The Case for CRISPER

CRISPER is a technology that allows scientists to edit human genes. Proponents of gene editing argue that it could potentially eliminate genetic diseases while those who oppose it argue that editing a human embryo is dangerous and unnatural. I personally really liked the message of the second article that argued that disease is natural, but we still practice medicine and famines are natural, yet we genetically modify our food in an attempt to halt famines. So what makes editing human embryos so different? This is what makes CRISPER so exhilarating and terrifying at the same time. On one side we have the potential to cure a serious genetic disease for the 6% of the population born with them. But on the other hand editing the human germline is a new technology and we have no idea what the consequences of this could be. One argument that I really agreed with was the argument of off-target mutations or accidental edits that would be passed down from generation to generation. However, given all the potential benefits and already known dangers I do not think that CRISPER will turn into a second, market-based eugenics movement. I think that the dangers of this are too high and many people will reject the idea of genetically modifying their children for scientific or personal reasons. Additionally, too much is unknown about the human genome to make designer babies feasible in the next few years. Although many people, including myself, are proponents of CRISPER for combating genetic diseases even more people would be against designer babies making the creation of secondhand market-based eugenics highly improbable. 

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: