GENE EDITING: THE BOUNDARIES OF HUMAN MORALITY
Keywords:
Gene, Editing, Human, Society, Morality, Ethics, CRISPR-Cas9, ImplicationsAbstract
Revolutionary advancements in gene editing, particularly CRISPR-Cas9 technology, hold immense potential for curing genetically mutated diseases and enhancing human characteristics. However, these developments raise significant ethical concerns about societal implications and the preservation of humanity. The increasing presence of gene editing technologies has sparked intense debates about the moral ramifications of human-driven genetic engineering, including embryo experimentation and social inequality due to limited accessibility. While extensive research has highlighted CRISPR-Cas9's capabilities and associated risks, recent controversial cases have intensified ethical discussions. Addressing these moral challenges is essential to uphold morality and prevent the misuse of such transformative tools. Through case studies, regulatory frameworks, and philosophical perspectives, the scientific community and various organizations have shaped this critical discourse on the appropriate use of genome modification. Contributing to these ongoing discussions, this paper explores the societal dangers and ethical implications of gene editing for future generations, emphasizing the responsibility required to prevent unintended consequences. Ultimately, it provides a comprehensive overview of the factors influencing the morality of genetic modifications and underscores the need for strict regulations to safeguard individuality.
References
I. ASGCT Statement on Germline Gene Editing Practices. (n.d.). https://www.asgct.org/publications/news/november-2018/asgct-statement-on-germline-gene-editing-practices
II. Cannon, W., & Cannon, W. (2024, January 10). Perspectives on gene editing. Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/perspectives-on-gene-editing/
III. Chabris, C. F., Lee, J. J., Cesarini, D., Benjamin, D. J., & Laibson, D. I. (2015). The Fourth Law of Behavior Genetics. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415580430
IV. Clarke, S., Savulescu, J., Coady, C. a. J., Giubilini, A., & Sanyal, S. (2016). The ethics of human enhancement: Understanding the Debate. Oxford University Press.
V. Ethical issues: Germline Gene Editing | ASGCT - American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy |. (n.d.). https://patienteducation.asgct.org/patient-journey/ethical-issues-germline-gene-editing#:~:text=Ethical%20Concerns%20for%20Germline%20Gene%20Editing&text=Because%20genetic%20diseases%20are%20inherited,to%20children%20of%20their%20own.
VI. Genetic Testing (PGT & PGS) | UCSF Center for Reproductive Health. (n.d.). UCSF. https://crh.ucsf.edu/fertility-treatment/preimplantation-genetic-testing-pgt/
VII. Guidelines — International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2022, July 14). International Society for Stem Cell Research. https://www.isscr.org/guidelines
VIII. Gunderson, M. (2007c). Seeking Perfection: A Kantian look at human genetic engineering. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 28(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-007-9030-4
IX. Habermas, J. (2003). The future of human nature. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA61157622
X. Immunology and Microbiology: Heterozygosity. (n.d.). ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/heterozygosity#recommended-publications
XI. In vitro fertilization (IVF)—Mayo Clinic. (n.d.). https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/in-vitro-fertilization/about/pac-20384716
XII. Issues. (2022, July 1). The legal and regulatory context for human gene editing. Issues in Science and Technology. https://issues.org/legal-and-regulatory-context-fhuman-gene-editing/
XIII. Joseph, A. M., Karas, M., Ramadan, Y., Joubran, E., & Jacobs, R. J. (2022). Ethical Perspectives of Therapeutic Human Genome Editing From Multiple and Diverse Viewpoints: A Scoping review. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.31927
XIV. Lanphier, E., Urnov, F., Haecker, S. E., Werner, M., & Smolenski, J. (2015). Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature, 519(7544), 410–411. https://doi.org/10.1038/519410a
XV. Liu, S. (2020). Legal reflections on the case of genome-edited babies. Global Health Research and Policy, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-020-00153-4
XVI. Mengstie, M. A., Azezew, M. T., Dejenie, T. A., Teshome, A. A., Admasu, F. T., Teklemariam, A. B., Mulu, A. T., Agidew, M. M., Adugna, D. G., Geremew, H., & Abebe, E. C. (2024). Recent advancements in reducing the Off-Target effect of CRISPR-CAS9 genome editing. Biologics, Volume 18, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.2147/btt.s429411
XVII. Morar, N. (2014). An Empirically Informed Critique of Habermas’ Argument from Human Nature. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9509-5
XVIII. Mosaicism: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia. (n.d.). https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001317.htm#:~:text=Mosaicism%20is%20a%20condition%20in,Blood%20cells
XIX. Mukherjee, S. (2016). The gene: an intimate history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gene:_An_Intimate_History
XX. Nadeem, R., & Nadeem, R. (2024, July 22). 7. Americans are closely divided over editing a baby’s genes to reduce serious health risk. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/americans-are-closely-divided-over-editing-a-babys-genes-to-reduce-serious-health-risk/
XXI. NCI Dictionary of Genetics Terms. (n.d.). Cancer.gov. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/genetics-dictionary/def/gene
XXII. Neogi, N. (2017, November 22). Government representation in Dystopian Literature – Literature and Digital Diversity. https://litdigitaldiversity.northeastern.edu/government-representation-in-dystopian-literature/
XXIII. Nhgri. (2019, March 13). What are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing? Genome.gov. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns
XXIV. Qaiser, F. (2020, November 2). Study: There is no country where heritable human genome editing is permitted. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/farahqaiser/2020/10/31/study-there-is-no-country-where-heritable-human-genome-editing-is-permitted/
XXV. Raposo, V. L. (2019). The first Chinese edited babies: A Leap of Faith in science. JBRA. https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20190042
XXVI. Schmidt, J. (2024, May 7). Kantian ethics. Corporate Finance Institute. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/esg/kantian-ethics/#:~:text=Kant's%20moral%20philosophy%20is%20a,action%20determines%20its%20moral%20value.
XXVII. The designer Baby Distraction | ASM.org. (n.d.-a). ASM.org. https://asm.org/articles/cultures-magazine/volume-4,-issue-4-2017/the-designer-baby-distraction
XXVIII. What are genome editing and CRISPR-Cas9?: MedlinePlus Genetics. (n.d.). https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/genomicresearch/genomeediting/
XXIX. What is a gene?: MedlinePlus Genetics. (n.d.). https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/basics/gene/
XXX. What is CRISPR-Cas9? (n.d.). Your Genome. https://www.yourgenome.org/theme/what-is-crispr-cas9/
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 International Educational Journal of Science and Engineering
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
