Isacson 1

Travis Isacson

Mr. Johnson

AP Seminar

18 Jan. 2021

The Laws of Genetic Editing in the U.S.

The thought of genetically editing a human embryo has been around for over 5 decades

(Kane). The topic of genetic editing on human embryos is being researched because it can be

used to save the lives of many across the whole world. However, it is still extremely unsafe to be

used on a human embryo. So because of the uncertainties, and because of the long list of laws

that exist in the U.S., genetic editing on a human embryo should stay restricted until safer

technology surfaces. The U.S. Government should continue to enforce laws on genetic editing

within babies because the U.S. stopped funding any further research on genetic editing, there are

multiple countries that also have laws stopping research on genetic editing, and there have been

bans on genetic editing for many decades.

To begin, the U.S. has made multiple laws, acts, and restrictions against any further

funding to be given to research on genetic editing. In 2015 the U.S. Government made a

statement turning down any more attempts of genome editing. Thus stopping the funding of

research (Kane). This shows that still ,within the last 5 years, the U.S. government has still

chosen to prohibit anything involving editing the genes of human embryos. It provides strong

evidence because it was fairly recent in time, which adds to the severity of the topic of genetic

editing of a human embryo. This proves that the U.S. should continue to stop any further

research on genetic editing. To add onto, The White House goes on to further provide more

evidence on why genetic editing shouldn’t be allowed. “88 Congressional hearings on

 Isacson 2

genome-editing technologies were held, 89 and a specific amendment added to the 2015

appropriations bill prohibited the FDA from using any federal funds to take administrative action

regarding research in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a

heritable genetic modification” (Kane). This proves the claim because it shows that funding

genetic editing is wrong to do by granting statistics that give the sheer amount of congressional

hearings that were held to tear down all funding for genetic editing. It provides facts that prove

that the U.S. should continue to prohibit genetic editing. To once again further add on to, the year

following all of those Congressional Hearings in 2015, the U.S. made The Consolidated

Appropriations Act of 2016 which, once again, prohibited any further funding of genetic editing.

This once again shows another Act that prohibits funding for any genetic editing. With so many

Acts prohibiting genetic editing it more than proves that the U.S. is in the right for halting all

genetic editing research. All of these pieces of evidence accurately support the claim that states

that the U.S. should continue to have regulations on genetic editing on human embryos. Each

piece of evidence continues to add and support the fact by providing strong statistics and

reasoning for why the U.S. should continue this. However, it’s not only the U.S. that follows

these beliefs.

Along with the U.S., there are many other countries that also believe that genetically

testing human embryos is wrong and/or not yet ready. To begin, the effects of genetic editing on

human embryos continue to remain unsolved. Because of this, the European Union has put much

more strict, and safe regulations on genetic testing (Qingxiu 141). This backs up that the U.S.

should continue to have regulations on gene editing because there are other countries that also

have these regulations. So because genetic editing is still not yet reliable and safe, the European

Union put in strict safety regulations. To add, The U.K., another believer in preventing genetic
 Isacson 3

testing, states, “UK law does not currently permit any editing of heritable DNA-genetic

information contained in an embryo, egg or sperm. Any gene-editing that would affect the

germline would be unlawful” (Qingxiu 142). This provides more information that can back up

the choices of the United States to have strict regulations on gene editing because here is once

again another country that is doing the same thing. It provides more reason to believe that the

U.S. should continue to regulate genetic testing by saying that it’s “unlawful”. This backs up the

claim because it’s not only stating that genetic modification is unlawful, but it’s being stated by a

whole other country. However, it’s not just the U.K.. “Dozens of nations at present including

Canada, Germany, France, Switzerland, Sweden, and Italy adopted legislation prohibiting

germline intervention on embryos intended for implantation. Laws enacted in the aforementioned

nations not only prohibit germline or heritable modification, but such actions constitute criminal

violation subject to fines and or imprisonment (Drabiak 995). This more than proves that the

U.S. is in the right for having strict regulations on genetic editing because in the information

provided it isn't just one country doing the same thing. Canada, Germany, France, Switzerland,

Sweden, and Italy all follow in the same footsteps by prohibiting germline intervention. This

conglomerate of evidence proves the fact that the U.S. should continue to have strict regulations

on genetic modification because each country provided its own piece of evidence, which backs

up the beliefs of the U.S.. These aren’t recent beliefs either.

The belief that genetic modification on human embryos has been around for decades.

There have been regulations on genetic editing on embryos since 1996. The Dickey-Wicker

amendment banned any federal funds on genetic editing (Kane). This shows that since even

before the 2000s there were laws regulating genetic editing. It shows that this research is not yet

safe, and should continue to stay that way until it is safe. However, the precautions began even
 Isacson 4

before 1996. “The emergence of IVF technologies in the 1970s raised concerns about the use of

human embryos in scientific research. To address such concerns, the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare in 1977 promulgated a regulation requiring all federally funded research

projects involving human in vitro fertilization to be reviewed by an Ethical Advisory Board”

(Dohn 13). Once again, multiple countries came together and signed and ratified the Convention

on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention). This limits alterations to the human

genome, and provides that predictive genetic tests should be used only for medical purposes.

This not only gives proof that genetic editing is wrong by how long ago they limited alterations

to the human genome, but also because it had 35 countries sign it. This shows that so many

countries believe in the beliefs. The belief that genetic editing is not yet ready for testing. This

group of evidence provides great information explaining how long that the cautions for genetic

testing have been around. It shows that for many years there have been many laws, acts, and

hearing on the topic of genetic editing on a human embryo. It also showed that this was true for

many other countries many decades ago as well. All of this evidence more than proves the fact

that the U.S. should continue to restrict genetic editing on human embryos.

Stating once again, The U.S. Government should continue to enforce laws, and restrict

funding research on genetic editing within babies because the U.S. government stopped funding

any further research on genetic editing, there are multiple countries that also have laws stopping

research on genetic editing, and there have been bans on genetic editing for many decades. The

other viewpoint on genetic editing is that the benefits outweigh the negatives. There are many

benefits to genetic editing, and these can save the lives of many. However, it isn’t yet safe for

normal use and many scientists continue to be unsure of the effects. At this current state in time,

genetic testing on a human embryo is still unsafe, and should carry on with being unfunded,
 Isacson 5

restricted, and banned until future technology can safely save lives. The topic of genetic editing

is important because this technology can be used to save lives in the future. So it is an important

topic to keep in mind for the future, however, it is still very unsafe. Therefore genetic editing

should stay banned until it can be used safely.

 Isacson 6

Works Cited

Dohn, Michael R. "Preventing an Era of 'New Eugenics': An Argument for Federal

Funding and Regulation of Gene Editing Research in Human Embryos."

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 25, no. 2, Winter 2019, pp.

1–33. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/

login.aspx?direct=true&db=lgs&AN=134856527&site=ehost-live.

Drabiak, Katherine. "Untangling the Promises of Human Genome Editing."

Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, vol. 46, no. 4, Winter 2018, pp.

991–1009. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/1073110518822001.

Kane, Eileen M. "Human Genome Editing: An Evolving Regulatory Climate."

Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science & Technology, vol. 57, no. 3,

Spring 2017, pp. 301–323. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/

login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=124844264&site=ehost-live.

"The Price Tag on Designer Babies: Market Share Liability." Boston College Law

Review, vol. 59, no. 1, Jan. 2018, pp. 319–353. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=127634032&site=ehost-live.

Qingxiu Bu. "Reassess the Law and Ethics of Heritable Genome Editing

Interventions: Lessons for China and the World." Issues in Law & Medicine,

vol. 34, no. 2, Fall 2019, pp. 115–144. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/

login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=140993177&site=ehost-live&scope=site.