In this paper, I will talk about how, although gene editing can be controversial, it is morally right to edit the genome of a sick person whose life hangs in the balance. First, I will explain how somatic cell editing and germline cell editing works with CRISPR. Next, I will discuss the ethical issues concerning gene editing. Then I will argue the morality of gene editing with the use of normative ethics theories. The technology known as CRISPR, involves a protein called Cas9 that targets a section of DNA and with an enzyme called nuclease, it can cut unwanted genes out and put new ones in. CRISPR allows a simple way to edit DNA with speed and precision. When using CRISPR to edit somatic cells, specific types of cells are being modified, …show more content…
However, compared to the amount of naturally occurring mutations that happen from birth to death, it pales in comparison. A major ethical issue concerning germline cell editing is that the modifications made will pass on from generation to generation and any unpredictable changes may be transmitted to future generations. There’s also the topic of informed consent and how to implement that when there are risks that comes with germline cell modification. Another ethical issue that may skew the morality of gene editing is the possibility of people using gene editing to be genetically enhanced. For example, editing their DNA to be taller or to have a higher intelligence. These modifications would allow individuals to have an advantage over others. The use of CRISPR also raises the social issue of availability to the public. If it does become available, wealthy people would have access to it before others as the technology required to do it is …show more content…
Using gene editing for gene therapy to help people with genetic diseases, such as Tay Sachs or cystic fibrosis, is a benefit that may be worth the slight risks that come with gene editing. When it comes to rare situations in which both parents suffer from the same recessive genetic disorder, germline editing may be the only way to guarantee that their child doesn’t end up with that genetic disorder. These diseases can be treated with somatic cell therapy but with germline cell therapy, children wouldn’t develop these diseases in the first place. In this case, the normative ethical theory of consequentialism, and more specifically, utilitarianism would apply because using gene editing for the benefit of curing people of genetic diseases outweighs the possible risks that may come with it. This pertains to the utilitarian principle that one must do whatever produces the greatest net happiness, therefore the greatest net happiness would be a healthy person free of any genetic disorder. According to Kantian’s formula of universal law, if someone has a genetic disorder then they can use CRISPR to remove the gene causing it. I believe this maxim may apply to everyone in this particular situation. Having an opportunity to treat cancer, save children from genetic diseases, and understand diabetes offers justification to push forward on the idea of CRISPR. However, it
Many people often ask, “Is it acceptable for human beings to manipulate human genes” (Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy). Most of the ethical issues centralize on the Christian understanding of a human being. They believe God made them the way they are and people should accept their fate.The Society, Religion and Technology Project have researched and found that countless people are curious if gene therapy is the right thing to do. They have a problem with exploiting the genes a person is born with due to the fact they consider it to be “playing God” (Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy). They are also concerned with the safety. On account of the unfamiliar and inexperienced technology. Gene therapy has only been around since 1990, so scientists are still trying to find the best possible way to help cure these diseases. Multiple scientists are cautious with whom they share their research. For the reason that if it were to get into in the wrong hands it could conceivably start a superhuman race. Author Paul Recer presumes using germline engineering to cure fatal diseases or even to generate designer babies that will be stronger, smarter, or more immune to infections (Gene Therapy Creates Super-Muscles). Scientists could enhance height, athleticism and even intelligence. The possibilities are endless. Germline engineering, however, would alter every cell in the body. People would no longer have to worry about the alarming and intimidating combinations of their parents’ genes. Genetic engineers are able to eliminate unnatural genes, change existing ones or even add a few extra. Like it or not, in a few short years scientists will have the power to control the evolution of
Although the highly technical aspects of human gene therapy are somewhat complex, the basic concept is very straight forward. The goal of gene therapy is to correct mistakes that have occurred within the genetic material, or DNA, of the living cell. In very simple terms, DNA is often thought of as the "language" of the biological functioning of organisms. This language is organized by letters (nucleotide pairs), words (codons), sentences (genes), and books (genomes). Before being able to repair the damaged or defective genetic material, the location of the gene or genes causing the dysfunction in the individual must be determined.
Genetic modification may decrease the chances of genetic diseases, but how can we be sure we obtained and modified all the infected cells. If that would be where the line is drawn it would be a positive thing for everyone. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Once one starts messing with an embryo, then you began to wonder and curiosity gets the best of you. You begin to want to start changing eye color, way of thinking amongst a number of other stuff. Children don’t ask to be conceived and they sure as hell don’t ask to
In this paper, I will negatively expose Walter Glannon’s position on the differentially between gene therapy and gene enhancement. His argument fails because gene therapy and genetic enhancement is morally impermissible because its manipulation and destruction of embryos shows disrespect for human life and discrimination against people with disabilities.
