Throughout the course of this blog we have discussed the scientific possibilities of gene editing and how it works. Gene editing is a complex and controversial topic among the world today. Ethical concerns play a very important role in gene editing, a role which we have not discussed yet. We have discussed the good that gene editing can do and it's possibilities of treating life threatening illnesses. The major question is where is the line?
CRISPR offers a great opportunity to treat life threatening or seriously impinging illnesses. Beth Baker stated “From a scientific and societal viewpoint, the potential benefits from research on human genome editing are many: from deepening understanding about human biology and fertility to eliminating genetic defects that cause terrible diseases and creating disease resistance”. All of this being true and valid points. Gene editing offers treatments to an expansive amount of people who previously had no form of treatment. As good as this seems safety and ethical questions follow in wait.
As we have learned CRISPR is ideal for monogenic illness (affected or caused by one gene). However many of these monogenic illnesses are generally rare. Our more common illnesses like Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease and schizophrenia (a few examples) present much more of a challenge in treating as they are polygenic, (caused or affected by many genes). Our understanding of the human genome and it's self interactions are incredibly slim. There is little knowledge regarding how these genes interact and affect each other. Deleting or altering one gene may unknowingly lead to change in another gene. “A gene that lowers an individual’s risk of getting HIV increases the risk of succumbing to the West Nile virus. Similarly, a gene that lowers the risk of type-1 diabetes brings a higher risk of Crohn’s disease.” With the little knowledge that we have it is understandable why people show hesitation on gene editing, what happens if there are unintended consequences?
The topic becomes more controversial the further the changes are pushed. Baker stated “If germline editing were approved, most seem to agree that it would be very difficult to limit its use to disease prevention. And one person’s “disease” may be another’s view of the human condition, whether it is aging or autism.” George Church added that “the real battle would not be between editing somatic cells and germline cells but over where to draw the line between disease prevention and enhancements. Even with somatic cell engineering, “enhancement will creep in the door,” he said, “not necessarily by consumer demand but in terms of treating serious diseases, like HIV, like muscle wasting during aging, cognitive decline during Alzheimer’s, or cognitive disadvantage in newborns with autism spectrum disorder. The point is [that enhancements] will come in through very serious disease and they will be spread by somatic gene therapies.” Ruha Benjamin described gene editing ethics as being “ seeded with values and interests—economic as well as social— that without careful examination easily reproduce existing hierarchies including able-ist assumptions about which lives are worth living and which are worth editing out of existence”.
While gene editing offers massive expansion to the medical world of treatment, holding technology that's able to change people's lives, much discussion is required for safety and ethicality. If no line is drawn between illness and non life threatening superficial changes,(eye color, height, intelligence, hair color, etc…) gene editing could very well become like eugenics. Careful consideration of the implications of gene editing need to be considered. We must be careful. While I personally believe gene editing should only be used for life threatening or severely impinging illnesses, I hope this blog has helped bring knowledge to the new world of gene editing
CRISPR offers a great opportunity to treat life threatening or seriously impinging illnesses. Beth Baker stated “From a scientific and societal viewpoint, the potential benefits from research on human genome editing are many: from deepening understanding about human biology and fertility to eliminating genetic defects that cause terrible diseases and creating disease resistance”. All of this being true and valid points. Gene editing offers treatments to an expansive amount of people who previously had no form of treatment. As good as this seems safety and ethical questions follow in wait.
As we have learned CRISPR is ideal for monogenic illness (affected or caused by one gene). However many of these monogenic illnesses are generally rare. Our more common illnesses like Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease and schizophrenia (a few examples) present much more of a challenge in treating as they are polygenic, (caused or affected by many genes). Our understanding of the human genome and it's self interactions are incredibly slim. There is little knowledge regarding how these genes interact and affect each other. Deleting or altering one gene may unknowingly lead to change in another gene. “A gene that lowers an individual’s risk of getting HIV increases the risk of succumbing to the West Nile virus. Similarly, a gene that lowers the risk of type-1 diabetes brings a higher risk of Crohn’s disease.” With the little knowledge that we have it is understandable why people show hesitation on gene editing, what happens if there are unintended consequences?
The topic becomes more controversial the further the changes are pushed. Baker stated “If germline editing were approved, most seem to agree that it would be very difficult to limit its use to disease prevention. And one person’s “disease” may be another’s view of the human condition, whether it is aging or autism.” George Church added that “the real battle would not be between editing somatic cells and germline cells but over where to draw the line between disease prevention and enhancements. Even with somatic cell engineering, “enhancement will creep in the door,” he said, “not necessarily by consumer demand but in terms of treating serious diseases, like HIV, like muscle wasting during aging, cognitive decline during Alzheimer’s, or cognitive disadvantage in newborns with autism spectrum disorder. The point is [that enhancements] will come in through very serious disease and they will be spread by somatic gene therapies.” Ruha Benjamin described gene editing ethics as being “ seeded with values and interests—economic as well as social— that without careful examination easily reproduce existing hierarchies including able-ist assumptions about which lives are worth living and which are worth editing out of existence”.
While gene editing offers massive expansion to the medical world of treatment, holding technology that's able to change people's lives, much discussion is required for safety and ethicality. If no line is drawn between illness and non life threatening superficial changes,(eye color, height, intelligence, hair color, etc…) gene editing could very well become like eugenics. Careful consideration of the implications of gene editing need to be considered. We must be careful. While I personally believe gene editing should only be used for life threatening or severely impinging illnesses, I hope this blog has helped bring knowledge to the new world of gene editing
BAKER, BETH. “The Ethics of Changing the Human Genome.” BioScience, vol. 66, no. 4, 2016, pp. 267–273. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/90007578. Accessed 12 Dec. 2020.
JUENGST, ERIC, et al. “From ‘Personalized’ to ‘Precision’ Medicine: The Ethical and Social Implications of Rhetorical Reform in Genomic Medicine.” The Hastings Center Report, vol. 46, no. 5, 2016, pp. 21–33., www.jstor.org/stable/44159266. Accessed 12 Dec. 2020.
NEWSON, AINSLEY, and ANTHONY WRIGLEY. “Being Human: The Ethics, Law, and Scientific Progress of Genome Editing.” AQ: Australian Quarterly, vol. 87, no. 1, 2016, pp. 3–40., www.jstor.org/stable/24877806. Accessed 12 Dec. 2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment