When it comes to the discussion of advances in reproductive technology, the dreadful society portrayed in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley is referenced without fail. The dystopian novel describes a population divided into five tiers of intelligence and capability, which are determined in the embryo stage. However, the reality of genome editing is nowhere close to such fantasy. Although it is indeed crucial to recognize the moral flaws in permitting human genome editing, they should not limit the development of a technology that could potentially improve and save thousands of lives.
Most people fail to realize that genome editing has already infiltrated their daily lives. In agriculture, new crops that are larger in size and fruits with reduced browning are being developed. The medical field also hugely benefits from this technology, with tumor research and cancer treatment becoming exponentially specific to diseases as well as patients. These advancements are made possible by the Nobel Prize-winning clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) genome editing techniques, which snip specific genes with extreme accuracy.
A Nature article reports that in November 2018, He Jiankui became the first publicly known scientist to create gene-edited babies, who were made resistant to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), by using CRISPR/Cas9. This clinical experiment was strongly criticized, particularly regarding its ethical violations and the unpredictable side effects of altering human germline. The primary concern is that once human gene editing takes off, the era of “designer babies,” or babies with selected genetic traits, is inevitable. Social imbalances can be further fueled since equal access to the technology cannot be realistically guaranteed.
Ironically, ethical issues – the major reason for the backlash against human genome editing – simultaneously function as supportive evidence for the same technology, especially in the eyes of transhumanists. Transhumanism is a philosophical movement that promotes the enhancement of humans through technologies including genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. The key is to recognize that although concerns about the negative consequences of genetic enhancements are valid, the potentially immense advantages of providing a novel solution to diseases outweigh everything else. Think of it this way: every day that human genetic enhancement is delayed on the premise of hypothetical side effects is another day of agony for patients suffering from diseases that could have been prevented.
Also, the myth that creating “designer babies” will lead to a dystopian society is simply unrealistic. An article by The Guardian explains that unlike how specific gene mutations can be credited with causing rare genetic diseases, it is nearly impossible to pinpoint a certain gene that contributes to, say, intelligence or musicality. In other words, purposefully engineering a baby that is exceedingly smart and talented in music is simply not feasible. Some may also argue that providing the option to change superficial traits such as eye or hair color can promote pre-existing discrimination. Indeed, with these characteristics being easier to locate and modify, the technology may be abused. However, alterations of one’s appearance are already made possible by modern-day cosmetic surgeries, thus proving this opposition to be invalid.
Much like most technological advances in their earlier days, human genome editing is being held back due to moral concerns about hypothetical scenarios, despite its undeniable potential to enhance society. However, fear of inequality is not a sufficient justification to halt the development and implementation of a technology that may provide lifelong benefits to certain people. It is time to reevaluate the pros and cons of human genome editing and realize that the immediate benefits of curing genetic defects overshadow ethical issues that can be tackled otherwise.