In September 14, 1990, an operation, which is called gene therapy, was performed successfully at the National Institutes of Health in the United States. The operation was only a temporary success because many problems have emerged since then. Gene therapy is a remedy that introduces genes to target cells and replaces defective genes in order to cure the diseases which cannot be cured by traditional medicines. Although gene therapy gives someone who is born with a genetic disease or who suffers cancer a permanent chance of being cured, it is high-risk and sometimes unethical because the failure rate is extremely high and issues like how “good” and “bad” uses of gene therapy can be distinguished still haven’t been answered satisfactorily.
First, I must define what types of diseases and disabilities fall under the category of things I believe we should be able to treat with genetic therapies and why. As Goering states, “if a child needs surgery or a painful treatment to survive or to thrive, we allow ourselves room to do what is ‘best for the child’ even if that may involve unavoidable pain that the child is not able to consent to.” If we were to except this as true, then a logical conclusion would be to fix the problem through genetic therapy before a child has to go through any pain. We should save them from these gruesome experiences. Some examples that Goering lists are Tay-Sachs disease, Lesch-Nyan syndrome, and cystic fibrosis (332).
From the perspective of some activists against gene therapy, they feel as though if it were to be used in a way to enhance one's own abilities. It could possibly have a destructive outcome especially if applied to an unborn/newborn child. These activists believe that if possessed in the wrong hands it may cause ethical issues such as altering a child's basic height, weight so forth. This type of treatment is called germline therapy, however the Government does not allow the research to be funded, so it is all only theory as it has not occured yet. But in factuality the cells that are implanted inside a patient's body may cause dozens of issues, as shown in the statement “Several studies have already shown that this approach can have very serious health risks, such as toxicity, inflammation, and cancer.” (GHR) With these issues it will cause even more problems, especially if someone is being treated for cancer. If they were to either retain the cancer or develop a new possibly worse type of cancer it will affect not only the patient but it will also halt the research of gene therapy which in turn will slow down the process for finding a safe
One of the most necessary uses of genetic engineering is tackling diseases. As listed above, some of the deadliest diseases in the world that have yet to be conquered could ultimately be wiped out by the use of genetic engineering. Because there are a great deal of genetic mutations people suffer from it is impractical that we will ever be able to get rid of them unless we involve genetic engineering in future generations (pros and cons of genetic eng). The negative aspect to this is the possible chain reaction that can occur from gene alteration. While altering a gene to do one thing, like cure a disease, there is no way of knowing if a different reaction will occur at the cellular or genetic level because of it; causing another problem, possibly worse than the disease they started off with (5 pros and cons of gen. eng.). This technology has such a wide range of unknown, it is simply not safe for society to be condoning to. As well as safety concerns, this can also cause emotional trauma to people putting their hopes into genetic engineering curing their loved ones, when there is a possibility it could result in more damage in the
[Cover: discussion about how risks are balanced during risk assessment, why this is a difficult task -> proposing a set of principles and practical measures that might assist both researchers and patients, to enable more informed decisions about risk]
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu, in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings,” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is a morally obligatory. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to intervene genetically even if such intervention may be permissible under certain criteria. I will show, in contrast to Savulescu’s view, that the moral obligation to intervene is not the same as the moral obligation to prevent and treat disease. In short, I will show that the ability of humans to intervene genetically is not sufficient to establish a moral obligation.
If a limit is not set between using genetic engineering for treatment and using genetic engineering for enhancement, then many parents could use it purely for eugenic purposes. This could cause ethical concerns but social concerns as well. If this was allowed to occur, it would also give the rich even more advantages than they already have to begin with and drive the social classes even farther apart. The use of genetic engineering may also lead to genetic discrimination. As in the movie Gattaca, a person could easily get a print-out of his or her genotype, this information could then be used by schools, employers, companies, and others; giving rise to a new form of discrimination based on a person’s genetic profile. As the world is already full of discrimination, genetic engineering would even increase the numbers of discrimination against people.
Bergeson, E. (1997) The Ethics of Gene Therapy [Online] Available at: http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/students/bergeson.htm [Accessed 14 July 2011]
Due to the fact that the field of biotechnology is very serious and potentially dangerous, rules must be set down in order to keep the research in check. The high risk research of genetic therapy needs guidelines that have to be followed in order to keep the study just. The articles that are discussed in this essay focus on ethical issues and ideas that should be followed in the field in order to keep research safe and valid.
In a recent study by Editas Medicine, they are working with CRISPR to prevent a blinding disorder called “leber congenital amarurosis” which is a rare inherited disease (Knapton, 2015). This disorder is due to a defect in a gene that encodes for a protein that is essential for vision, using CRISPR they are able to cut out the mutated areas. This is one example on how modifying DNA can be beneficial and why it should be accepted. Many inherited disorders like cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sachs. With parents having genetic screen tests they can provide a better future for their children and prevent them from a life with a
The moral conflicts put aside, the process of genetic engineering is difficult. Changing the proteins in people’s body differently is an unnatural action. Scientists state that genetic engineering only works 50% of the time. Also, when a new gene is placed in the gene code, there will be various mutations that will definitely result in change but may not be for the better.