Humans, on a biological level (if not on a conscious one), are no different from any other mammal. We breathe in oxygen, we raise our offspring to a certain age, and we fall prey to poisons and diseases. Therefore, some say, why should we be excluded from the wave of genetic innovation animals are receiving? Our human biology got us to this point. By tampering with it, will we still be human? Should we stay human, or should we purposely evolve? And the biggest question, will changing our fundamental components lead to positive or negative outcomes? These questions I cannot answer, and it is my belief that anyone who tells you they can is either a liar or at best delusional. This is because human nature, undisputedly, seeks change and advancement. This is like a computer designing it’s future version. And yet, as a species, we refuse to stop existing, or to die out. These two core beliefs of the human mind will contradict and clash, and whichever wins will decide our future. No one can predict that, anymore than someone could predict the ending of WW2 in 1939. Only as the war progresses will we learn the probable victor.
6
I think it is wrong all the way around. Just let the babies be how God intended them to be, born flawed. I also think that makes us human.
2
@John-Mark, I can tell your religious. Please keep that out of your comments. When talking about these topics, talk about them in an atheist and non-biased manner. This way, we all learn your facts and opinions without the lack-luster excuse of an opinion as "God intended them to be flawed, so they should have no choice in the matter."
3
I believe that creating genetically modified humans can be ethical if it is used for editing genes that can help people become more resistant to diseases or help them live longer lives.
2
@Gabe, A true scientific profile image.
1
Evolution, survival of the fittest, right? Ethics aside, this could be a massive leap forward for the Human Race, being able to directly 'evolve' ourselves. Minds and bodies with greater muscle mass and bone density, greater efficiency metabolizing, longer periods of activity (Gone are the days of coffee fuel All-Nighters!) A real Sci-Fi advancement for the human race.
But in reality, it would take decades for such research to be undergone, discoveries to take place, and trials to be allowed. For now, basic gene-editing allows for disease prevention, as is the case for the two babies that have been edited. Before we cry "unethical" and "immoral," we should first see the postnatal development and life of these children. If all goes well with the twins, other advancements should take place.
Obvious limitations should be placed worldwide for work such as this. Editing should not be for the purpose or enjoyment of the parent, rather for the benefit of the child. Say if your a 'Lord of the Rings' fan, you shouldn't edit your child to look like Frodo. You should absolutely be able to have your child be edited for traits which would be helpful for them during their life. Disease resistance, enhanced growth of bones and muscles.
If Humanity were to become an interplanetary species, we may need to take every advantage we can get to survive on other planets. Using Gene Editing may be essential for such advancements.
1
Since the 1970’s scientists discovered a new eugenics that allowed you to see mistakes in the genetic code, pregnant women have been getting this test to see if their unborn child will have any genetic defects like CF, DS, etc... If the child has one or more of these diseases the parents can choose to have an abortion. This option is much more ethical than Dr. He's option with CRISPR-Cas9.
With new technology like this out, it will soon be much more controversial. There are some people who are against altering/changing DNA coding, but there are also people that think it is a good idea. It could help people who are carriers and may pass disorders/diseases onto their children, but if this was legal everywhere, who knows how much longer it would take citizens to want to also change their kids mental and physical appearances (which will soon be possible)? CRISPR-Cas9 isn't the only option for parents who have HIV and parents who are carriers of other disorders/diseases, therefore it is unnecessary and would eventually cause chaos.
2
I see where people could get uncomfortable with the idea of a human being genetically altered to “perfection”. But I personally think that the pros of gene editing heavily out way the cons.
As said in the article “Chinese Scientist Claims to Use Crispr to Make First Genetically Edited Babies”, the scientist He Jiankui was described as using gene editing to make the babies resistant to HIV. Dr He was then called a disgrace to the Chinese scientific community for doing such a thing. I think that if the intentions of the gene editing are to help someone I don’t see why it should be seen as a negative. For example, if a child is diagnosed with something like heart disease or alzheimer's before their even born then why shouldn’t a doctor stop inevitable pain of a child. I think that even editing a child to have higher I.Q. or strength isn’t wrong.For example, If every child was genetically edited to have a higher I.Q. all it would do is help humanity solve harder problems.
The only con I see with gene editing is the possibility of making a biological weapon or agent that could cause a mass loss of life. I think that gene editing is like the new vaccine, but instead of only immunizing against viruses it can immunize against almost anything.
2
My initial reaction to the news that we have edited the genes of a human hasn’t changed after I read this article. I think that having the ability to edit an embryos genes is a good thing but limitations need to be set. It should be used as a last resort and other safe treatment options need to be used before editing an organism’s DNA. For example, the Dr. Mitalipov said “focuses on editing out mutations that cause serious diseases that cannot be prevented any other way… There are other ways to prevent H.I.V. infection in newborns.”. Dr. He shouldn’t have used gene editing to prevent H.I.V. in the babies he altered because there are other more practical ways to prevent H.I.V. in embryos. Instead we should use gene editing to change genes to prevent life altering diseases.
The gene editor Crispr should only be used to prevent serious mutations and diseases. Altering things like eye color and IQ create babies that are called designer babies because the parents get to choose the gender, height, and many other traits they want their baby to have. Creating designer babies defeats natural selection and would create turmoil in society. Gene editing would be expensive which means only the rich could afford it and the poor would be at even more of a disadvantage.
Overall, I think that Dr. He’s experiments have the right intention but China needs to create some laws that limit what genes can be edited and which ones can’t.
3
My first thought when hearing about He Jainkui’s accomplishments was Gattaca. Gattaca is a movie made in 1997 that shows the dysfunctional society that can arise from genetically altering the human genome. Children who were not genetically engineered were discriminated against no matter their natural potential. So naturally, at first I was terrified of what could be from allowing this technology be universally available.
I then read more into the article, particularly Dr. He’s motives for doing such an action which he must have known would be so ridiculed. I found that people with H.I.V. face severe discrimination in China. As I read on It got increasingly more morally complicated. Who am I to deny children their happiness and relatively fair childhood?
Many people’s arguments against Genetic engineering is that you should love your child unconditionally, despite their flaws. Now there is no arguing that a mother and father shouldn’t lover their child, but wouldn’t, shouldn't they want a better life if their child suffered from say Tay-Sachs? Tay-Sachs is a genetic disease that causes death at any early age, usually around five years old, because of a missing enzyme called Hex-A. It causes progressive destruction of the nervous system and brain. There is no treatment. Wouldn’t it be morally wrong to deny this child a cure; to deny them relief?
One of the questions asked was where do you stand on the debate? And I simply don't know, it's complicated to just pick one side
1
I do not believe that Genetic editing is ethical. We can not foresee the dangers that could occur in the future. I also think that is not fair that the children don't get a say in this, they will be observed for the rest of their life. I think that this is very irresponsible and it reminds me of Edward Jenner who gave a child a vaccine without his permission.
Yes, there are dangers that could arise from genetic editing; whether it be unethical use of the process, or possible fatal results for the growing embryo. Regardless, in matters of possibly saving lives, a debate of ethics is out of question. Imagine the knowledge we could gain from more studies allowing genetic editing. There is potential for complete immunity to the illnesses plaguing our world today; illnesses in which decades have been spent working with to understand them.
The article states, “ He Jiankui, said that he had altered a gene in the embryos... with the goal of making the babies resistant to infection with H.I.V.”
According to UNAIDS, in the year of 2017 alone, over 36 million people were living with HIV globally. Almost 1 million people died of HIV in the same year. What many see as unethical, downright crazy, I find revolutionary.
His work, as said in the article, is yet to be published. When it is, I believe positive results will open up a doorway of possibilities. The next generation could be completely immune to HIV and even other diseases; that is, if we allow work like He Jiankui’s to be conducted.
1
Genetically editing organisms to completely eliminate diseases seems like science fiction, but may become the normal one day. As long as it stops at disease elimination, I believe only good can come from it. However, as with all new technology, it's entirely possible there will be unintended consequences with it.
While Dr. He’s experiment was only for the good of humanity, I can see where the other scientists are coming from, it's possible there could become “Designer Humans”, and while editing your eye colour, or maybe making your hair curly couldn’t really hurt anyone, making one faster, or smarter, or stronger could definitely cause trouble in the future.
I don’t think Dr. He really deserves all of this negativity, as for his experiment is really groundbreaking, and it really doesn’t mean this is the end of the world, people always freak out when something new is invented, like I.V.F. People in the 1500’s thought the printing press was going to end humanity, but it's helped us better ourselves. Who knows if this will do the same, only time can tell
I think that as of now, this is a good thing because it allows these children to be resistant to a certain disease before they are born. This research could be used to prevent diseases like cancer and Parkinson's, which currently have no cures. There should be legal limits to gene editing for any other reason than to prevent diseases. This would stop the possibility of designer babies.
