Groundbreaking new research via a tool called CRISPR has allowed scientists to edit the DNA of viable human embryos in order to attempt to correct faulty or disease-causing genes. Impressive though this is, and the idea that incurable or otherwise devastating diseases may be eradicated is hopeful, CRISPR produces obvious, problematic ethical implications in the event scientists eventually want to correct other genes as well.
According to The Verge’s Alessandra Potenza:
The research — which has yet to be published — was led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University. It involved editing a “large number” of viable embryos and effectively correcting disease-causing genes, according to MIT Technology Review. (It’s unclear exactly how many embryos were edited, or which genes.) The embryos were developed for only a few days and were not implanted. Without implantation, embryos cannot develop into babies.
It’s still difficult to say with certainty whether this new tool is successful since none of the embryos have been implanted. But the mere existence of it has spurred debate about how far scientists can and should go in terms of “editing” DNA or even if utilizing this tool is ethical in the first place.
Some people believe as long as an egg is fertilized, is dividing, and has the full complement of DNA, with all of the genetic information that a human being will ever have, a dividing cell is reproducing itself, which is a feature only living things do. Therefore, if the fertilized egg is alive, it’s a living something, and in this particular case, it has to be a human. (This is why some people have ethical issues with all of the “extra” embryos in scenarios involving in vitro fertilization.) Are scientists knowingly experimenting with and killing teeny, tiny humans to test CRISPR?
As far as “editing” goes, it’s hard to believe a society which raises the bar constantly for children for so many things, like appearance, ability, or IQ, would be content with merely allowing a gene editing tool to only be used to remove faulty genes. What’s to keep people from choosing intelligence or eye color — i.e. designer babies? One bioethicist at New York University, Arthur Caplan, says, “If you don’t want eugenics, you just draw a line and stop there.”
That sounds good to me, but who’s to say people don’t want eugenics in the softer sense of the word? Designer babies have long been viewed as a symbol of advancement in the future, and there are plenty of people who wouldn’t think twice about dictating their embryo’s IQ or eye color. Can’t you just see a wealthy Palo Alto couple saying, “While you’re ridding our son of cystic fibrosis can you make sure he is tall, dark, handsome, and brilliant?”
The problem with a designer baby, and a tool that’s just on the verge of being able to provide that, is that it allows a flawed, wimpy, and bigoted human race to become designer gods. Nothing wrong with wanting to rid the human race of a gene that causes, say, schizophrenia, if indeed there is such a gene. But what about the rest of the package?
We don’t like suffering from diseases, short people, low IQs, faces that are not symmetrical, and a thousand other things. But these things are not only part of life; they are part of the complexity of the human condition that can make it challenging and thus rewarding. It’s through adversity that people find strength, not through pleasure; it’s through difficult times, whether it be a disability, bullying, or simply losing, that many people discover resilience.
The problem with creating designer babies is we, the wannabe gods, don’t always know what’s best for us — that isn’t our job anyway.
Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She was the 2010 recipient of the American Spectator’s Young Journalist Award.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
