Written by Prithi Balaji
Edited by Navika Mittal
The tapestry of human health is formed by the dynamic inter-dimensionality of your genetic makeup and its abilities. Medicine is on the cusp of major revolution as new tools such as DNA, RNA therapies and cell editors arise to combat disease. Technology has continued to evolve, and thus has birthed gene editing: a tool utilized to change the DNA of organisms to provide optimal conditions for growth and survival. With the advancement of gene editing technology, its nature, particularly in response to CRISPR’s ability to efficiently warp DNA makeup, continues to be highly debated.
Gene editing technology is exactly what it sounds like: technology that enables scientists to manipulate organisms’ genetic information, leading to changes in physiological and internal traits. It allows genetic material to be added, deleted, or altered at a specific position in your genetic code. A popular one is called CRISPR-Cas9, which is short for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats and CRISPR-associated protein 9. According to MedlinePlus, it is “faster, cheaper, more accurate, and more efficient than other genome editing methods”.
Originally, CRISPR was adapted from a natural genome editing system used by bacteria as an immune response. Bacteria capture small pieces of the virus’ DNA and insert into them their own DNA in a particular sequence deemed CRISPR arrays. The arrays allow them to remember the viruses, similar to B-cells in the human body response. Researchers adapted this biological system to edit DNA. They design a short RNA sequence deemed a “guide”, which binds to a specific DNA sequence, similar to the RNA segments produced by the CRISPR array. The guide RNA binds to the Cas9 protein as well. When introduced to the cell, the guide RNA identifies the target DNA sequence and the enzyme cuts into the DNA at the precise location, mimicking bacterial processes. After the DNA is cut, the cell’s natural replacement processes alter, add or remove genetic material.
Genome editing is particularly interesting to researchers when it comes to the prevention and detection of disease. However, scientists are still working to figure out the true effects of utilizing this tool on individuals. A large discussion arising from that unanswered question is of the ethicality of those substances.
To examine the ethical debate, we must first delve into what the difference between somatic and germline genetic editing are. Somatic editing involves modifying a patient’s DNA to treat and cure diseases. Germline editing alters the genome of a human embryo at its earliest stages, compromising every single cell in the body while irreversibly changing it. Both scientists and bioethicists agree germline can address diseases that stem from a 100% likelihood of both parents and polygenic disorders. Germline serves the purpose of helping researchers ascertain the health benefits of mutations, but scientists continue to struggle with the question: When do the benefits outweigh the risks, and where do we draw the line for improving human health and committing eugenics?
Some also worry that it is impossible to gain informed consent for germline therapy since the embryo is incapable of consenting. The counter is that parents already make vital decisions about their children’s lives, beginning from birthing a child with a disease. Thus, why not continue with the procedure?
As always, there is a justice and equity debate present within. On one hand, families who have experienced great loss at the hands of devastating genetic diseases find hope in editing the minute mutations out of the gene pool. On the other hand, impoverished families see technology as a way to keep the privileged in power, leaving these families to stay null of resources.
Finally, many people have moral and religious commitments barring artificial genetic mutations and objecting the use of embryos for research. Currently, the National Institutes of Health bars the use of human embryos for research purposes.
The rapid advancements of gene editing technologies hold a new future within its hands. With such power to change human health and prevent disease, there are also risks that must be considered. The potential to eliminate disease is great, yet society must first also mull over the beacon of hope that is gene editing.
Works Cited
Bergman, Mary Todd. “Harvard researchers share views on future, ethics of gene editing.” Harvard Gazette, 9 January 2019, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/perspectives-on-gene-editing/. Accessed 31 January 2025.
“What are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing?” National Human Genome Research Institute, 3 August 2017, https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns. Accessed 31 January 2025.
“What are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing?” National Human Genome Research Institute, 3 August 2017, https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns. Accessed 31 January 2025.
MedlinePlus [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US); [updated 2020 Jun 24]. Heart attack; [updated 2020 Jun 10; reviewed 2016 Aug 25; cited 2020 Jul 1]; [about 5 p.]. Available from: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/genomicresearch/genomeediting/
Brokowski, Carolyn, and Mazhar Adli. “CRISPR Ethics: Moral Considerations for Applications of a Powerful Tool.” Journal of molecular biology vol. 431,1 (2019): 88-101. doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2018.05.044
Comments