Designer babies may just be the new rage. The new fad. A brilliant technological advancement, allowing the parents to pick and choose everything from their offspring eye color to I.Q.
The main goal of this advancement was to create a way for their to be resistance to the HIV virus in an embryos genes. People in China that suffer from having contracted the HIV viruses are seriously discriminated against. Therefore this new technology could better those in China. The leading reason for Doctor He to be conducting such experiments. Many countries including the United States have made it illegal to intentionally alter the genes in embryos. China is one country where this is legal. Despite these actions being legal Dr. He has been on no pay leave from the university he is affiliated with due to their concern for the unethical characteristics of his project. His claims are now being investigated.
You too might want to investigate all scenarios before considering doing this to your own child. I believe that everyone is to be created unique and if there are any mutations then that is what was meant to be. Although the idea of the minimal chances of the embryos contracting these diseases may sounds appealing, there are many wrong things that could come out of it. I applaud this advancement but also feel there should be a major concern for the detrimental outcomes that may be seen.
When I started reading the article, I entirely disagreed with making genetically edited humans. I saw that a Chinese scientist had made the first genetically edited humans, and I was horrified that someone would go against the laws of nature like that.
As I continued to read the article, I realized that Dr. He didn't do it to play God or for personal gain, but to make the twin girls he altered H.I.V. resistant, I changed my mind. Even knowing he might be criticized, he did it in hopes of saving those twins from a disease so widely feared in China: “Dr. He said the father of the twins has a reason to live now that he has children, and that people with H.I.V. face severe discrimination in China.” Chinese scientists are calling He Jiankui’s actions “crazy” and “a huge blow,” but I think that to the many living around the world with H.I.V. and to the parents of the twins, his actions are anything but.
Although Dr. He's experiment was successful, editing genes has many risks and potential for mistakes. But if scientists in the future are just as cautious as Dr. He---if we make laws to ensure they will be---altering genes could save the lives of millions in future generations. Not only that: it could save hospital bills, money for vaccines, and open up a whole new door to saving people from diseases. Many are looking for a cure to cancer and I think that this will one day be that cure. In my opinion, He Jiankui is not crazy or evil, but a hero to the future of our world.
I think that although eliminating diseases does sound appealing, if we allowed scientist free rein with genetic engineering, any benefits that can be used for good can be easily ignored. There are many ways this can take a horrible turn. I agree that giving scientists free reign to explore and create and discover is important, but if they are given the power to alter humanity itself, even if it is innocent at the first, do we really believe that it will stay innocent? To paraphrase Plato, a man is just until he is given power to be unjust without fear of punishment.
After reading this article, my opinion changed about genetically editing human beings. Before I read the article, my opinion was mutual and I thought genetically edited humans were celebrated because they’re an innovation.
Now knowing more information, my view has changed. “Many nations banned such work, fearing it could be misused to alter everything from eye color to I.Q.” and the statement,“ The methods used for gene editing can inadvertently alter other genes in unpredictable ways.” These statements did not change my opinion rather it changed my view on the topic. Genetically reconstructed humans is a great investment and to my knowledge now, scientists who have spent time on this project are not wasting their time.
Dr. He’s experiment is highly opposed by many other scientists across the world. I believe that his experiment takes determination making genetically modified embryos to become resistant to certain types of diseases is a great idea. Don’t get me wrong genetically mutating humans to our liking is awful, disgusting and completely inhumane. But, if it’s for a good cause and could benefit humans later on into the future, I say go for it.
I understand where people are coming from when they support genetic modification for the purpose or eliminating disease; however I personally do not support it. I like to think about all those living today with the diseases we are trying to get rid of. To those people their disease is just another part of life, another part of who they are.
Who are we to say that what makes them who they are is not okay and needs to be fixed. I believe that our exploration in editing humans will only string a large sticky web of moral and political correctness issues that could easily be avoided if we just let things be.
In my opinion, gene editing should be illegal in all countries. Yes, some will say that our technology is getting better and better, but in no way shape or form should gene editing be a thing. “If human embryos can be routinely edited, many scientists, ethicists and policymakers fear a slippery slope to a future in which babies are genetically engineered for traits — like athletic or intellectual prowess — that have nothing to do with preventing devastating medical conditions.” If a woman is pregnant, and they want their child to look, or act a certain way, then that's not okay. They should be grateful for whatever child they are having. The parents should be totally fine with how they look. And if they are strict on how they act, the shape that child to act the way they want them too.
Some will say that gene editing can be a cure to most diseases. Diseases nowadays can change throughout time, and be mutant to whatever “cure” is out in the world now.
I think that is a good step in the right direction but it has to be very careful because I agree in that making babies resistant to different diseases is good it needs to be tread on carefully because it has the potential to be so misused that IQ or hair color could be changed making many countries ban genetically engineered humans all together. And on a different note I would just like to say that all though we all want the best things for our children if we start changing what they are what makes them our kids? Because our imperfections and unique traits are what makes them like us.
I Believe that genetically modifying humans is a great idea, and if this scientist succeeded in making these twins resistant to HIV, then where is the downside? Altering genetics has a lot of potential to treat genetic diseases such as type one diabetes and even some forms of cancer. I don’t understand why a country would ban this “fearing it could be misused to alter everything from eye color to I.Q.”. I support the creation of perfect, athletic, intelligent humans and it doesn’t make any sense to me how that could be considered “misuse” when I see progression.
Although I do believe that this has a lot of potential, there should be more research done to ensure that it is safe and that there is a low chance to get undesired effects in your genetically altered child.
I do not think it is ethical to genetically edit humans. I think that it is a wrong and very dangerous thing to do, because there is not enough research on this to deem it safe. We don't know if something worse could out of doing this. Things do not go well when people mess with mother nature's natural balance. So many things could go wrong “many nations banned such work, fearing it could be misused to alter everything from eye color to I.Q.”
Another thing to worry about is basic human rights, for example the parents could choose what the child’s job will be before it is even born by what genes they choose to altar. “Like athletic or intellectual prowess — that have nothing to do with preventing devastating medical conditions.” All in all I do not think that it is a good idea to tamper with mother nature.
@Mara Martin, The novel "Frankenstein" (by Mary Shelley) agrees with you, but based on your location, I can tell you that without vaccinations (which mess with mother nature) you would certainly be suffering from one or more of the following diseases; Malaria, Diphtheria, Influenza, Scarlet Fever, Smallpox, Typhoid fever, and a dozen others that I cannot remember off the top of my head. This does not concern mother nature, this should be about humans and our decisions. Nice job supporting your argument, however off-topic it may be.
Eliminating diseases by modifying our genes seems like a very simple and good thing for humanity. We would not have to suffer and see others in pain. But changing our genes will not solve all of our problems.
I personally believe that we should not change genes before birth. By doing this we are taking away our humanity, making biological perfections.
There is a popular misconception that gene editing will be able to eliminate all diseases, but that is not the case. At the moment, most cancers are not genetically inherited.
By changing a gene we may be opening up a new can of worms. Sometimes having a type of gene is beneficial when it appears to be harmful, and if we do change a gene, the effects may not show up for many generations.
Although I do not believe in gene editing, I understand that making the practice illegal is impossible. At the very least legal limits should be enacted to prevent parents from designing perfect people, and limiting gene editing to just eliminating diseases.
Although the science and the technology of the practice has gotten better, it is still far from perfect, and people still have the right to be concerned of the possible effects.
I personally think that it is ethical to genetically edited humans, if it's for useful reasons like preventing next generations of being affected by major diseases and symptoms that are presently strongly dangerous in the society right now!
I strongly support the idea of editing genetical for the good of the futur generations, but if of course it doesn't engage the security of the others during the process.
After I read this article I immediately felt uncomfortable. Genetically modifying babies to give them better ability's will create a world of drama and hatred. People who are poor will just get poorer and people who are not genetically modified will start to lose there jobs because people who are genetically modified can do it better.
Gene editing would be a major advantage in our society. If cancers or other genetic disorders and diseases are removed before birth, the world would be a healthier and happier place to live in.
However editing genes can be unpredictable and dangerous. There is not enough data to know the side effects of the generations to come of generically modified people. If the research of gene editing is pursued, it may become common for people to edit their kid's genes to make them more athletic or more intelligent. This could lead to an era of designer babies who are created to be better than everyone else. This could further divide our society and create more separation between the rich and the poor.
Even though there are many consequences I feel that this is too important of a discovery to pass by.
As humanity we should celebrate that we now have the ablitity to make the future better. We can spend day after day wondering about what the future might hold for us, but now with gene editing we are capable of becoming resitent to HIV one of the most deadliest diseases in the world.
The extent on gene editing seems boundless. Yes, people might use it for raising their social stadus in society but why should we care. Putting aside price, if I knew I would be able to make my child the way I want and they would be healthy and happy, then why not.
At this point, I think genetically editing out hereditary diseases and disabilities is acceptable. However, it's hard to tell how well this process actually works because we haven't seen a whole generation yet. Given the power to take out potentially fatal diseases is something that could change entire families futures. This technology is only the beginning and it's only a matter of time before it reaches the extent of customizing babies and boosting their natural skill set. Being able to modify babies takes away so much genetic variation. Although this process has endless benefits it's not hard to imagine a world where this technology gets out of control and nearly everyone is sculpted into the ideal human with the strongest archeypes. Furthermore, generations would turn into human experiments where parents are just waiting to see what is next to edit out, which again would be simplifying humans into one supreme category. As of now, I am in full support of the groundbreaking discovery but still remain afraid of the potential one directional human race that it could entail.
1
While such technology opens a Pandora's box of possibility for the future, just because we can doesn't mean we should. Being able to edit away negatives in a child before it's birth would save lives before they'd really begun, but where does that end? Even with proper legal restrictions, what can stop a genetically augmented militarization movement?
Most religions believe in a creator, one being who made all of us. What happens when you realize your creator is no longer whichever being you believe in, but rather a scientist in a lab fiddling with your genetic code like a chimpanzee fitting star and triangle shaped blocks into the proper slot.
To take away our flaws, our differences, would be to remove what makes us human. To subtract individuality and leave a race of perfect people, each the same perfect as the next.
Dr. He's experiment is a great scientific breakthrough, but safely editing human embryos would take many years. Just because Dr He was successful does not mean that every time will be. The article said that he and other scientists are worried that gene editing can inadvertently alter other genes in unpredictable ways. Changing the genetic code so that people can resist disease is great, but scientists have not come far enough to even consider making this part of our world yet, and I don't think they should try because it is too dangerous.
I think that in some ways this could be very dehumanizing. But in other ways, this new type of discovery could be very beneficial. Such as finding a gene that could cause cancer or another type of disease in the babies future. Finding that is crucial and could help us take care of the problem before it even occurs. This could possibly end a lot of heartbreak in the future, and start the era of a new world. In the end, it all depends on how we choose to use this new technique. If we use it to make our children healthier in the future, then I don't think its a problem. But if we start using it to change the way our offspring will look such as physique or characteristics then I think we have a problem, and this becomes very dehumanizing.
First, I think this is a huge breakthrough in the medical world today. I believe Dr. He's experiment is necessary to the improvement and will largely impact the future. However, it is also controversial just like the I.V.F years ago. There are tons of dangerous diseases in our world today that bothers the human being and leads to a tragic ending. If there's a solution to it, why won't we take it? Although, I do get the point from people's extreme reaction analyzing the dangerous result it might offer. Therefore, I believe there should be a common agreement upon all the supporters or haters that the use of genetically edited gene can only be used to fix the negatives, but not increase the positives such as making human beings stronger, smarter or better looking. I firmly believe that the invention will significantly do good around the world as there still are many families not able to have kids due to the risk of passing down diseases and the egg retrieval carries risks of bleeding, infection, and damage to the bowel or bladder.
I think there are many different ways we can work to make genetically modified genes a beneficial thing in our world today. I feel like there are ways for this to become our worst enemy but there are also ways that this could be extremely helpful in our society. If we can completely eliminate the need for research on curing cancer or aids and put more time and money into something else, it would make the world a better place.
I think that if genetically modifying babies is used solely for the purpose of taking away the baby's potential of having a disease such as HIV or cancer, it is completely acceptable. But if this genome editing transforms into making babies who are smarter, more attractive etc., this would be morally unacceptable and an abuse of the power that this technology brings. If people were trying to get their baby to be modified to be the smartest, scientists would be consumed in this narrow-minded task, rather than trying to completely eliminate the genes for deadly diseases in our society.
After reading this article I think genetic editing is only okay if trying to alter a gene because of a disease or something that could lead to death in later stages of the persons life. The real question is an genetic editing lead to something bad happening to the persons body or genes. There are always pros and cons to everything. Overall I think genetic editing could be a good thing if trying to edit out a disease or cancer but if trying to edit something else could it effect something and mess something up.
I think that this is morally okay IF it has to do with curing a human. If it is possible to cure someone from something that can cause them harm I am 100% for it, but that should only be the case. Genetically editing humans should only be done if it to help the survival of a human and not to help a human with looks, strength, etc.
i feel like it should only be allowed in some circumstances were they baby is guaranteed a disability or birth/health defects but i believe that baby's should be made the way they are because the world should not be a Utopia where every one is the same every one should be different because that is what sets us apart and being different is always a good thing
One of the first feelings I had after reading this article was a sharp twinge of discomfort. The idea of genetically modifying humans lead my mind straight to the many YA dystopian fiction novels I'd read throughout middle school (Divergent, Matched, Red Queen, The Hunger Games, and WarCross to give you some insight into my pre-teen interest), and my mind raced through thoughts of "this is crazy", "the world is ending", and "who let them do this". However, this is the problem scientist face constantly: people who enter fight-or-flight mode when faced with something out of the ordinary, without weighing the pro's and con's.
Some of the con's I felt immediately after reading the article were a bit dramatic. The threat of designer babies would be prohibited by governments, and any kinds of safety hazards would have been eliminated with all the extensive research and high dollar value that goes into the procedure. Pro's are not seen in the physical appear of the babies, but instead in the long term health of the child. With children like the HIV resistant twins or even "savior sibling" Adam Nash, genetically edited humans offer a solution for some of the most daunting medical dilemmas. Although the jury is still out on whether or not this is a morally correct advancement of science, it is important for each of us to step back from our immediate reactions over new, unusual growth in scientific fields and seek out all sides of the argument.
1
We don't know our own bodies yet. We don't know all the details of how our brains work. We haven't puzzled out what causes all the different illnesses and diseases. Would someone who had never worked on a car be successful in completely remodeling it with no manual or experience? If given enough time to think and plan they might succeed, but it is much more likely they would destroy the entire machine. And with gene editing, there is something much more valuable at stake than a car: a life.
Only the rich would be able to afford such procedures, and it would result in higher class divides. Imagine the implications of a society where people would be able to tell how rich or poor you were by looking at the attractiveness of your face. Imagine no more success stories of the unknown small-town kid making it to the Olympics, but always the children of millionaires. The intelligence divide alone is horrifying to even think about. Would the smart rich pity the stupid poor? Would they treat them in a patronizing way, like pets, or cattle? People say there would be restrictions on these things, and that the slippery slope is a fallacy, but give people an inch and they will take a mile. Even with restrictions, if legalized gene editing existed in any form there would most certainly be a black market for it, for those with enough money to throw around. It is better to find the cures for diseases then try to prevent them in the womb, because we risk losing our humanity in the process.
2
One of the first feelings I had after reading this article was a sharp twinge of discomfort. The idea of genetically modifying humans lead my mind straight to the many YA dystopian fiction novels I'd read throughout middle school (Divergent, Matched, Red Queen, The Hunger Games, and WarCross to give you some insight into my pre-teen interest), and my mind raced through thoughts of "this is crazy", "the world is ending", and "who let them do this". However, this is the problem scientist face constantly: people who enter fight-or-flight mode when faced with something out of the ordinary, without weighing the pro's and con's.
Some of the con's I felt immediately after reading the article were a bit dramatic. The threat of designer babies would be prohibited by governments, and any kinds of safety hazards would have been elimiated with all the extensive research and high dollar value that goes into the procedure. Pro's are not seen in the physical appear of the babies, but instead in the long term health of the child. With children like the HIV resistant twins or even "savior sibling" Adam Nash, genetically edited humans offer a solution for some of the most daunting medical dilemmas. Although the jury is still out on whether or not this is a morally correct advancement of science, it is important for each of us to step back from our immediate reactions over new, unusal growth in scientific feilds and seek out all sides of the argument.
While the prospects of genetic modification are alluring, there are issues that are raised by the subject. On one hand, the ability to improve the health of individuals can potentially facilitate another medical revolution comparable to the discovery of antibiotics, massively extending the average lifespan, greatly benefiting humanity. On the other hand, however, genetic engineering can potentially widen class divides in America. As it currently stands, genetic modification is expensive (costs around $1000 but is projected to fall to $100 in a few years) and, if made available in the US, would only be accessible to the wealthiest in the nation. If genetic modification can be used to improve physical and mental ability, wealthy individuals could displace unmodified individuals out of competitive positions like sports or science fields. This would cause great social outrage and create a stagnant class system in America with superior modified humans on top and inferior unmodified humans on the bottom. If genetic modification treatments are approved in the US, restrictions must be set which allow for great medical advancement but prevent the widening of social gaps.
