Genetic editing is a topic that has come under major scrutiny recently. About a month ago, a Chinese scientist reported that he had created the world’s first genetically edited baby using the “CRISPR” (1) technology. Various news and media companies have been focusing on this issue from unidimensional perspectives. I believe a more thorough, inter-disciplinary, PPE (philosophy, politics, economics) style analysis of this topic is necessary to understand the importance and the deeper implications of genetic editing. In this paper, I ponder the moral, ethical, philosophical, economic, and biological dilemmas that genetic editing and human germline alteration bring.
Quite simply put, Genome editing is a type of genetic engineering in which specific changes to the DNA of a cell or organism are made. An enzyme cuts the DNA at a specific sequence, and when this sequence is repaired by the cell itself an ‘edit’ is made to the sequence. Unlike earlier genetic engineering techniques that randomly insert genetic materials into a host genome, editing is able to target specific locations with incredibly high accuracy.
I believe that any biological support of genetic editing is by proxy a utilitarian and economic support of genetic editing. Over the next couple of decades, targeted gene editing could help humanity overcome some of the biggest and most persistent challenges in global health and development. The technology is making it much easier for scientists to discover better tools to fight diseases that kill millions of people every year. It is also accelerating research that could help millions of farmers in the developing world to grow crops and raise livestock that are more productive, more nutritious, and hardier. Thus, a biologist’s argument in support of genetic editing is actually a manifestation of a macroeconomist’s argument. If we are able to cure a certain disease that affects millions of people, we are able increase the size of the labor force by millions of units. Some supporters even go so far as to say that genetic engineering has the power to unlock a new phase in human evolution. Yuval Noah Harari, in his book, ‘Homo Deus’, claims that Homo Sapiens is not the final stage in human evolution. The next stage is Homo Deus, which directly translates to “Demi God”. This entails that with the advent of genetic engineering, we can create a new species of supremely intelligent, disease resistant humanoid creatures that are more powerful and capable than ever.
Biological and economic arguments against genomic editing stem from the notion that the human life has been around and evolving on this planet for almost 4 billion years. Human evolution has been shaped by inconceivable amount of time through multiple iterations of trial and error. Given that this research is nascent it seems a little risky, given that it has the power to impact future generations. While this type of thinking is important, I think this type of thinking is regressive and the economic/ biological upsides far exceeds the downsides.
Supporting genetic editing gets a little dicey once we begin to think about the moral considerations involved. There are two broad moral arguments against genetic editing. The weaker argument against gene line editing is that it opens up a Pandora’s box for what parents can do to their children’s embryos prior to birth. The argument goes that gene editing surgery will start off as disease preventive in nature. For example, a parent seeks to reduce their child’s likelihood of cystic fibrosis by using germline editing. This seems fair and moral. However, in the future does this mean that a parent can alter the child’s height, skin color, intelligence levels, or even its ability to cope with emotions? I believe that the argument from eugenics and the notion of designer babies is weak in that if one is against designer babies they are probably against a variety of the medical practices prevalent today. How different are designer babies (other than in magnitude of the alterations) to the individuals on reality television that undergo countless rounds of plastic surgery in order for their faces and bodies to contort in a certain way? How different is sending your children to the most expensive private institutions in order to enhance their EQ and IQ if you can afford it?
A stronger ethical argument against genetic editing is that this surgery doesn’t just alter the fate of one individual, it alters the fate of every single individual that is to come from the bloodline of the human whose embryo has been altered. This is terrifying if we look at the laws of compounding and exponentiation. By altering just one baby, 15 generations later, we have inadvertently altered 32,768 babies (2). Furthermore, there is absolutely no way, today or in the near future, to scientifically test the results of future generations. Unless someone were to build a time-machine or be able to predict the future with orders of magnitude far greater than statistics today, I do not see any viable argument against this ethical consideration.
In conclusion, genetic editing is a topic that is susceptible to strong bias if not considered holistically and from an interdisciplinary perspective. Myopic or non-interdisciplinary analyses might miss the point. A purely economic or biological argument is likely to support genetic editing; but, a more holistic, ethical, and philosophical argument is likely to be skeptical about it. Hence, a PPE perspective is important and could lead to deeper insights that might otherwise have been ignored.
Footnotes:
References:
Belluz, Julia. “Is the CRISPR Baby Controversy the Start of a Terrifying New Chapter in Gene Editing?” Vox.com, Vox Media, 22 Jan. 2019
Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harrari
Gates, Bill. “Gene Editing for Good.” Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs Magazine, 6 Mar. 2019,