Introduction
Once a thing of sci-fi, genetically modified humans are becoming more and more of a possibility. A scientist, Dr David King, who campaigns for the organisation of Human Genetics Alert spoke of the probability of this eventually happening being high (Gallagher, 2015). The whole topic of human genetic modification sits on a spectrum from correcting mutations which cause genetic diseases, to choosing the physical or behavioural traits of your children (Gallagher, 2015). The process essentially would upgrade humans to a better, more perfect version of themselves – but where is the line? (Knoepfler, 2015). The legislation in this area can scarcely keep up with the speed at which technology is evolving, which leaves the floor wide open to ethical debate (Jorgenson, 2016). The UK is one of the countries with the harshest regulations, however there are some exceptions and conditions that allow certain therapies (Gallagher, 2014) (Callaway, 2016).
It is important to consider fully, who would benefit from this the most (Knoepfler, 2015). The procedure could easily become a commodity that others would, therefore, be able to gain money or power from (Knoepfler, 2015). In this essay, I will consider the impacts on both science and society that these processes could have and the recent developments, as well as the genetic modifications that are allowed.
This area of research is an exceptionally relevant one since the inquiries are all very new and still developing all the time (Gallagher, 2015). The Crispr technology which is used to edit genomes in a more time and cost efficient manner was discovered in 1993 and was developed until 2005, the findings then continued to come for the following twenty years until January 2013 when the current Crispr methods were developed using Cas9 (Broad Institute, 2017).
The ethical objections to this new therapy are very interesting to consider. There is the risk of causing more harm to the embryo than good (Knoepfler, 2015), the socioeconomic impacts (Ly, 2011), and the objections to impeding nature so much, all of which I will discuss in this essay.
The Technology
Crispr is a recently developed technology that is used as a more efficient, more exact and cheaper than anything previously which is used in DNA modification (Gallagher, 2015). There is some dispute between the Broad Institute and the University of California, Berkeley regarding which organisation should have the patent on this technology in its name (Jorgenson, 2016). The power of this technique has brought to light many debates, from the possibility of resurrecting extinct creatures such as the woolly mammoth, to completely destroying a particular species which may cause harm to humans (Jorgenson, 2016). This method of genetic editing is remarkable and is progressing faster than the legislation can keep up with, which is causing issues regarding the use of this technique (Jorgenson, 2016). The process has two components the Cas9 protein and a segment of guide RNA (Bosley et al., 2015) (Jorgenson, 2016). The Cas9 and the guide RNA move along the DNA double helix until the position within the DNA where the guide RNA will fit – interestingly only twenty bases on the RNA strand are used to identify the focus (Jorgenson, 2016). Once the target site is located the RNA will split a part of the DNA’s double helix apart, causing the Cas9 protein to act as a pair of molecular scissors cutting the segment of DNA (Jorgenson, 2016)(Lauritsen et al., 2017). The system essentially plays the cell against itself, the cell tries to repair its own DNA, using the other chromosome for example, however in the Crispr process a false segment of DNA is implemented (Jorgenson, 2016). This false segment has the same bases on each end of it, but a different code in the middle, therefore deceiving the cell (Jorgenson, 2016). Through this method, it is possible to insert and edit the DNA of a cell (Jorgenson, 2016).
Legislation
The legislation regarding germline therapies varies between countries, the United Kingdom being one of the strictest (Knoepfler, 2015). The UK prohibits germline therapies in general, however, there are some exceptions to this (Gallagher, 2015). An example of this is in 2016, The Francis Crick Institute was given permission to use the Crispr technology to experiment on the DNA of human embryos, this permit was given under the condition that the experiments on each embryo would be terminated after 7 days, and therefore not to develop into a human being, although there is also debate regarding at what point after fertilisation, the embryo is a person (Callaway, 2016). This way, the scientists are able to carry out their research and step closer to alternative solutions to infertility, however, the embryo doesn’t develop into a foetus (Callaway, 2016). Another exception is in the case of mothers with mitochondrial diseases, who wish to have a baby but do so by using material from 3 people: the mother, the father and a female egg donor (Gallagher, 2014). Under these circumstances, there are a number of rules in place. Each case must be put under individual consideration to determine whether there is significant enough risk of disability or life-altering disease (Gallagher, 2014). If a fertility clinic wishes to perform these procedures, it must apply for a separate licence (Gallagher, 2014). The child born as a result of the procedure is legally considered as having two parents only and is not entitled to their donor’s information (Gallagher, 2014). In reality, these procedures mean that approximately ten cases would be approved per year (Gallagher, 2014). This procedure has been approved in the UK, despite being a germline therapy and does not use the Crispr techniques (Baltimore et al., 2015)(Legislation.gov.uk, 2015).