1
While the twins were modified for the sake of health concerns if genetically editing humans becomes more socially acceptable children will be changed for vanity. This could reduce babies to mere fashion statements. Most children already have a hard time finding their own identities, if their entire beings are specifically designed it could remove any sense of self-image.
Another issue that may arise if gene editing becomes acceptable is class division. In most societies, there is already a very large gap between the rich and the poor. If genetically modifying children in the womb becomes marketable, there is no doubt it will be expensive. It wouldn’t be fair for the children born into rich families to have biological advantages over those who aren’t. If the people who fund research for diseases can suddenly become immune to them, what happens to those who can’t?
The article says, “a future in which babies are genetically engineered for traits — like athletic or intellectual prowess — that have nothing to do with preventing devastating medical conditions.”. In the future, we may find ourselves surrounded by “superhumans”. Humans have already advanced to be the most intelligent species on the planet and we have control over almost every natural process. If we find ourselves changing the natural course of humanity itself, what are the limits? Do we have a right to interfere with the natural course of life itself?
The fantasy of a world completely devoid of hunger, pain, or disease is an appealing one, and the world is chock full theories of how to achieve such a utopias. However, the logistics tend to muddy up what appeared to be a clear pathway to perfection. In the case of genetically edited humans, sure, the idea of pulling out a few genomes here and there to cure cancer is alluring, but the means of getting there is a little more murky.
In order to safely genetically edit humans, first there needs to be trial runs. Trial runs that would be disastrous if they failed. The ethical standard of humanity in this moment is too great to justify the unsafe experimentation of babies that have no say in their fate. In China, researcher He Jiankui assured the world that the twin babies he altered were perfectly health babies, but such sweeping statements came with inadequate records and no insight into how the babies might be different in the future. Any number of health problems could await those children, and they would await any other embryo that is tampered with. Simply, the ends do not justify the means.
Altering the genes in the embryo can change height, etc., and can even take away diseases that the baby has. There has been a debate on whether this should be allowed or banned. Personally, I think that this should stay banned unless the baby has a disease.
If altering genes were allowed, everyone would be the same. Every parent would want their child to be perfect. For example, I would want my child to be perfect. I would be tempted to make my child the best. If there was a parent who didn’t want to alter the genes of the child, that would make that child stupid compared to the kids that had the gene altering. This would be very unfair for that child. They would feel discriminated.
Even though altering genes is not good in some ways, it is also beneficial in some ways. Altering genes can take the disease that the baby might have got ahead of time. That way, the child wouldn’t inherit the disease. Without the disease, the baby could live longer, live without suffering, and live happily. I think that the method of altering genes should only be used for this reason. This gene editing technique can actually save the lives of many kids.
Currently, the news about altering genes had scared many people including myself. Even though it is scary, altering genes can also save the baby ahead of time. That way if the baby would have had a disease, the scientist could alter the gene to take the disease away, this should help the kid.
Whenever a technological advancement infringes upon “playing God,” a moral panic ensues. Whether it’s IVF or cloning, people always jump to extreme circumstances instead of a realistic future. When Dolly, the world’s first cloned sheep, made her appearance in 1997, I’m sure that the first thing that played through people's minds was the possibility of bumping into their clone on the street. But, after 20 years, this has yet to happen. I think the period of paranoia surrounding gene editing will one day pass. once people realize it is just another scientific advancement.
When it comes to gene editing and “designer babies,” most of the paranoia comes from people who don't realize that it wouldn't be legal in the first place. Without a doubt, the government would see the potential dangers in being able to choose the best genes for one’s baby. Those genetically superior humans would gain an unfair advantage, likely leading to an even greater divide between the rich and the poor (since this kind of genetic engineering would only be able to be afforded by the wealthy). The government would create regulations to limit the kind of modifications embryos receive.
Consequently, I do believe the promise of “eradicating diseases” is too good a promise to give up. Like the article says, gene editing should focus on “serious unmet needs in medical treatment" and "be well monitored” with “full consent.” We should proceed, though carefully, into this new frontier of medicine and science.
@Michelle Lamas
I agree with you, but your argument assumes that people would follow the law, and if there's one guarantee in civilization, it's that some people won't. Black market gene editing would exist because there would be a demand for it from those with enough cash, just like illegally harvested organs and animal parts. And then there's the question of what would happen to the children whose genes would be illegally edited. And what if they had children, passing those illegal genes on? Strange mutations and traits would undoubtedly worm their way into the population unnoticed. They may not even take any form on the visible body, but they would lie in the DNA.
And I doubt the black market would be very well regulated, either. There would be careless mistakes, perhaps even brand new health complications created that would not even be noticed until the child was born, or years after. This would likely be taken advantage of as those responsible would have long disappeared to other places, serving new clients. And the process would repeat, and spread faster in countries with more relaxed laws, and spread when people moved to other countries and had children, and so on. Why risk creating new diseases when we can put the resources towards curing the ones that already exist? Gene editing is a high risk, high return thing. But I don't think it's worth the risk. To say otherwise is dangerously optimistic in my eyes.
Genetic engineering has made it possible to change phenotypes for traits that people find more desirable. The question becomes that if we are able to do something, does that make it it ethical to do? I believe genetic engineering is unethical because it can hurt a natural process of selecting a population’s genes, and ultimately, though inadvertently, weaken the human species.
Changing even a single person’s genes can have drastic effects over generations. Altered genes are passed to offspring through meiosis. The article says, “many nations have banned such work, fearing it could be misused to alter everything from eye color to I.Q." While having a population of higher I.Q. individuals would be beneficial, it's unknown what long term effects genetic engineering will have on the individual. There may be unknown consequences of altering DNA in one area, possibly creating impacts for the engineered person and echoing through generations.
The scientist the article discusses claims to have created twin girls who are resistant to HIV. Ridding HIV would be of great service to the human race. What if changing this portion of the twins’ genetic code makes them more susceptible to incurable diseases? The unknown consequences aren't worth the risk. Furthermore, using the example of the twins in this article, genetically modified embryos can't consent to being genetically modified, yet they must live their lifetime with the consequences of it. This is unethical as well.
This question brought to mind all of the possibilities, good and bad. The part that intrigued me the most is what Dr. He supposedly achieved: creating two children born with HIV resistance. In third world countries where HIV and AIDS spread rampantly, often passing from mother to child, something like this could be monumental.
However, there’s always a downside. The negatives of this process is almost a main focus of the article, with several quotes from professionals in the field all describing different but still terrifying ways that this could go wrong. One of the main theories is the idea of “designer babies.” Embryos being altered for the purpose of making children more attractive, intelligent, etc.
The writer describes this futures as a “slippery slope,” but I think this analogy is incorrect, portraying this technology as some that will inevitably become corrupted. Instead, I like to think of the moral conundrum as a light dimmer. Yes, if we take this newfound control to the extreme, we will create a dark, almost dystopian world. But, to dismiss this idea simply for being too risky would be throwing away the chance to make out world brighter. I truly believe that in the right hands, this new method can eradicate some of the toughest problems facing our world today.
Before reading this article I was already biased against perfection and the need to fit someone's expectations. After reading this article I have come to realize why.
As soon as I began reading I was at a loss for words. I can't begin to imagine a world where parents can pick whether their children are athletic, have a high IQ, and have perfect features.
Everyone wants their children to have the best opportunities in life, but at what point is it too much? When they all have great metabolisms, high cheekbones, and the same cookie cutter traits?
"If human embryos can be routinely edited, many scientists... fear a slippery slope to a future in which babies are genetically engineered for traits — like athletic or intellectual prowess ..." This paragraph emphasizes everything wrong with the idea of genetically modifying babies.
If we continue down this path we will not only be hurting future generations but taking steps back instead of forward. As a society, we have just started to embrace peoples differences and make an effort to stand out from the crowd. If we modify babies to look a certain way, aren't we trying to make them fit a mold, to be the same as everyone else, to fit in?
As a parent you shouldn't be focused on making your child perfect, you should be focusing on how to help them find their true self, flaws and all.
I have know what Crispr was since it came out and have looked at genetic engineering for longer than that, so no it was no surprise. I think what he has done is legendary and that fact that anyone is discrediting him or saying that it is wrong has no idea what this means for the future of disease prevention. The idea of genetically engineered babies has been debated for years now and my opinion on the whole situation hasn't really changed, it's largely influenced on my stance for abortion. The idea of a “designer” baby with enhanced athletic or academic abilities is gross and should be prohibited. But if the child has any disorder at all even ones in its DNA code that actually don't change anything I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to be corrected.
