Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Autonomous Essay
Autonomous Essay
Arshiya Dutta
Ms. Fillman
Honors English 10
5/19/17
Introduction
Every living thing has a code. This code, deoxyribonucleic acid, better known as DNA, is
organism’s characteristics and behaviors. When editing sequences of DNA, people are generally
comfortable with using Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, which are found in fruits
and vegetables. However, when this same concept of gene editing is applied to human embryos,
Human Genome Editing is a form of genetic engineering in which DNA is altered using
molecular scissors. These molecular scissors create double strand breaks in a targeted region of
the DNA. Gene mutations in DNA can cause changes in almost any aspect of a human’s growth,
physical health, or mental health. A simple gene mutation can change anything from a person’s
eye color to their predisposition of cystic fibrosis. A gene-editing tool, called CRISPR, or
scientific community. Not only can it treat incurable diseases such as Huntington’s Disease and
Sickle Cell Disease, but it can also prevent these diseases from affecting a person’s lineage
(Achenbach). This powerful genetic tool has the potential to cure the human race of any and all
With that power, however, comes a risk of abuse. CRISPR can be used to modify any
aspect of a person’s physical appearance, mental capacity, athletic abilities, and even their
personality traits. With CRISPR, parents have the potential to use gene modification to create the
perfect child, known as a “designer baby.” CRISPR could be the gateway to generations of
prodigious children with perfect bone structure and exceedingly high IQ’s, with parents paying
for these traits. There is even discussion of genetically modifying children to have “night vision
As of today, several Chinese teams are experimenting with CRISPR, and it has
reaffirmed the dangers of gene modifications in humans. None of their many experiments on
embryos from fertility clinics have experienced 100% success, and many embryos died in the
process. Scientists are not ready to practice gene modification in humans because it is not
completely safe yet. Although human genetic modification can present many advantages for
people with devastating diseases, the door to human DNA editing cannot be opened. Human
embryo genetic engineering should be banned because it ruins human evolution, creates class
An Intrusion on Evolution
Human genetic engineering should be banned because it can risk damaging the delicate
process of human evolution. Although it is a popular belief that gene editing can help progress
the process of human evolution, the goals of evolution and genetic modification are very
different. According to Dr. Jim Kozubek in his book Modern Prometheus, Charles Darwin stated
that evolution works in “tinkering toward adaptation in local niches,” rather than in “progressing
towards an ideal model or more perfect form” in his theories of natural selection (Kozubek).
Dutta 3
Natural human evolution involves adaptation and takes millions of years, while genetic
modification only serves to creating a very modernized version of the “perfect human race.”
People with disorders and disabilities play an important evolutionary role. Despite this,
the goals of gene modification are essentially to eliminate disorders and diseases (Kozubek).
There are several theories that prove that disorders and mutations are valuable to evolution,
including the Vulnerable Ape Model, created by Anthropologists at the University of York. This
theory states that early humans, who were considered disabled because they were hairless and
weaker than their ape counterparts, turned out to be fitter than non-disabled apes and hence
evolved into modern humans (“The Vulnerable Ape Hypothesis”). Along with physical
mutations, wiping out personality disorders with CRISPR can result in a loss of a generation of
geniuses. Dr. Jim Kozubek says “figures show that writers are ten times more like to suffer from
bipolar than the general population and poets are 40 times more likely to be diagnosed with it”
(Knapton).
Secondly, human gene editing could be harmful for the natural process of evolution
because humans cannot predict what is beneficial for them at an evolutionary level. For instance,
in many countries and communities, lighter skin is considered more desirable than darker skin,
and if given the opportunity, many parents would opt for a lighter skin color gene modification
for their child. This could present dangers if eventually generations got lighter in regions where
UV rays are more potent, as melanin is vital for protection against skin cancer. As the earth’s
ozone layer gets thinner and people’s skin gets lighter, they can become increasingly more
Another example of a direct intrusion on evolution is the threat to the human sex ratio.
Fisher’s principle is the evolutionary theory explaining the 1:1 ratio of males and females
Dutta 4
(Carvalho). Many countries and communities value males over females, and when given the
opportunity to change their child’s sex, parents would likely modify their girl into a boy. If this
genetic operation were to spread to masses of parents in countries like India and China, Fisher’s
principle would be thrown off balance, and the propagation of the human race would be at stake.
Lastly, human gene editing can create an evolutionary and biological divide in people
who are genetically “perfect” and those who are not. Princeton geneticist Lee M. Silver
hypothesizes in the book Remaking Eden that, “as time passes,...the GenRich class and the
Natural class will become...entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as
much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee” (Silver).
In a situation eerily similar to Eloi and Morlocks in H.G. Well’s The Time Machine, the
GenRich, or people who have perfect genes, may be unwilling to mate with the GenPoor, or
“natural class,” and the two groups will evolve into different species. This frightening, yet
possible situation can be avoided if human gene editing is banned. Human gene editing is a
direct threat to the process of human evolution, and if human gene editing is banned, the natural
Human gene editing should be banned because it creates class divisions based on whether
someone’s genes have been edited, deepening the divide between the rich and the poor. Society
is already divided based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status, and gene
editing could easily become another factor of divergence. In a world where people can pay for
blue eyes and fair skin, people will divide themselves naturally based on whether they have the
money for cosmetic gene alterations. The GenRich and the GenPoor will form the two distinct
classes (Silver). Science-fiction films, such as the 1997 film Gattaca, show a futuristic world
Dutta 5
where there is a clear difference between the GenRich and GenPoor, and non-modified people
face extreme discrimination and inequity. Although these are fictional ideas, they can easily
become a reality as these gene modifications are passed down for generations.
