top of page

Issues and Solutions

[B.5]

[B.4]

[B.4]

The Ethical Problem: Designer Babies

The real major ethical problem is the fear of

designer babies. Designer babies have really only two opposing sides, the ones who want them and those who don't. The ones who gain from genetic engineering are the ones who accept and will use the new technology to their advantage, giving their children longer and healthier lives. Those against designer babies will continue to have genetic problems in their families that will affect their position in society, perhaps resulting in occupation instability. The ability to choose the traits your child is born with and will thus transfer onto the  generations to come will significantly heighten the chance of survival of society; however, establishing an unfortunate hierarchy of those genetically modified and those who are not. [B.6]

 

The Social Problem: Tradition

Tradition is the pinnacle of those belonging to the older generations. Some ethnicities and cultures

believe the world should work its course and whatever its outcome may be, it must be embraced. This idea directly contradicts genetic engineering, which states that humans should genetically alter organisms for the benefit of society and the world. This goes against tradition and is the biggest social conflict in society today. Benefits of genetic engineering in the social world include an increased lifespan, increased nutrition, and better sustainability of the human population. The hardest question is whether to value what humanity has held dear and known for lifetimes, or to embrace the change of the ever-expanding world not knowing what is to come.

 

"Change does not change tradition it strengthens it. Change is a challenge and an opportunity, not a threat." ~Prince Philip of England

The Legal Problem: Humane?

"The greatness of humanity is not in being human, but in being humane." ~Mahatma Gandhi

 CRISPR is an incredibly new innovation in the world of science that has the ability to dramatically

change humanity and all life on Earth.  At the moment, there is almost too much unnecessary gene editing using CRISPR. Using this gene editing technique could lead to a lack of diversity in humanity. CRISPR is too powerful and could possibly take away the human in humanity; therefore, its benefits may come at a real cost to society. [B.1]

 

 

 The Big Issue with CRISPR: Too Powerful 

The Solution: Regulation

 CRISPR may be playing god in the eyes of some people, but to solve the issue of CRISPR being too

powerful, governments could regulate the use of CRISPR. An all-out ban on CRISPR is unnecessary and is only taking away something that has more Pros than Cons. The alternatives to CRISPR's abilities do not reach out to help all people, only carriers of certain genes, the main alternative being IVF's (In Vitro Fertilization). To ignore those in need is senseless and cruel when regulation could prevent the misude of this valuable technology. [B.2] Jennifer Doudna has suggested a way to regulate CRISPR in 5 Steps: 

  1.  "Safety: the global community of scientists and clinicians needs to adopt standard methods for measuring genome-editing efficiency and off-target effects"

  2. "Communication: the December summit should stimulate further forums in which experts from the genome-editing and bioethics communities provide information and education for the public about the scientific, ethical, social and legal implications of human-genome modification."

  3. "Guidelines: there should be international cooperation by policymakers and scientists"

  4. "Appropriate oversight should be organized and applied to laboratory work that aims to evaluate the efficacy and specificity of genome-editing technologies in the human germ line"

  5.  "Caution: human-germline editing for the purposes of creating genome-modified humans should not proceed at this time" [B.3]

 

         Currently the science in the United States of America does not condone the cloning or altering of human's DNA; although, scientists can test their theories on embryos, but not impregnate women with the modified embryo. The question here is, what is genetic altering? Technically, we have been genetically altering our entire lives by picking a mate, this is called selective breeding. Now with the ever-expanding IVF industry, the choice of picking traits is at anyone's disposal. One could choose a sperm sample as an equivalent to a perfectly healthy human being and thus the same product of genetic engineering. The issue is the IVF industry is not used by all parents. So the portion of the human race abstaining from IVFs is at a disadvantage when it comes to their children. If we legalize genetic engineering in embryos and impregnating mothers with the embryos, we would be giving an equal opportunity to the human race to have strong offspring, but at the cost of the risk of abuse of the power.

 

bottom of page