Viewpoints
Vanity or health? Simple or Complex? How far will this go? Who really benefits? These are all things that we must ask ourselves when it comes to the use of genetic modification in human embryos.
Back in 1978, the first baby was born as a result of in-vitro fertilisation, this was an incredibly progressive process at the time and the result was uncertain (BBC News, 2015). Louise Brown is now 39, and 5 million other children have been born as a result of this technology (Bryner, 2012). Were this to be the same trend as would occur with genetically modifying embryos we would create a generation of children who were genetically modified. The fallout of this is, of course, unknown, but one outlook is that the result would be a kind of “Social Darwinism” (Knoepfler, 2015). Surely, it’s a vicious circle? As more and more children become genetically modified, the ones who do not, become less and less adequate. Following this, an increasing number of people become unsatisfied with their natural offspring and the numbers of genetically modified children multiply until there are no untampered with children left. Human nature is to compare and compete to be the best – this will not change the way the human brain works. From here, it must be considered, who will be the one to say enough is enough? As prospective parents select more and more their child’s appearance, intelligence, resistance to diseases, it will surely become a never-ending battle to be the best.
Chinese scientists were the first to genetically modify human embryos in 2016, with the aim of understanding and preventing genetic diseases (Griffiths and Wang, 2016). However, their results were by no means perfect despite being a pioneering step (Griffiths and Wang, 2016) (Knoepfler, 2015). Based on this it is important that we consider the risks of the procedure. What if in the quest to, for example prevent a child from suffering from a genetic disease, the system causes the child to be more unwell (Knoepfler, 2015). Not only would this be a travesty for the child and the family, but to the world of genetics and everyone simply using these techniques to carry out research projects such as studying genetic diseases (Knoepfler, 2015) (Jorgenson, 2016). The trust and support of the research would be lost and so much progress too would be ruined (Jorgenson, 2016). These techniques of genetic modification have led to great steps in understanding, treating and preventing genetic diseases, and that is a truly valuable thing, a key example of this being the Francis Crick Institute sorting after a treatment for infertility (Callaway, 2016).
One ethical issue is, where is the line. For example, it has been deemed by HEFA that in the case of mitochondrial diseases germline therapy is acceptable (Baltimore et al., 2015), so then is it acceptable to prevent non-genetic diseases such as HIV? Is it okay to play with intelligence? If all those situations are acceptable then surely there is no harm in making sure your child has blue eyes! Humankind has been changing the direction of nature for a long time, for example in the case of GM Crops (Key, Ma and Drake, 2008) and increasing the milk yield of cows by breeding (Atwal et al., 1995). Nonetheless, the modification of humans would create more distress and divide in society than can possibly be imagined. Considering the potential cost of this procedure, only the wealthy would have the disposable income to spend on such luxuries, making this an elitist technology (Ly, 2011). The potential for this to then cause rifts in society is almost certain, triggering economic divides to then morph into genetic ones (Ly, 2011).
A contrasting viewpoint, however, is that parents-to-be should have the free choice to behave however they like in relation to their own children (Ly, 2011). They would have the life of the child to influence them anyhow, so why not allow them to simply do the influencing prenatally (Ly, 2011)? Parents can pay for tutors, extra music lessons or sports coaching, again this is something dependant on economic status but that is accepted (Ly, 2011).
Conclusion
Having considered different angles, I do not think that designer babies are something that should be legalised. I believe that it is not a topic area that is known about in great enough detail to be safe to perform and the risks are too high for the cases that are entirely for vanity, such as hair colour or intelligence. We do not know the lasting effects that could occur as a result of fertilisation in this manner and the possibility of making a child sick or just forming a mutation in the DNA is a risk I would not be willing to take. There are so many unforeseen results that could occur, such as in the case of Thalidomide in the 1960’s, if our knowledge doesn’t cover every aspect of our actions then we cannot predict what might happen (Ridings, 2013).
On the other hand, the Crispr process that has been developed does have many important uses and should continue to be used and developed for research. The insight into so many genetic diseases could progress medicine and science exponentially leading to the saviour of so many lives in itself.
The use of genetic modification and germline therapies in the case of mitochondrial disease sufferers is something that I consider to be ethically acceptable, taking into account the benefits to the child’s health and quality of life. It does not involve the exchange or edit of any chromosomal DNA, only the mitochondrial DNA and the regulations are strict and exact to include only those in dire need of the treatment.
Genetic modification in humans is not all bad, there are many situations in which it is necessary and the technologies that could be used for processes such as creating blonde haired, blue eyed babies have many other purposes beyond that, that would build our understanding of the human body and allow us to treat certain genetic diseases – but I believe that is where the uses should end, at least until we understand better the true effects.