Surname 1

Student Number

Reg Number

Instructor

Date

Philosophy of Bioethics

There have been many ethical and legal issues surrounding the editing of genomes,

which is a method that scientists use to change the DNA of an organism – plant, bacteria, or

animal. The scientific process enables scientists to change the physical characteristics like

eye color in animals and height in plants. Scientists apply the use of different innovative

technologies to change the DNA structures of various organisms (National Human Genome

Research Institute). One of the scientists’ technologies is the CRISPR-Cas 9 that can be

utilized in editing the composition of a given DNA structure. The technology allows for

editing DNA structure by clipping out undesirables’ genes and replacing them with better

ones. However, there are a number of risks that come with this type of editing. For instance,

the removal of a gene that increases the chances of contracting a given disease could be a

costly removal of a gene that protects an organism against many other diseases. The editing

could also lead to other grave mistakes like snipping wrong parts of genes and causing more

health issues.

The debate on the ethical issues that surround the technology is not new. It has since

gained more attention since the discovery of the new technology, CRISPR, which is believed

to have the capability of improving the accuracy of DNA editing. Many researchers and

bioethicists suggest that it is very important to further study how human genome editing is

safer and effective before attempting it on human reproduction. The bioethicists still need to

debate and wait for further public deliberations before agreeing if the germline editing is
 Surname 2

allowable or not. In 2014, more than 40 nations discouraged germline editing and even went

ahead to ban it on the grounds of safety and ethical concerns. The United States, the United

Kingdom, and China are at the forefront in harmonizing all the regulations that govern

genome editing technologies. The three countries' effort followed an International Summit on

Human Gene Editing (ISHGE) that took place on the 12th month of 2015 in Washington, DC.

Gene editing, or rather genome editing, is a collection of skills and technologies that

enables a scientist to alter the structure of DNA. The technology allows the scientist to add or

remove a genetic material or reform a given part of the gene. There are many approaches to

editing, and one of the approaches is the CRISPR-Cas9. CRISPR-Cas9 stands for ‘clustered

regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and CRISPR-associated protein 9’

(MedlinePlus). This genome alteration system has drawn many scientists’ attention because

of its high speed, lower cost, great accuracy, and high efficiency than other genome editing

technologies. The technology is a modification of the natural mutation of bacteria, a natural

genome editing system. Bacteria create DNA parts called CRISPR arrays by capturing

snippets of DNA from attacking viruses. The arrays help the bacteria to easily identify given

viruses. If the virus invades once more, the bacteria will release RNA segments from the

created CRISPR arrays to fight the virus. The bacteria later use the Cas9 to dismantle the

DNA hence disabling the virus.

Genome editing is the new technology used in the prevention against and treatment of

many diseases that affect humans. Therefore, contemporary research uses genome editing in

order to clearly understand diseases using various animal models. However, the idea is still

under probation because scientists still want to determine if the method is safe and good for

humans. The scientists are still probing it on a number of different diseases that include but

are not limited to hemophilia and sickle cell disease. The technology even holds the
 Surname 3

assurance of even treating and preventing other complex disasters like cancer and human

immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection.

Several ethical issues have arisen from the CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Many

deviations that have come with technology mostly target the somatic cells, which all are all

cells apart from the ova and the sperm cell. The alterations are only made on body tissues

hence cannot be passed from generation to generation. However, if alterations are made to the

germline cells (sperm cells or ova), the new characteristics can be passed to new generations.

It is in the germline genome and embryo genome editing that we have ethical issues arising.

One of the concerns of the traits is whether the method can be permissible to use in

improving normal human characteristics like height. It is for the concerns of safety and ethics

that germline genome editing is illegal in several nations.

There are a number of things that make technology difficult and controversial. One of

them is the safety of the technology. Safety of technology is the first of the issues that have

bred a lot of controversies. The issue surrounds the possibility of edits in the wrong parts of

the DNA and the probability of given cells carrying the edits or not. The researchers and

ethicists who attended the ISHGE propose that until enough research is done on genome

editing safety, the technology should never be used for clinical reproduction processes

because the risk that comes with it has not to be justified by research yet. Other researchers

controverse the issue by arguing that the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation

genetic diagnosis (PGD) will always remain beneficial and safe than other existing

technologies like genome editing. However, my ethicists and researchers agree that in many

cases, genome editing can solve the issues that have never been solved by both IVF and

PGD(MedlinePlus). This includes both parents having a homozygous composition for illness-

causing gene, meaning all their children must contract the sickness. Scientists believe that
 Surname 4

genome editing can even solve issues of polygenic disorders when families refuse to use the

PDG process.

Other ethicists and scientists are worried that any editing of the genes can be difficult

to use initially, especially for solving non-therapeutic issues, which appears to be very

controversial. A group of other researchers believes that genome editing can be allowed for

use in the cure for genetic sicknesses once it has been found to be safe. This perspective

appears to have a huge moral imperative. This group of ethicists and scientists believe that

technology should be promoted with strict adherence to policies and regulations. Therefore,

the use of technology needs to be regulated in and outside of the united states.

Another source of controversy in the issue of genome editing is informed consent,

justice, and equity. Many individuals worry that it is very difficult to get informed consent for

such an operation because the affected group people are only the unborn, embryos, and future

generations. An argument that counters the latter is that many parents always make decisions

that can directly or indirectly affect their future children (National Human Genome Research

Institute). Examples of the decisions are the decisions to undergo either PGD or IVF.

Bioethicist and scientists are always concerned about obtaining consent from prospective

parents when the risks that involve the technology are not yet defined. On another

perspective, there is a concern that the technology will only be accessible to the rich because

it is expensive hence will breach the right to equity and justice of many people. This will,

therefore, increase the disparities in access to health care and other intercessions.

Two positions have been taken on gene-editing; some people support it while others

greatly disagree with it. This has led to a generation of areas of agreement and areas of

controversy. An embryo that is used to perform gene-editing is less than seven days. With

CRISPR, the embryo is then modified to the desired genes. This mainly aims to rectify a
 Surname 5

faulty gene from a person to safeguard one’s generation. The technology can also be used to

address the embryo genes that are likely to be causing diseases. Most of those who support

genome editing believe that the process can decrease or do away with genetic illnesses, thus

alleviating the anguish caused by diseases. Those on the opposing side greatly disagree that

the process is not safe and is not natural, without considerations of the descendants' will.

Modifying an embryo is not natural and means disapproval of God’s perfect work.

This argument is based on the that everything should happen naturally without a man’s

intervention. Getting sick and dying is a perfectly natural, normal thing. Changing the normal

functioning of nature may cause frustration. Natural is good. On the off chance that we

ensured characteristic animals and regular wonders essentially because they are normal, we

would not have the option to utilize anti-infection agents to eliminate microscopic organisms

or practice medication battle dry spell, starvation, or epidemic (Sandel). The use of embryos

in the laboratory means losing an innocent soul, as most embryo research does not turn out to

be successful. Even though researchers claim that even a dead embryo can still be used to

obtain useful information, all humans shall die at some point in time does not justify the

researchers’ choice of terminating an embryo. Researchers determine the death of an embryo

with the aim of use in a research process.

How embryos are acquired is the sound of an alarm. The great possibility of death

during the harvesting stage is greatly unethical as it results in the destruction of life that

began at conception. The view that human life is vital and perfect in God’s eyes is violated

when researchers harvest embryos then freeze them for research purposes. Embryo extraction

is done with different aims, a donation to research work, donate for a fee, or give to other

individuals who may not have been lucky to have one. If one donates an embryo for storage

without a fee, then the embryo is used in research projects or destroyed though less that often
 Surname 6

are they destroyed. An embryo is a resource for researchers and cannot be discarded. Gene-

editing has led to controversies on human cloning that result in modified humans.

The extent to which gene editing on embryo causes side effects is acute. Several types

of research have been conducted in the search to understand gene-editing. Still, none has

exhaustively gotten to fully understand research that has shown devastating results in the use

of embryonic stem cells. Some have been documented to have caused tumors and other forms

of growth due to cell division in an uncontrolled manner. Experiments on natural creatures

have seen them die of the side effects caused by the process. More research should be done to

establish proper techniques(Savulescu 422). There are several risks involved when extracting

an embryo from a woman. This could lead to cancerous cells’ development, an abnormal

increase in ovulation, abnormal fluctuation of hormones, infertility, and even worse, leading

to death. Embryo harvesting organizations have exploited young girls and women for their

profit benefits.

For the young ladies required, there is practically no clinical follow-up. Rather there

is a coaxing and passionate and mental compulsion and publicity. They are ironically exalted

to be doing something liberal. A limiting and minimizing of the dangers. The promise of

added stipend upon referring other ladies. Allurement with cash Stylish friend affirmed

impact—abuse of those in urgent need of minimal expenditure. Regularly the egg benefactors

are not completely mindful that if the couple, facility, doctor, or body exits, they will be paid

just an ostensible aggregate for their difficulty. Egg gathering can cause ovarian

hyperstimulation condition and various other clinical diseases. Examples include pneumonic

inconveniences, irregular liquid characteristics, stroke, inside and bladder hole, and the

remainder of the potential confusions that can emerge from infusing superfluous medications

and hormones into the body, just as going through a pointless medical procedure.
 Surname 7

