The morals and ethics of CRISPR gene editing

Spoiler

Some preliminary education:



Some definitions:
Cas9 (CRISPR associated protein 9) - An enzyme that has been found in bacteria, such as the Streptococcus pyogenes (S. pyogenes), with hitherto viable level of efficiency and speed in gene reading and cleaving abilities to be used as gene editing treatment in human and other organism DNA. Essentially, this is the DNA-cutting protein.

CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) - A sequence of DNA. Essentially Cas9 cutter with a DNA sequence that instructs where to cut the gene being edited.

gRNA (Guide RNA) - A constructed bit of RNA, naturally supplied by the bacteria immune system, or synthetically supplied by a lab technician, that is used to identify what sequence of DNA should be identified for Cas9 to cut.

Some over-simplified explanation:
CRISPR is a took that can be used to do a few things to DNA with unerring precision. It can:

• omit a PAM (a short sequence of DNA bonds), causing the natural immune system to attempt to repair the omission, which frequently results in miscoding, and subsequently disables the edited gene
• be combined with transcription proteins so specific locations in a gene can be duplicated from immune organisms and utilized as vaccines in susceptible organisms
• attach florescent proteins to specific sections of a gene, physically lighting up where a sequence resides inside the nucleus
• "silence" genes, preventing them from being duplicated further

The questions:

1. Do you think CRISPR and gene editing treatments should be made entirely legal without regulation, legal with a specific level of government regulation, or outright illegal.
2. If CRISPR does become legal (in agreeance with, or despite your opinion), as well as affordable, do you think a parent has a moral obligation to invest in CRISPR treatment when provided undeniable evidence their child will be born with a disability?
3. If legal, is it ethical to allow procedures to be performed on fetuses that:
   • encourage "attractive" genetics?
   • empower the person to grow to the higher limits of human potential throughout life, physically OR mentally?
   • change the phenotype to avoid contemporary prejudice such as black skin or whatever other feature is discriminated against at the time?

My responses:
I will give my general answers without much rhetoric to explain my opinions. I hope discussion will be involved on the topic because I think it's super interesting, and I'd like to present my ideas, and let the conversations unfold from there without too much preemptive arguments.

1. I believe CRISPR gene editing should be made legal with heavy restriction.
2. It is a moral obligation if the family can afford CRISPR treatment to apply it to conditions that can be corrected in the unborn child, including birth defects or genetic diseases. Children have been aborted due to defects for the humanity of sparing the child a hard, short, or diseased life, and I believe that an egg at the time of conception should be given the best chance to live their life, and it is a moral obligation of the parents to ensure a healthy life rather than a merciful abortion.
3. I believe it is ethical to encourage the healthiest, humanly possible growth in a human. I believe that given careful regulation, safe enhancements to human traits, enhancements that do not push the human limit and risk system failure from an overstimulated body, can help better shape the human race in future generations.

 

I do not support CRISPR gene editing, I find it entirely wrong as I do not believe in "playing God" (I'm a reborn Christian).

 

Do you think your religion’s god wanted an unborn, unjudged, and sin-free baby to be born with MS? And if you say it’s part of “god’s plan” because they rolled the dice on debilitating genetics, wouldn’t it also be god’s plan that we discover and utilize gene editing in order to improve the quality of life of god’s children? Both things are possible in god’s design, so what makes the negative result preferable over the positive result?

 

I see and understand the pros of gene editing and understand your reasoning about both things being possible in Gods design. I still don't agree with it, I don't believe we should be tampering with stuff like that as something bad can eventually arise from it in the future.

 

i support because it would open the doors for longer study and testing and eventually like everything become better and help people and save lives.

 

Nuclear research gave rise to atom bombs, but also allowed us to understand physics on a scale smaller than we’ve ever imagined. This opened doors to energy solutions, space travel, fuel, etc.

Metallurgy lead to thousands of brutal conflict and warfare but gave way to advanced civilization.

Biology studies enabled weaponized anthrax and other bio weapons but also lead to many medical breakthroughs.

Anatomy itself was shunned as an act against god in its time, preventing the march of medicine and the trust in things like blood letting and simple torture as medicinal treatment.


ANY science and technology can be misused, but that doesn’t mean we should be afraid of a god striking us down, nor of the possible bad side products of the study. That only holds us back from unimaginably improved quality of life.