Main Editorial : Should Gene Editing Be Done to Humans?

Unnatural Way for a Natural Being

Eclipsed with ethical disputes and debates about its possibilities, human genome editing,
has once again sparked a commotion among the majority of the world population. The technique
of gene editing ―CRISPR, has become the most potent yet it has also become the subject of
most controversies, especially so that humans are becoming involved in such process.
2012, when a form of gene editing was discovered, more commonly termed as CRISPR
(Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats). It uses “molecular scissors” to edit
very specific strand of a DNA. Emergence of such technique has enabled an almost unlimited
opportunities for gene editing such as the possibility to be a kick-start of a revolution in the
world of drug discovery or the possibility to be a cure to a once incurable disease.
CRISPR has the ability to fix DNA errors which could possibly create new treatments for
diseases linked to specific genetic errors such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. Or it
could even reprogram drug-resistant cancer cells which, could potentially end our unending
quests about cancers.
The possibility of this technique was highlighted when a group of scientists in 2015 used
CRISPR to cut out HIV out of living cells. Upon the display of its possibility, a year later this
turned into a larger scale project with rats that had virus in all of their body cells, as subjects.
And upon injecting the CRISPR, more than 50% of the virus were removed from the rat’s body.
That incident marks a great milestone in the science world for it could serve as a foundation of
new innovations and alternative cures.
In addition to this, scientists have used CRISPR, to fix a genetic defect in human
embryos that can cause serious heart problems. The embryos showed no sign of the mutated gene
upon 72 days after the introduction of CRISPR into the embryos, and that the gene was
essentially corrected in all of their cells.
Despite the millions of offers of CRISPR for possibilities and potentials, it isn’t perfect
yet. It doesn’t always give the intended results. The difficulty to predict the long-term
implication of a CRISPR edit is unpredictable which raises big ethical questions.
Let us start with the objection that gene modification is unnatural. This argument rests on
the stereotypical claim that natural is inherently good. However, treating “natural” diseases
actually requires unnatural ways such as the use of antibiotics. And CRISPR introduced to
human could mean extraordinarily risky human experimentation because it is not determined on
how it will affect the individual. The probability of success with humans as subject is extremely
low.
Furthermore, it is not ethical to alter your genes, because your natural lineage would be
completely altered and erased in the long run. And gene modification on human embryos affects
the next generation without their consent.
 The blatant importance of ethics to humanity, serves as a hindrance to a risky, but
possible cure to what once were known as incurable diseases. Even if we put into heart our
ethics, how can we move forward and discover actual and life-changing possibilities if we are
held back? The recognition for a potential possibility is a blur because we are caged by ethics.
We regard of foreign ways, unnatural ways, such as the CRISPR technique as
unacceptable methods because it is “foreign”, because it is new to us. However, this perspective
needs to change because what we might consider as unnatural might actually be a solution.
But it is still up to us to decide the best course forward.