Designer DNA
Gene editing technologies, most notably CRISPR-Cas9, can now precisely edit the human genome and cure or prevent genetic diseases, saving millions of lives. But as the technology develops, so do the possibilities of genetic customization of our progeny - resulting in ‘designer babies.’ In 2018, a scientist genetically modified two babies to make them immune to HIV, reviving controversy over the genetic modification of human embryos and heritable genetic alterations (aka germline engineering).
There are multiple issues: unintended scientific consequences (e.g. inadvertent alteration of untargeted genes, elimination of one condition increasing susceptibility to another, rogue scientists conducting unsafe experiments, the creation of new viruses or bioweapons), and of course, eugenics.
First, the delineation between enhancement (e.g. alteration of appearance or IQ) and treatment of disease (and which diseases or conditions should be treated & to what degree), plus the technology’s availability, would most likely be determined by those with high socioeconomic/political status. Second, the prevalence of certain genes & traits along with shifting norms & resources could exacerbate existing social disparities or create new forms of privilege, discrimination, & inequality.
The potential to cure and prevent diseases should continue to be explored and genetic selection/modification are already common practice, but hopefully there’ll be close oversight over how germline modification evolves and how DNA is regulated on the market - DIY CRISPR kits are available online for around $150 and our DNA's probably in databases already thanks to 23&Me.
There are multiple issues: unintended scientific consequences (e.g. inadvertent alteration of untargeted genes, elimination of one condition increasing susceptibility to another, rogue scientists conducting unsafe experiments, the creation of new viruses or bioweapons), and of course, eugenics.
First, the delineation between enhancement (e.g. alteration of appearance or IQ) and treatment of disease (and which diseases or conditions should be treated & to what degree), plus the technology’s availability, would most likely be determined by those with high socioeconomic/political status. Second, the prevalence of certain genes & traits along with shifting norms & resources could exacerbate existing social disparities or create new forms of privilege, discrimination, & inequality.
The potential to cure and prevent diseases should continue to be explored and genetic selection/modification are already common practice, but hopefully there’ll be close oversight over how germline modification evolves and how DNA is regulated on the market - DIY CRISPR kits are available online for around $150 and our DNA's probably in databases already thanks to 23&Me.