The ease of using CRISPR as well as its speed promotes enthusiasm among

researchers and scientists. The most remarkable is the significant change in the speed and

slowness of discoveries that CRISPR-Cas9 allows. The tests that would take ages to complete

can now be complete in only weeks, and there is much anticipation in reducing the waiting

time for the experiment’s results to even hours or minutes. With the way in which the

technology is moving at such a fast pace, it is very crucial to note the emergence and

acceptance of its application. The speculation about the technology, therefore, brings about

various areas of agreement. This has led to a faster spread of the process, moving even further

than molecular genetics, biomedical science, and clinical medicine (Sandel). It is possibly not

since the invention of karyotyping has a much better advancement spread widely and rapidly

from small research centers to various laboratories in the world. A number of geneticists and

bioethicists have made several presentations at different national meetings. Since 2012, the

use of CRISPR has greatly doubled up from 150 in 2012 to 350 in 2013, 670 in 2014, and up

to 1400 in 2015. CRISPR works well in genetic alterations that have stood out to be the

greatest events of all time. An example of the event is the cloning of dolly in 1996 and a

controversial collection of stem cells from human embryos in the late 1990s, which have

steered a heated debate on the two biomedical discoveries' ethical implications (Mulvihill et

al 21).

CRISPR-Cas9 has been used in laboratory settings to perform genome editing on

most body cells such as the liver cells and on the germs causing cancerous tumors. The

technology's ability to remove genes that are identified as harmful strands of mutation and

replacing them with the desired gene is considered an advantage. Some disadvantages have

been noted, that range from the dilemma of applicability on this technology. According to a

convention by the summit organizers, the fate gene editing does not give a go-ahead button

on the performance research on alteration of human genetic makeup (Savulescu 422). The
 Surname 8

first genome editing used this technology was experienced in China way back before the

issue was considered unethical and thus regulated. Debates on the matter showed deep

worries of what the future hold on the gene-editing bioethics that may cause harmful results.

Whether the modified gene would be featured in the future generations despite the unknown

probable hazardous implications still holds and has not found a precise answer yet. The topic

of reversal of modification has not been explored to fully give confidence to the public. For a

long time, genetic editing has always been abused, just as in the scenario of eugenics in the

early twentieth century, which touched very many people in the world. Such abuses should

remain forgotten, and hence scientists should go past the summit discussion to just approve

experimentation of CRISPR-Cas9 and other techniques that are aimed at genetic alteration.

The ethical problems surrounding CRISPR-Cas9 reiterate those challenges of genetic

engineering and gene therapy with their clinical applications. The use of such technologies in

various fields promises high hopes but in a much longer time frame. The utilization of the

technique in the resolution of single-gene diseases still creates a number of ethical concerns

for human genetic alteration because of the unknown repercussions on the future generation

and the shortage of know-how on human genetic mutagenesis. There must be an agreement

on recognizing partakers in many debates that surround the climatic transparency of the

oversight discussion. The technology comes along with beneficial outcomes in team science

and data sharing. The techniques also promote global cooperation in science and desirable

and faster public access.

The success of the technology will squarely depend on the sheer speed, width, and

depth of its use as well forging for its permission. The principle of cohesion and deliberation

for humanity requires much better contemplation in ensuring that the fast changes in

technology become everyone’s importance and that it creates a view that prompts a heating

discussion among many entities like scientific, clinical, and family associations (Mulvihill et
 Surname 9

al 21). Therefore, everyone must accept the fact that all the concerns raised in the summit

about the unfortunate consequences of genetic editing that if it becomes inherited, will remain

and even domineer in future generations. We can argue this stand by considering the

argument that states that if researchers are wise enough to edit or alter a given mutation

regardless of intention or forethought, their heirs will also be wise enough to reverse the

genetic alteration. Such an argument appears to be arrogant. Additionally, the alterations'

targeted traits have huge ethical concerns and account for several genetic cases of abuse that

can never be forgotten, like the eugenic idols that captured the attention of the whole world in

the early 20th century.

Works Cited

MedlinePlus. "What Are Genome Editing and CRISPR-Cas9?" MedlinePlus - Health

Information from the National Library of Medicine, 18 Sept. 2020,

medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/genomicresearch/genomeediting/.

Mulvihill, John J., et al. "Ethical issues of CRISPR technology and gene editing through

the lens of solidarity." British medical bulletin 122.1 (2017): 17-29.

National Human Genome Research Institute. "What Are the Ethical Concerns of Genome

Editing?" Genome.gov, 13 Mar. 2019, www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-

issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns.

Sandel, Michael J. The case against perfection: What’s wrong with designer children,

bionic athletes, and genetic engineering. London: Routledge, 2012.

Savulescu, Julian. "Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human

beings." Readings in the Philosophy of Technology (2009): 417-430.