CRISPR - A Progressive Jump in Genomes Technology

No matter how much money people are willing to pay for health care, they may still suffer terribly from incurable diseases such as AIDS and cancer because of the underdevelopment of medical technology. However, today, the advancement in human knowledge has led to the introduction of human gene-editing, turning impossibility to possibility. In particular, the recent technology for genome editing called CRISPR has been having a groundbreaking impact on research in genetic science. This is due to its remarkable potential to simply cure genetic diseases in an embryo before they have a serious effect on further developmental progression. Although currently, there have been numerous debates regarding its extension in research for widespread uses, CRISPR is a completely promising technology because of the benefits it brings to people.

CRISPR, or Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, is the newest innovation in genetic engineering. The way CRISPR works is similar to “the scissor-like action of Cas 9 to target… any specific DNA sequence” (Baylis and Rossant). By making cuts in specific locations in DNA, CRISPR can cure diseases and make alterations in an embryo’s DNA, which prevent diseases from being passed down to following generations (Baylis and Rossant). Throughout the history, governments and researchers came up with different approaches politically and scientifically in attempt to control population. They hoped to encourage the “richest, wisest and healthiest to breed like rabbits” and the “sick, stupid, and poor to take one for the empire and remain childless” (Comfort 28). The second attempt happened during the 20th century, when the U.S government passed the law preventing marriage and immigration that would threaten a perceived core American “stock.” Another more extreme example was when Nazi sterilization law further advanced this population control approach. Later in the century, a biotechnological approach was established as a safer and more humane way to manage population health (qtd in Comfort 28). “Gene surgery,” which is similar to CRISPR technology, was established and followed by contentious debates regarding ethical issues between disease treatment and human trait enhancements. Currently, there has been a halt in the use of CRISPR because of the increase in concern from the public about the pros and cons of this technology.

During the development of this new technology, there have been a lot of negative conversations, which all suggest a limitation in further improvement and promotion. The public argues that at the moment, the technology of CRISPR has a high possibility of preventing a human from natural evolution. Moreover, the researchers appear to conduct failed experiments with CRISPR application. The argument and concerns are completely understandable and reasonable; however, evidence and reasons show numerous positives.

Opponents of this technology claim that the approach of CRISPR to the human body is wrong. CRISPR, with the use of embryo modification, is unnatural and people, for the sake of progressive development, have to stay natural. However, John Harris, Emeritus Professor of Genetic Science of the University of Manchester, UK, stated: “If we protected natural creatures and natural phenomena simply because they are natural, we would not be able to use antibiotics to kill bacteria or otherwise practice medicine, or combat drought, famine, or pestilence.” If changing the human genome is unnatural and keeping disease in human body is natural, future generations will be affected, as they will be born with the diseases passed down by their parents. For instance, looking back in history to the Vietnam War, the U.S military sprayed tons of gallons of various toxic chemicals like “rainbow herbicides” in the middle region of Vietnam. Although there was not a significant impact on people at the time, the effect of those chemicals that people directly breathed in led to the disorders in their genomes. As a result, numerous children were born with cancer, congenital disabilities, and dysfunction. Another example is people with HIV and AIDS. After being diagnosed with these diseases, people cannot give birth to a child because of the HIV inheritance from the mother to the embryo. Putting these two examples with such significant consequences into consideration, people have the responsibility to prevent children from inheriting such genetic diseases. CRISPR, with its advanced application to edit human genomes from the embryo stage, has the capability to change that. Furthermore, as the geneticist Jennifer Doudna stated in her TED talk “How CRISPR lets us edit our DNA”, CRISPR offers scientist the possibility of “[deleting] or [inserting] specific bits of DNA into cells with incredible precision.” With such assertion from credible scientists, children with the possibility to inherit genetic diseases like cancer, dysfunction, and HIV from their parents can be cured and eradicated.

In an argument about the technical issue of CRISPR, antagonists give examples of Chinese scientists, as their method fails because it makes changes to unintended locations in the genome (Comfort, 27). It is undeniable that the result of their experiment did not come out as expected, and even created adverse effects like a variety of blood diseases. However, besides the over-focus on the negative results of this experiment, the opponents seem to neglect the positive outcomes that researchers achieved. Biologists have done experiments on animals like monkeys and mice, and they successfully proved that CRISPR is usable to cure mice with muscular dystrophic diseases and improve their muscle function (Baylis and Rossant). Moreover, Philadelphia scientists “showed they could use CRISPR to remove the DNA of an integrated HIV from infected human cells” (Doudna). Although this CRISPR technology is still experimental, it has established promising results that people can completely look forward to it. The reach to success needs several failures and each misstep will be crucial for researchers to recheck and find out errors with the purpose of improvement. In short, when there is a paper with a little dropped ink, rather than insisted on claiming that the paper is useless, people should instead focus on the large white part.  

In arguing against the potential development of CRISPR technology, opponents quickly point out the possibility of abusing the procedure for enhancing physical traits. With CRISPR’s capability of changing human genomes in embryos, people are apparently eager to develop and expand the benefits that CRISPR can bring to people. It is understandable that they want to take advantage of this technology to enhance physical traits for future generations. According to Nicholas Agar, the author of Liberal Eugenics, “it is immoral to prohibit parents from producing the best children they can, by whatever means” (Comfort 31). In concord with this statement, Oxford philosopher Julian Savulescu claims his point about the unethicality of “[having] the technology to produce better children and not use it.” Moreover, CRISPR technology can ensure the high possibility of success rather than other technologies. For example, with the intention of enhancing physical traits, many people have been to surgeons for cosmetic surgeries without taking serious consideration about potential consequences. Personally, I am not against plastic surgery; however, this method of altering and reconstructing the human body is dangerous, with higher chances of internal infections and lifelong complication after surgery. Also, this approach only supports people with short-term satisfaction because they will develop an obsession with the illusion about of the perfection of plastic surgery, which leads to the increase in surgeries for other parts of the body. Examples of Donatella Versace, Priscilla Presley and Jocelyn Wildenstein at the moment demonstrate this. Therefore, parents’ intentions to take advantage of the CRISPR technology to make changes in the embryo should be ethical and allowed.

CRISPR has created an inevitable conversation about its technology, its impact, and its future development. There are hopes and concerns regarding disease treatments and human enhancements both genetically and physically. Although failures in CRISPR experiments exist, with the unceasing attempts of biologists for a better and more advanced method, we have the right and belief to look forward to what CRISPR can bring to human evolution.

Works cited

Baylis, Françoise, and Janet Rossant. "This CRISPR Moment." Thewalrus.ca. The Walrus, 12 Feb. 2016. Web. 24 Mar. 2017.

Comfort, Nathaniel. "A New Eugenics." Nation 3/10 Aug. 2015: 27-32. Print.

Doudna, Jennifer. "How CRISPR Lets Us Edit Our DNA." TED: Ideas Worth Spreading. TED Conf, 12 Nov 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2017.

Harris, John. "CGS : Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos?" Center for Genetics and Society. Center for Genetics and Society, 15 July 2016. Web. 24 Mar. 2017.