One of the most exciting things about scientific research is the way in which it allows us to transcend current understandings of the human potential. Genetic engineering exemplifies this power, as it often involves questions of what a human ought to be. Put simply, genetic engineering is “the direct manipulation of DNA to alter an organism’s characteristics in a particular way.” This practice, while holding a large place in modern-day discussions of bioethics, has a long history rooted in scientific exploration. Beginning during the early 1950s with the discovery of the double helix DNA structure by Rosalind Franklin, James Watson, and Francis Crick, the study of genetics became a recognized topic within scientific circles. Shortly after, geneticist Arthur Kornberg performed the first DNA synthesis, marking the official birth of genetic engineering as we know it. It wasn’t until the seventies that the field really began to take off, with the introduction of new technologies, like gene splicing and DNA mapping techniques. These innovative methods served as the early foundation for modern genetic engineering practices, as they allowed for unprecedented ease of manipulation of genomes. In the succeeding decades, substantial innovations were made in vaccines and synthetic drugs, as well as an investigation into the prospect of cloning and genetic modifications for organic plant life. With the turn of the century, the genetics community began to center their focus on the study of the human genome. It wasn’t long after this transition that renowned biochemists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier developed the first CRISPR mechanism, a tool that would offer unprecedented potential in a variety of fields yet pose an equally momentous challenge to the ethical foundations of modern science.
CRISPR-CAS9, more commonly referred to simply as CRISPR, is a biochemical technology that allows for cheap and easy gene editing. Utilizing what is known as “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,” CRISPR gives scientists the ability to combine endonucleases or proteins that cleave DNA at specific sites along the molecule, to pieces of RNA to add, delete, or turn off a certain sequence in the DNA. This means that, theoretically, biologists could harness CRISPR to make fine-tuned changes to an individual’s genetic makeup, whether it be curing a formerly incurable inherited disease, or enhancing certain traits, such as strength or intelligence. The most recent use of this technology among the scientific community was by a Chinese scientist named He Jiankui. On the last Monday of November 2018, Jiankui announced that he had created what would instantly become known as “CRISPR babies,” by editing the genomes of two unborn twins and altering their DNA sequences using CRISPR. The goal of this experimentation was to use CRISPR to delete a genetic mutation from the twins’ genomes that has been known to increase the probability of contracting HIV. The news of Jiankui’s work was met with overwhelming condemnation from the scientific community and society writ large. Experts called his work “sloppy” and its application “unnecessary,” citing a failure of Jiankui to meet germline editing requirements, a set of ethical and moral guidelines established by the 2017 National Academies of Science Report. However, the ultimate criticism of Jiankui’s attempt to edit the human genome stemmed from accusations of a lack of moral conscience. While Jiankui can be seen as noble in his attempt to remove the gene that causes HIV from the twins, the effect of his tampering was an overall decrease in life expectancy, something that was neither foreseen nor acknowledged by Jiankui himself. In light of the uproar over Jiankui’s perceived callousness, a host of important questions have arisen regarding both the feasibility and moral efficacy of gene editing as a practice.
Despite the outcry over Jiankui’s irresponsible use of CRISPR technology, the larger conversation regarding the benefits and drawbacks of genetic engineering, gene-editing technology in particular, demands an analysis that accounts for the industry’s multitude of different potential applications. Many ardent supporters of gene-editing technologies argue that technologies/innovations like CRISPR could cure medical conditions and ailments that substantially reduce the quality of life, offering an enormous boost to modern medicine’s ability to address genetic diseases that result from mutations, like cancer or HIV. Some experts even assert such technology has the potential to cure sickle-cell anemia, a genetic blood disorder that--until now--has been believed to be incurable. Additionally, gene-editing technology bears another, potentially less intuitive application: agriculture. Since CRISPR allows precise and efficient modification of genomes, scientists could use it to improve certain agricultural traits, like crop resiliency, adaptation, and end-usage. Since agriculture is crucial to the advancement of the United States (U.S.) economy, it’s essential that we use the technology available to us to improve farming practices however we can.
In light of these potential advancements, it may seem difficult to understand why so many within the scientific community were so starkly opposed to Jiankui's application of CRISPR technology to human embryos. After all, he was trying to help them, albeit in an irresponsible and unnecessarily hasty way. The question of how we ought to judge Jiankui’s use of gene editing practices begs inquiry into how capable we, as a society, are in controlling the potential negative side-effects of such a technology. Framed in this manner, it becomes less a question of the intrinsic features of the technology, and more so one of technical feasibility. Tied up in the debate over the feasibility of gene-editing technology are philosophical questions of future value since any use of CRISPR runs the risk of harming future generations in unknown ways. In this sense, it becomes clear why an expert consensus was opposed to Jiankui’s use of CRISPR: although his intentions may have been good, the state of the technology was such that Jiankui was incapable of preventing the negative side effects of meddling with the human genome.
Independent of determining whether or not the technology is ready for responsible use, some, such as theology and ethics professor Ted Peters, argue that gene-editing practices are unethical since they create the risk of using the technology for eugenics. As is evidenced by the current state of CRISPR technology, gene-editing tools are not widely accessible to the public yet. Since the development of such advanced technologies is expensive, tools like CRISPR are likely to become available to those who are higher on the socio-economic ladder first. This poses a massive threat to the fairness of society; since wealthy people will be the first customers of gene editing, genetically enhanced people can form a distinct socioeconomic class, raising the specter of inequality. According to Peters, the difference between a world of ethical gene editing and the much darker, socially stratified scenario laid out above lies in the distinction between therapy and enhancement. The therapy model for understanding gene-editing is one that emphasizes the potential for technologies like CRISPR to materially improve the lives of those suffering from genetic diseases. The enhancement model, on the other hand, sees CRISPR as a means to raise the standard for human genetic makeup in hopes of elevating the status of the human race as a whole, often resulting in class-based stratification of human worth. The line between these two interpretations is admittedly blurry, and the difference between therapy and enhancement is a hard line for bioethicists to draw. As a result, it’s likely that a world with CRISPR would be one in which certain castes of society are seen as more fit to reproduce than others, justifying mass oppression of those at a lower genetic “tier.”
How can one reconcile the relative advantages and disadvantages of using something so transformative as gene-editing technology? First, it’s important to distinguish between various degrees of relevance when considering the drawbacks of CRISPR. The uncertainty tied to the readiness of these technologies is by no means intrinsic to its use since our ability to effectively operate on the human genome is purely a matter of empirical circumstance. The potential for serving as the foundation of a modern eugenics’ movement, however, is not something that can be separated from the moral quality of gene-editing technology. This concern, while merely hypothetical, is inherent to the technology itself. In fact, it’s undergirded the entire field of genetic engineering since its conception in the 1950s.
Given that CRISPR poses an imminent threat to the equity of our society, what should we do about its proliferation? Maybe He Jiankui’s lapse in moral judgment was, in retrospect, a good thing. After all, his error did, at the very least, make clear to the scientific community and the world how unprepared we are as a society for things like CRISPR, potentially delaying widespread acceptance of the technology. No matter the answer to this question, gene-editing is undeniably unethical due to its propensity to increase inequality within a society, and thus anyone who willingly pushes the development of the technology would be making a mistake. While those who parade the potential benefits of CRISPR do so out of good intentions, their advocacy is dangerously short-sighted and could contribute to a path of development that is neither safe nor equitable.