Gene editing should be limited in general instances like I stated above but the individual scenarios should be able to change on a case to case basis. Doctors should be able to experiment freely with stem cells and embryo cells. The whole idea that an embryo is alive and it has a soul is utter nonsense. How is science supposed to be able to progress if the government and public is regulating it on ideas that were made in a book that have zero evidence behind them. I believe that the farther you go back in history religion is more and more ingrained in society so the “scare” over I.V.F was simply because of “beliefs”. As we progress in time science and reason will overtake more and more beliefs
Dr. He has claimed to have genetically altered an embryo of a human, and scientists are calling him “crazy.” I do not feel like I know enough about this certain topic to form an opinion by itself. You can look at dog breeding. I researched this before and the effects of breeding dogs for looks is dangerous. Almost every bred dog will develop a medical condition that can be life-threatening and it’s due to the neglect of people who breed the dogs for looks and what satisfies the people.
These scientists today are worried about this same thing happening to humans. It is worrying that people will try to make an athletic person, or a smart one but ignore the consequences and this can create an undesired effect through the generations. It is said that “with the goal of making the babies resistant to infection with H.I.V.” This is a good goal, but not very profitable, more money in than out. Someone athletic could definitely pull in more money. A parent might want to be proud of a future child and could risk a life to do so. We grow closer to having the data to let us change genes more effectively, but who will keep it regulated if it is a thing, and how soon?
I think that the doctors experiment can be a good thing up to a limit where it doesn’t change your physical features and your I.Q. but to prevent or get rid of disease that are passed down from generation to generation. With that being said passing a disease free gene into your future child after being cured of that disease than makes the generation safer. When a time comes that we’ve fully gotten rid of the disease we worry of we can then make that process of gene editing illegal. The reason of not making babies with certain physical traits or a great I.Q score because it’ll only create great inequality because from being a kid to an adult. As a kid you’d get picked on because maybe if you’re not wealthy you weren’t born with special traits. As a adult you apply to a place that has requirements or preferences of having these special traits.
I personally don't believe that it’s not ethical to create genetically edited humans. My first reason is that genetically edited humans not only affect the human being modified but also affect their offspring. When a person is genetically modified like changing the brown eyes to blues for a child then that child has the blue eyes gene which that child will pass that gene to its offspring. Genetically modifying humans don't affect one person but many others in the future. Also this go against finding self beauty, inner peace and self confidence. Another reason why I believe there shouldn’t be genetically modified humans is because there isn’t enough research into human engineering, and making a mistake could cause the child to be born with defects making the parents not want the child. If you have hiv/aid there are other ways of having children like adoption there's a lot of children that need help around the world. Being a parent is not about passing your genes it's about being a guide for your child, teaching them wrong to right and guiding them through life.
Editing genes to prevent disease could be a major advantage for us. Gene editing in babies could get out of hand if people are allowed to choose their babies features, creating a much larger gab between those who can afford the procedure and those who cant.
i do not have a stance for or against editing genes in humans
it could be a good thing in the long run but it could also create a bigger difference between upper and lower classes
My initial reaction to the twin babies that were born was that I was speechless. Personally I think that it is insane to genetically engineer a human life form to something that you want. It would kind of be like ordering food from a restaurant but instead of food it’s a KID! I mean it is amazing that our technology is this good to be genetically engineering children to whatever you desire. You could make a super athletic kid and he could become a famous athlete and then you could make millions. It is literally cheating life. For the parents it would probably be great but how would they tell their kids that they were made to be what they are right then and there. And think about how the child would react. Also another thing to think about is what if you mechanically engineer a kid to be smart and athletic but then he becomes a serial killer what would happen then? The kid would be a killing machine. Even though you can change their physical characteristics doesn’t mean you can change what the think, feel, and anything emotional. Personally I don’t like the fact that you can change your child, but I do like the fact that you could stop the contraction of an disease that a mother or father had so that the child couldn’t get it. In the end I think there are some positives about this but overall I think that this is a bad thing to do to the future of our children.
At first I thought the idea of genetically modified babies sounds terrible, and that it seems like we are using an advanced form of natural selection. But the more of this article I read, the more it seems to me that it could actually be a positive thing for our species.
Right off the start I got moved and my opinion was changed. That very first paragraph, "On Nov. 26, a scientist in China announced that he had created the world’s first genetically edited babies, twin girls who were born in November, by altering a gene in the embryos to make them resistant to H.I.V." completely changed my opinion.
I thought to myself about how amazing that actually is. In our real life we have two babies that are completely resistant to one of the deadliest diseases in the world. As much as I can understand other people's arguments for this, the idea of a future where our children are resistant to the worst diseases on the planet seems like a good future to me.
I personally am not against genetically edited humans. My reason for that is because there isn’t anything bad about it. Genetically modifying humans can prevent them from getting serious diseases. Also, genetically modifying humans can allow you to change their appearance if that’s what you want. But, I believe it’s really expensive. I don’t think it should be banned because it isn’t a harm to anyone. On the other hand, I don’t believe that doctors should experiment with it on someone without permission. My reason for that is because if they just do it on someone for their own research it kind of sounds selfish and unfair.
@Ashla A COMMENT CONTINUED (2)
@Ashla A COMMENT CONTINUED (2)
If this is an option, all the offspring of the rich (and then their offspring) will have favorable traits for their future. This means that the chances of the rich getting a high-profile job would be even higher then it is now. The work force would be saturated with these edited babies, so the intelligent children born into poor families simply by chance will have an extremely hard time competing with CRISPR children. Though the technology is nowhere close to this at the moment, it’s concerning how nonchalant you are about the subject.
Furthermore, changing attributes could lead to discrimination based on one's genes not unlike that seen in the movie “Gattaca.” The Center for Genetics and Society put is best. When asked about this very topic, they responded:
“While some scientists and others characterize safety as the paramount concern about germline gene editing, most observers recognize a range of momentous social, legal, ethical and economic implications. These include issues related to genetic determinism and biological discrimination; children’s autonomy and selfhood; disability rights; decisions about the allocation of funds and resources devoted to health care and research; and the prospect of reinforcing and exacerbating inequality, discrimination, and conflict.”
@Ashla A COMMENT CONTINUED (3)
In conclusion, the application of CRISPR techniques can very easily cause mutations. A high frequency of off target effects has been found in human cells which may cause cell death or transformation. CRISPR also has many ethical concerns that come with it. It could make an ever-increasing gap between the rich and poor even larger, and could lead to large-scale biological discrimination.
So, to finish… no. No, there is not nothing bad about it.
@Ashla By your own account, the only basis you have for your opinion is that there “isn’t anything bad about [genetically modified humans]. Thus, I will attempt to disprove this.
To claim that this practice “isn’t a harm to anyone” is an extremely inaccurate and uninformed opinion. In fact, I couldn’t find a single scientist that actually believed this! In the article referenced it explains that safety is a large concern with this practice. Dr. He himself stated that the inadvertent and unpredictable altering of genes “did not happen in this case, but it is a worry that looms over the field.”
Infact, according to U.K. scientists Michael Kosicki, Kärt Tomberg and Allan Bradley, CRISPR can cause large deletions and rearrange the targeted DNA (https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4192). They even warned that this problem has been "seriously underestimated" (a category you appear to fall under).
In addition, two studies published in Nature Medicine Magazine found that CRISPR could increase your risk of getting cancer.
This is just a few of many studies illustrating the physical harm CRISPR could cause. This is not to mention the ethical problems CRISPR raises.
Personally, I believe that Dr. He's experiment is just the beginning to a possible safer and future for all the experience it.
As every parent tries to have healthier, stronger, or prettier baby, via prenatal vitamins, folic acid, or getting the flu shot during pregnancy, an extra precaution of genetically modifying an embryo would be a step further. Leading to fewer deaths from common diseases, cancers, or even extreme illnesses, but instead of in a daily pill or an annual shot, a one time change before conception. Not to mention, if scientists could actually successfully alter the fetus intellectually, cancer, AIDS, and several other diseases could hopefully be cured within mere decades.
While there could be a slight risk to the child, and in some cases, to the mother, that should be a valid option for the mother to choose. We already have genetically altered fruits, vegetables, pets, and livestock, why not add in genetically altered humans for a better future?
In the 1970's, the fear was of doctors playing God by helping families conceive through virtual fertilization, and no one was smat or harmed in any way. Why should we fear genetically edited humans?
