that is

genetically modified will be incapable of loving their child in the same way 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 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 cannot know for sure how this type of technology

will affect society or the way that a child is raised. As I continued to ask questions, 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

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

genetic modification of human embryos,” according to Jeremy Sugarman, professor of Bioethics

and Medicine at John Hopkins University. This research was done in non-viable embryos that

were not far enough developed to form life. Even though the embryos were not developed into

babies, genetic manipulation was still done and published. Despite the fact that the embryos were

terminated and not used in in vitro fertilization, an uproar was expressed by the public due to the

freedom the Chinese scientists were given to conduct such research. 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 and available to the public. 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 restriction 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. 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 discussions 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 risk and consequences of this.

 In conclusion, my topic of inquiry has lead me to analyze and research a variety 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 conducted. 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 that need to be

considered. 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. It is expressed that playing with this sort of research

should not be taken lightly and the consequences should be largely considered. We do not yet

know how sever the repercussions of this could be and scientists and society must take all angles

of the argument into consideration before laws and be past and regulated. 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. This technology could save thousands

of lives and offer a cure to many genetic diseases. How can people decide to take that gift of a

normal life away from others if a cure is reachable? 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 human’s 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. Only after all

discussion and ethical debates are considered will society be able decide whether research on

genetic manipulation of embryos 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,

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-scien

tist-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.

“Embryo with Two Mothers Approved.”​ BBC News​, 8 September, 2005,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4225564.stm. Accessed 23 April, 2018.