Additionally, stigma about mental disorders, personality disorders, and diseases can be
propagated in a society of genetically modified people. One of the main goals of human genetic
engineering is to rid the human race of chronic, incurable diseases such as cancers and cystic
fibrosis, but other, less life-threatening diseases, like personality disorders, can be cured as well
(Achenbach). If a parent knows that their child will have a personality disorder that can be cured
with CRISPR, they may face an ethical dilemma: to cure the child so he/she will have an easier
life, but also change such a major part of the child’s identity, or to let the child face the hardships
of a personality disorder without changing the child's identity. With the possibility of modifying
the child’s genes to cure him/her, friends and family members of parents may pressure the
parents into changing their child’s genes so they can be “more successful” (Parens) . In schools,
children with disorders and disabilities can be bullied for not having “normal” genes, as their
genes could have been changed at birth using CRISPR (Ly). In a gene-modifying culture, if a
person has a genetic disorder, they can be judged for not being able to afford a genetic “fix.”
This furthers stigma about disorders and disabilities and widens the gap between the GenPoor
and GenRich.
altered genes. Children with natural genes may face self-confidence issues by thinking they will
never be as good at something as people who were, quite literally, born to do the same thing
(Jabr). Writer Farris Jabr for Scientific American explains that “An era of market-based eugenics
would exterminate any lingering notions of meritocracy. Perseverance, adaptability, and self-
Dutta 6
improvement would become subordinate to to what people would see as innate talent and near
certain prosperity preordained by one’s genes” (Jabr). This could lead to issues with the
standards of success between the GenRich and GenPoor. Class-based discrimination is a harmful
symptom of permitting human gene editing. Class-based discrimination can lead to stigma
against disabilities, diseases, and imperfect genes, and would lead to an uneven genetic playing
field based on economic status. In order to keep people from dividing into classes based on
Risky Business
April of 2015, a team of Chinese scientists led by Junjiu Huang conducted one of the first gene-
editing experiments ever, and failed. The team used 86 embryos from local fertility clinics, and
using CRISPR, they targeted a gene with β-thalassaemia, a lethal blood disorder. However, out
of the 86 injected, only 71 survived 48 hours after. Out of the 54 tested by the scientists, only 28
embryos were successfully edited, and the rest of the embryos were mutated in unwanted regions
(Cyranoski). In order for CRISPR to be performed in patients, the success rate must be 100%,
One reason as to why Huang’s experiment failed is because of the polygenicity of traits.
Human traits are very complicated and are present in numerous genes rather than in just one ,
which makes them polygenetic (Jabr). This makes the process of editing a single gene more
complex; in order to change a simple physical trait, many DNA operations are involved. Writer
Farris Jabr says, “More than a dozen genes likely interact to determine the hue of your iris. So,
particularly useful predictive genetic test” (Jabr). Polygenic traits, such as one’s predisposition to
a disease, appear among several genes, and the more genes operated on, the more room for error.
Off-target mutations result from CRISPR acting on other parts of DNA and creating unintended
mutations (Cyranoski). Huang’s team found multiple sources of off-target mutations by only
operating on a small part of the genome. If scientists were to use CRISPR on a whole genome,
off-target mutations would be much more prevalent (Cyranoski). Perhaps the most devastating
aspect of it all is that if a mistake were to happen, the mutation would be passed on for
generations. Just as a gene correction can be inherited, so will a gene mutation. There are many
reasons as to why the Chinese experiments were so unsuccessful, including the polygenicity of
traits and off-target mutations, and they all contribute to reasons why human genetic engineering
is unsafe. Human genetic editing is not safe enough for human use, and should be banned.
Conclusion
Human gene editing should be banned because it ruins human evolution, it creates a
class-based and beauty-centric society, and it is unsafe. Currently, scientists are diving more into
bringing this technology to the public, as the U.S. Panel has given a yellow light to human gene
editing. Scientists in countries like India are already instituting CRISPR to produce genius
babies, without restriction from the government. Human gene editing is unethical and dangerous,
yet it is becoming an international sensation. The door to designer babies and purchasing
physical traits needs to be closed once and for all. What people must do is contact their local
congressperson and lobby for legislation banning genetic engineering in humans. Human gene
editing is overstepping the boundaries of parental discretion to the point of playing God, and it
must be banned.
Dutta 8
Works Cited
Achenbach, Joel. "Scientists Debate the Ethics of an Unnerving Gene-editing Technique." The
12 May 2017.
Cyranoski, David. "Chinese Scientists Genetically Modify Human Embryos." Nature News.
Darnovsky, Marcy. "The New Eugenics: The Case Against Genetically Modified Humans."
Jabr, Ferris. "Are We Too Close to Making Gattaca a Reality?" Scientific American Blog
Knapton, Sarah. "Genetic Editing Could Rob World of Creative Geniuses." The Telegraph.
Ly, Sarah. "Ethics of Designer Babies." The Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Arizona Board of
Parens, Erik. "Can Parents Be Trusted with Gene Editing Technology?" Aeon. Aeon Media
Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden. New York: Harper Perennial, 2007. Print.
"The Vulnerable Ape Hypothesis." Internet Archaeol. Internet Archaeology, 3 June 2015. Web.
12 May 2017.