At the beginning of the article I thought “ this doesn’t sound safe or right” and I know that they’re just trying to help the world but things could go wrong or get into the wrong hands. My opinion didn’t change through the article but I understand both points of it being good or bad. The thought of such work is scary “it could be misused to alter everything from eye color to I.Q”(Proulx, 2018, para. 1). I don’t trust what people could do with altering human genetics. Many issues can evolve from this and cause chaos. I do not trust Dr. He’s experiment. I know they are just trying to improve society but this is messing with human nature which is unsafe. If the wrong person gets hands on this to it all could turn into chaos. The fact that he has not “published the research in any journal and did not share any evidence or data that definitively proved he had done it”(Proulx, 2018, para. 3) doesn’t sound right. Any people that try to do something big always want the attention with it so the fact that no one knows about it makes me think it didn’t go well and or isn’t safe. All in all I don’t find this a safe procedure and messing with how human nature works isn’t exactly safe.
Creating a genetically edited human may seem interesting, but it may not be such a good idea. The great thing about this is that it can make people resistant to certain infections or help with devastating medical conditions. The part that isn’t well thought out is that people may misuse and overuse it. In this article, the author, Natalie Proulx, states why genetically editing humans are banned around the world, “If human embryos can be routinely edited, many scientists, ethicists and policymakers fear a slippery slope to a future in which babies are genetically engineered for traits — like athletic or intellectual prowess — that have nothing to do with preventing devastating medical conditions” (2018, para 10). Genetically editing a human being should only be used to help with medical conditions. Using this for someone’s athleticism, or their IQ isn’t really fair to the world. People want someone to have those things to get to them far in life and alter their career path. I don’t necessarily like that idea. It should only be used towards helping with things that matter most. That means keeping your future family healthy and away from these awful medical conditions that are difficult to treat.
When In Vitro fertilization was first invented people were concerned that scientist were playing god, and now days it is a widely accepted medical practice that has helped lots of people have children, but what about genetic editing? Genetic editing is more than helping nature, it’s changing nature with unknown repercussions. Where is the ethical line crossed, when will the technology be used for profit instead for its intended use? All of this has been called into question because a chinese scientist has “announced that he had created the world’s first genetically edited babies, twin girls who were born in November”(Proulx, 2018, para.1), but even many of his scientific peers have called his work into question. Many countries including the United States have banned said practices. Trying to write legislation would be a nightmare because it would be hard to draw a definite line of right and wrong. This also calls into question of what would happen if this technology could fall into the wrong hands, or how would the human race could be compromised if everyone had genetic editing? The difference between IVF and genetic editing is that IVF is helping a natural process, whereas gene editing is completely changing it.
Even though Dr. He genetically altered the embryos of twin girls so they can be resistant to H.I.V., I still think that it is ethically wrong to do so and it is scary to think that now children are being created out of science experiments. I think Dr. He’ experiment was thought out very well, but he clearly did not think about the ethical side of the experiment. Those baby girls are healthy and strong, but who knows what will happen to them when they grow up. Also, people should not be able to order what their babies will look like and what they will be resistant of. For example, in the article “Is It Ethical to Create Genetically Edited Humans?”, it discusses that “Many scientists, ethicists, and policymakers fear a slippery slope to a future in which babies are genetically engineered for traits” (Proulx, 2018, para. 9). In the future, if people are able to create their babies in laboratories just so they can make a super baby, it will be ethically wrong. Just imagine if something goes wrong, so many people will be upset that their babies did not turn out right. When in today’s world parenthood is not perfect guessing game and you’re supposed to find out what your baby’s personalities are and what they look like while they grow up, which is the fun part about it. Genetically engineering a baby is literally creating someone to possibly be something that you want them to be and not originally what they should have been. It’s completely wrong to do that to someone.
Homo Deus: The Next Step to Human Evolution
Last month, a miraculous step in curing infectious disease had been taken by a Chinese geneticist, as He Jiankui announced, on the 26th of November, that he had created the first genetically altered humans. Whether he truly was the first to do so is debatable, but still exciting. My initial reaction hasn’t changed after reading "Is It Ethical to Create Genetically Edited Humans?", and In my opinion, this experiment by Jiankui, although controversial, could be the first milestone in the eradication of deadly pathogens and disorders. Many worry, such as Gina Kolata, Sui-Lee Wee and Pam Belluck, that research like this is “scary”, and “many nations banned such work, fearing it could be misused to alter everything from eye color to I.Q.” (Kolata, Wee, and Belluck, 2018, para.1). If used sparingly and not to engineer superhumans, it’s likely that a cure to all genetic deformities and infectious diseases could be upon the Horizon. For example, hundreds of thousands of future lives, such as those who would be born with HIV, could be saved by this groundbreaking genetic editing process. Crispr use on humans may be illegal in many countries currently, but the heavy criticism that In Vitro Fertilization faced was similar to this circumstance. IVF has allowed many women to have children that otherwise wouldn’t be able to, so why is Crispr use in humans so different? Embryos of the future could be free of life changing defects and diseases.
Saving children's lives is a big deal to the world. Seeing innocent children born with unpreventable diseases is devastating, and we foresee the end of their life before it has even started.
Upon first look, Dr. He Jianke’s accomplishments are incredible. He made 2 little girls immune to HIV, potentially saving their lives of torture.
But this is all very new to us.
We do not know the long term impacts of genetically engineering. We don’t know even how it impacts food, let alone humans. The short term effects are unknown too. For all we know, this could have been dangerous, but we aren’t aware of the effects yet.
This technology could also be used for unnecessary traits. People could genetically edit them so they have the very best genes so they have an edge in society. If people have unlimited access to this technology, it could be abused for power.
If anything, genetic engineering in humans should only be used in necessary cases. If there is a life threatening condition, then corrections could be made to prevent it. Because life is important, and we should be responsible with the power we have.
Society should proceed with caution.
The paranoia around genetic editing isn’t overblown. The fear around I.V.F. was, but the alarm around genetic editing using crispr is legitimate. People always talk about the good that would come from genetic editing, how it could cure disease and save people. But, we already our population is already growing too fast and the more people we save the bigger this population is going to get. There is also talk about editing people's eye color, intelligence, height, body type, and more. This may sound like a good idea because everybody wants some little changes, but think of how it can be made into something horrible. Countries like North Korea with power over there civilization could start creating super soldiers that are killing machines, tall, fast, strong, intelligent. These are just the things that people talk about that could go right what about all the things that could go wrong. What if a scientist accidently makes some tiny DNA mistake and now the person is blind, or has no hair, or anything you can imagine. In the article the Dr. Alexander Marson, a gene editing expert, says “It’s scary… The methods used for gene editing can inadvertently alter other genes in unpredictable ways.” So before we ask ourselves what could go wrong, we should ask ourselves what could go right?
At this point in time and technology, genetic engineering, particularly germline engineering, changes genes in eggs, sperm, or young embryos, is immoral and should be illegal. Dr. He Jiankui’s recent work was irresponsible and unethical. At least in this point in time, we don’t know the consequences of genetic editing, on the individual level or greater. Germline editing is especially worrisome because it makes changes that not only affect the individual, but are passed down to further generations. Dr. He was not clear to the outside community about his work or even those he was working with.
Feng Zhang, inventor of the Crispr-Cas9 system used by He, stated that “Science is open, science is collaborative and communicative. What he [Dr. He] has done was not transparent. It was against the community’s consent and it does not represent science.” Many other respected voices of the scientific community, as well as everyday people, spoke out against Jainkui’s work. Many scientists noted that there are safer, more ethical ways to achieve what He was aiming to do (protect newborns against H.I.V. from their father). Dr. He took an unnecessary risk and was not upfront about his actions. Genetic modification of humans should be illegal, at least for the time being. As we learn more and understand the potential risks and consequences, perhaps we should move forward with gene editing but only for necessary health needs.
Genetic editing is prohibited in the United States and many other places, as it is seen as unethical and playing god, while also being a risky process. It is not illegal in some places like China, but many researchers and institutions within China are against the procedure of genetic editing. We can perform gene editing with our advances in modern day, but have decided overall as a scientific community that it isn’t something that we are ready for, and may never be. It can cause the baby to possibly have mutations and such, but benefits such as elimination of disease may have some believing the negatives are countered.
I believe that in some ways, genetic editing is fine, but it can easily get too far and needs restrictions on it. Designer babies should not become a thing, as the wealth gap would just increase more (reference Gattaca, the invalid and the valid). I believe that genetic editing for humans should only get to the point where the unborn babies can be modified to get rid of any life-threatening diseases early on in life, and to keep it fair playing ground for everyone, this service should be provided at a cheap cost to families, so it wouldn’t create another sort of segregation in modern day, with poor families not being able to cure their babies of possible future diseases.
The science that allowed us to create genetically modified humans is dangerous and could lead to catostrauphic events. Scientists said that Dr. He's experimenting was “a huge blow to the global reputation and development of Chinese science.” I agree, as this encourages the development of immunity to the factors that keep the human race below the carrying capacity. While creating medically perfect humans may seem great, disease or disorders don't allow the population to reach its max. Eliminating any illness would exponentially increase our population, and throw off the balance of the human-to-resource ratio. If there are more humans than resources or space available, war will break out. Countries will raid each other for their basic needs. More people will suffer than those who suffer with illness today, and we will lose our private possessions or property.
Similarly, the genetic modifications could stray out of the medical world, and be used to create stronger, faster people. These people could be used as soldiers, or forced into labor that is too hard for the rest of the human race. This is unfair to the people created, and the areas that could be affected by a stronger military.
Humans are born with many different flaws. That’s what make us human. It’s wrong to try to genetically modify human beings. At that point they aren’t even human. If we took humans and modified every little thing wrong with them we would all be perfect and live in a controlled world. Ones like you read about in books. The same ones that people try to break out from. In an article over the genetic modifications it says, “If human embryos can be routinely edited, many scientists, ethicists and policymakers fear a slippery slope to a future in which babies are genetically engineered for traits — like athletic or intellectual prowess — that have nothing to do with preventing devastating medical conditions” (Kolata, et. al, 2018, para. 6). People could quickly take advantage of the ability to change humans. Instead of making them healthier governments could try to make super soldiers or test experiments out of normal people. It won’t be as harmless as they said or thought it would be.
My initial reaction to this article was that of intrigue. However, as the story unfolded, I learned of the unpredictably unstable practice that is genetic editing. I found myself aghast and horrified someone would even take the risk that involved with editing the genes in an embryo.
While I am all for a healthier, cleaner world, I don’t think gene editing is the answer. A keyword in Dr. He’s findings was “resistant.” He did not make the girls immune to HIV, he only made them slightly more tolerant toward it. Not to mention the unpredictable amount of genes that could be changed by marking this edit. It seems to risky to attempt.
If or when gene editing is perfected, I think it should be used, but definitely with some regulations. I am a firm believer that no one should be making the idea of the super soldier a reality, so no government should be using genetic editing for warfare. However, if genetic editing could add a failsafe into human cells to stop cancer, then it should definitely be used. I feel that science should be used to safe lives, not end them.
I would say the people are overreacting about the natural order an all that, but their reactions are the natural order. Humans fear change more than anything. I’ve seen people go crazy over A.I. that learned to fast and had to be shut down (I.e. Microsoft’s Tay). That, however, hails in comparison to changing the makeup of our very offspring. I believe it will be quite some time before gene editing becomes widespread.
Is it a good thing to edit babies genes?
I can see why you might think so. We all want to change something about ourselves, from the size of our body to our downright personality. This article states that a man from China named, He Jiankui altered twin girls genes to make them resistant to the untreatable virus, H.I.V. I understand that this looks like a great thing, a brilliant new way to prevent diseases! But if you think about it, what will happen after we alter our medical health?
We would want more.
Our society can and will change and edit any babies genes to the exact child you can only dream of. There will be no mistakes, no health issues, just perfection. All of our diversity will slowly evolve away if this continues. The foundation that holds us up for accepting each other's different qualities and features will crumble. People will beg scientists to create an ideal version of their soon to be baby. The future will hold flawless clones of perfection.
If our laws are changed and we suddenly allow editing to grow it could become dangerous. As it says in the article, changing babies DNA can alter their present genes in unpredictable ways.
Our world is fearful of the new mutated children to come in the future. If a simple disease can be prevented, what else will they try?
What we're doing isn't right. This doesn't show our world that being different and unique is a beautiful thing. We don't need perfection. All we need is to be ourselves.
My first thoughts about genetically engineered humans was the artificial and mechanical nature of the process. As mentioned in the article, “ he had altered a gene in the embryos, before having them implanted in the mother’s womb, with the goal of making the babies resistant to infection with H.I.V. ”. Scientists were successful in this process with twin girls born in November. Although I have nothing against trying to prevent deadly or harmful diseases, this information concerned me.
My concern stems from having the ability to alter who we are as humans. Some will feel the need to take advantage of this to monopolize the chances of having a “perfect” child. These people will want to change intelligence, athletic abilities, hair color, eye color, and any other traits they desire. I feel like this would take away from the true human experience, as automatically having characteristics that changes the necessity to work hard to achieve them. Others will be jealous of their perfection and join the bandwagon until everyone has some sort of unnatural genetic ability. Once we reach that point, we will no longer feel like humans, but like robots.
Overall, I don't see any negatives with trying to stop genetic diseases, but altering the quality of life will have its impacts in the future.
I think that the use of genetic editing in humans for the creation of the “designer baby” is unethical. I think the only ethical use of genetic editing should be to prevent or lower the risk of genetic diseases passed down from the parent. An ethical use of genetic editing would be to prevent infectious diseases like HIV as stated in the article with the supposedly “resistant babies”.Using genetics to make the perfect looking and super intelligent human is what I would consider unnatural and a bit unfair. I wanted the blond hair from my dad but instead I got black and they did not choose.
I will begin with the fact that Dr. Alexandra stated how I feel about the situation perfectly when she said: "It's scary". We have all seen the movies where they make perfect people, it never ends well.
One thing that scares me as well is that He Jiankui had not published how he did it, nor did he prove that he did it successfully. This can mean two things
1. He didn't actually do it, which would be a great relief for people around the globe.
2. He wants to keep the secret for China's advantage. This is a stretch but it is possible.
This is the future though. If humans find a way to prevent a disease or disorder, why not take it? It only seems to be a concern when it comes to what Gina Kolata, Sui-Lee Wee, and Pam Belluck stated: "Many nations banned such work, fearing it could be misused to alter everything from eye color to I.Q."
If everybody becomes perfect, what's the point of trying to improve ourselves when we are perfect? There will be no competition between people because we will all be the same and think the same. Every parent will make their child smart and good-looking, there is no reason not to if the others are. If your child is different, then they will be shunned off and ignored because there is no reason for them to be there.
While searching for an exciting topic to read, responding to this one caught my attention. I heard about this matter a couple of days ago and was primarily unsure how I felt about it, prompting me to wonder what future impacts it may provoke.
My first thoughts about genetically engineered humans was the artificial and mechanical nature of the process. As mentioned in the article, they implanted a genetically engineered trait, specifically one that is resistant to HIV, into the embryos of babies. Scientists were successful in this process with twin girls born in November. Although I have nothing against trying to prevent deadly or harmful diseases, this information concerned me.
My concern stems from having the ability to alter who we are as humans. Some will feel the need to take advantage of this to monopolize the chances of having a “perfect” child. These people will want to change intelligence, athletic abilities, hair color, eye color, and any other traits they desire. I feel like this would take away from the true human experience, as automatically having characteristics that changes the necessity to work hard to achieve them. Others will be jealous of their perfection and join the bandwagon until everyone has some sort of unnatural genetic ability. Once we reach that point, we will no longer feel like humans, but like robots.
Overall, I don't see any negatives with trying to stop genetic diseases, but altering the quality of life will have its impacts in the future.
I heard about this matter a couple of days ago and was unsure how I felt about it, prompting me to wonder what future impacts it may provoke.
My first thoughts about genetically engineered humans was the artificial and mechanical nature of the process. As mentioned in the article, “ he had altered a gene in the embryos, before having them implanted in the mother’s womb, with the goal of making the babies resistant to infection with H.I.V. ”. Scientists were successful in this process with twin girls born in November. Although I have nothing against trying to prevent deadly or harmful diseases, this information concerned me.
My concern stems from having the ability to alter who we are as humans. Some will feel the need to take advantage of this to monopolize the chances of having a “perfect” child. These people will want to change intelligence, athletic abilities, hair color, eye color, and any other traits they desire. I feel like this would take away from the true human experience, as automatically having characteristics that changes the necessity to work hard to achieve them. Others will be jealous of their perfection and join the bandwagon until everyone has some sort of unnatural genetic ability. Once we reach that point, we will no longer feel like humans, but like robots.
Overall, I don't see any negatives with trying to stop genetic diseases, but altering the quality of life will have its impacts in the future.
I feel as though this is an extremely controvercial topic. Although the scientist states that "there were no adverse effects on other genes," that does not guaruntee success for experiments to come. The positive in this scenario, at least thus far, has been very positive and could influence the lives of these babies for years to come. However, as they stated in the article, this new knowledge is a "slippery slope." Even though this doctor used it for good, who's to say that others can't use this information for undesirable reasons? All in all, I believe this is an amazing discovery that could change life as we know it, as long as it is kept in the right hands. We must protect access this knowledge so that it will continue to be used for ethical purposes.
Although it may be possible to genetically modify humans (embryos), I feel it should only be done, as the article states, if necessary to prevent a deadly disease or disorder identified before birth. Preventing disorders before birth can be useful, as it can allow children to lead a normal life like other healthy babies, but genetically modifying embryos just because one can or in order to give it an advantage over other babies is wrong. If people began to genetically modify embryos just because, then it would become a sort of competition to create a superhuman between nations or even couples. At that point, it would almost take away the point of natural reproduction, as everyone’s kids but the naturally produced one would be super advantaged. In Dr. He’s case, however, I feel as if he didn’t really do anything wrong, as he got consent from the parents of the twins and (although it’s rare) prevented the babies from ever having HIV. Genetic modification should be available to people only if consent is given from the parents and it is used to prevent a disease or disorder, and after it is tested more to ensure its safety and make sure it won’t cause other disorders.
From the earliest days of agriculture to the Industrial Revolution, humans have been creating new ways to make life easier and enjoyable. Along with the enjoyment of life comes safety and health. Sanitation, vaccines, hospitals and countless other cultural icons have risen to prolong the human lifespan. As such, genetic modification could further prolong human life by eliminating harmful diseases, like Dr. He’s effort to eliminate H.I.V. from the twin girls. However genetic editing should only be used for medical purposes, with the only intention being to protect humans from disease. These limitations should exist because humans exist to prosper using their God-given talents, not to have their life literally hand picked for them. Additionally, genetic editing should be extremely restrictive, with only approved medical professionals being able to use the technology -- otherwise genetic editing could be abused to create “perfect” humans with damaging consequences. People often criticize genetic editing because of its ability to give some humans an unfair advantage over others, but healthy people already DO have an unfair advantage over those born with a genetic disease, so genetic modification could exist to allow everyone an equal chance at life. With enough regulation and research into making genetic editing as safe as possible, perhaps we could continue the work of our predecessors by improving the quality of life while giving every person an equal opportunity to thrive.
1
It’s ethical once enough people do it.
1
My opinion is that genetically modifying humans is ethical. Dr. He did not alter or modify the baby's hair or eye color or height. The parents of the babies were both carriers of HIV and Dr. He ultimately stopped the babies of getting the virus. Modifying humans in a positive way like eliminating the HIV or maybe even being able to stop the baby from having Down Syndrome is completely ethical. I also believe that some people will use crispr to satisfy the themselves and make the baby in their liking. When the article said " Many nations banned such work, fearing it could be misused to alter everything from eye color to I.Q.", I totally agree with the countries that made it illegal to genetically modify humans because they fear it will be used to the parents good and not the babies good, but I feel they should look at the upsides of modifying babies rather than all of the downsides to it.
Although I applaud He Jiankui's efforts in saving the lives of two little girls, I fear the long term implications that accompany the practice of gene editing. With this success by Jiankui, other, less responsible countries could be inclined to use the dangerous idea of gene editing for personal gain. An example could be a dictator allowing the experimentation of gene editing on unborn children in an effort to create super-soldiers. Before deciding this is well outside the realm of possibility, think back only 20 years ago when Saddam Hussein mercilessly ruled Iraq and ordered mass genocide. With all this being said, I do believe it is a possibility for gene editing to be used safely and responsibly- much like Jiankui did. Ultimately, if gene editing were to be practiced in today's world, it would need to be strictly regulated and only given to people who need gene editing to survive.
After reading the article, Is It Ethical to Create Genetically Edited Humans?, I don't think it is ethical. Sure, it can eliminate diseases, which is the good part about it, but I feel like no one should be genetically modified. People are saying these genetically modified people will be "perfect," and they will be smarter, stronger, faster, more attractive, etc. than anyone else. I feel like no one should be good at all aspects of life. People are good at some things, but no one is good at everything. So I feel like it just is not fair. No human should be above any other human in my opinion. I feel that everyone should be created how they were supposed to be created, not how some scientist wants them to be. In conclusion, I think no one should design their children just how they want them, but love them just the way they are.
The field of genetic engineering is one of the most exciting areas in modern science. It promises the ability to manipulate the genomes of plants, animals, and even humans, allowing for favorable traits to be selected. With it, we can cure diseases, eradicate congenital diseases like Down Syndrome, and pave a new future for humanity.
However, the scientific and societal risks of designing human genomes far outweigh their benefits. Firstly, where does it stop?It may begin with a well-meaning researcher like Dr. He, making children resistant to HIV, but what will stop rouge scientists from twisting this technology to create scarcely human abominations of science? We have no answers for these questions.
Additionally, genome editing will undoubtedly be an expensive process that only the rich can afford. Even if it is regulated, the upper classes will use the practice to create children that have distinct advantages in every facet of life, allowing them to succeed more easily and widening the societal gap between rich and poor, as genetically enhanced children are taking every well-paying job away from their peers.
Finally, is the fact that genome editing is not an exact science. Even with the precise CRISPR method mentioned in the article, mistakes can be made. We are not the masters of nature, nor should we ever see ourselves as such. Genetic modification of humans should be outlawed in all forms. Just because we can do something does not mean we should.
Creating a genetically modified human is extremely dangerous and unpredictable in my opinion. We don’t know much about genetically modifying human genes and we don’t know the long term effects of it. If you genetically modify a human you may get desirable traits, for example being intellectual or athletic, but like the article said we don’t know the medical effects.
The article says, “Ever since scientists created the powerful gene editing technique Crispr, they have braced apprehensively for the day when it would be used to create a genetically altered human being. Many nations banned such work, fearing it could be misused to alter everything from eye color to I.Q.” This is exactly why genetically modifying humans should not be allowed. If scientists could change people’s IQ and their eye color or hair color, everyone would look exactly the same. People would all want their child to be beautiful causing everyone to appear the same. I personally would not genetically modify my child because I think that takes away the uniqueness in every person.
I believe that altering genetics should be most available to those who need it most. Those people would be those who have a long family history to a few diseases such as type one and two diabetes. It should also be somewhat available to other people so that the children can live a life with a lower risk of obtaining certain illnesses. I believe that making children “Resistant to H.I.V.”(Proulx, 2018, para. 1) would be a very positive thing to do with this process. What I fear with others is that people would use this to make them very academically enhanced, athletically enhanced, or maybe even both. This, in my opinion, would not make them human. It would make them an experiment only born for what their altered genes were changed for. In my mind, a human is a being that is born to learn and work at their own pace ultimately fulfilling their discovered role in society. Changing their genetics would change what they were destined to become or do. So in conclusion, changing genes to prevent a disease is good, and changing them for mental or physical enhancements is bad.
1
Genetically altering genes is ethical, it’s actually quite dangerous and illegal in the United States. My initial reaction about this topic didn't change after reading the article, my first thought was this sounds dangerous and it takes away from what makes humans, humans. After reading the article I came to realize all of this was true. In the article, Is It Ethical To Create Genetically Edited Humans, it states, “The methods used for gene editing can inadvertently alter other genes in unpredictable ways.” (Proulx, 2018, para. 10). Dr. He’s experiment sounds interesting, but there is no proof of what he has done, only word of mouth from other scientists saying that it’s likely he could have done it. I see this topic as a slippery slope. It’s illegal in the United states which means it’s dangerous and or not safe. I do believe that one day in the future with more studying and knowledge scientists can be able to genetically edited in ways that will only affect diseases and possibly be able to make it so the new born babies will be born as healthy as can be. I think genetically editing genes is not ethical and the experiment done by a chinese scientist isn’t even credible.
I think we should edit human genes in children before birth but it should be supervised and it should be open to the public to watch so nothing dark or fishy can happen. What they edit in the babies DNA should only be to benefit the child and if any child is harmed the operation should be executed immediately. What they should edit in the baby should be resistance to diseases or make children more strong by changing how fast their muscle tissue forms and make the muscle tissue larger in size. There are many beneficial things we can learn/do to improve human life through this experiment, and i hope the rest of the world will someday agree to continue genetically editing babies. I think when most people panic and claim “doctors are playing god”, most of these people don’t realize they already play god through vaccines, cures, and booster shots. If people could only take a step back and realize that editing a babies DNA isn’t the most “playing god” type of action we have ever done.
@Kyle, I must say first that genetic engineering is a fascinating area of study that has the potential to change the world. If utilized correctly, it could eradicate diseases, expand the global food supply, and create a better future for us all.
However, genetic engineering should not be applied to humans. In fact, it should be outlawed worldwide. While we could use the practice to improve the human race, where does it end, and at what point are we no longer human?
Additionally, there is no semblance of a regulatory body to watch over these experiments, meaning that scientists less well-meaning than Dr. He can use the technique to create dangerous genetic abominations, or raise and army of genetically modified super-soldiers for an overzealous dictator.
You say that the use of medicine and vaccines is closer to "playing god" than genetically modifying children. However, medications and vaccines only protect us from disease. When we edit genomes, we are playing the the fundamental code of human existence, which is closer being god than we ever should have come.