CRISPR Cas9 Gene Editing And Why It Raises Concerns
By Ronald Chesaux
Back in November, 2018, something of global concern took place in Shenzhen, China. This something by no means flew under the radar, but has been addressed little in both state and national legislatures. Two twin girls, nicknamed “Lulu and Nana”, were born with genes that were modified to be immune to HIV/AIDS. This was accomplished by means of a gene editing technology known as CRISPR Cas9, or CRISPR for short. Gene Editing technology has been around for a long time but the process is now exponentially easier and cheaper to complete. While CRISPR could be used to for either noble or sinister purposes, both need to be regulated before the issue gets out of hand.
Essentially, CRISPR can be used to “quickly target, delete and repair any mutated sequence of DNA in any gene”. This means it could be used to eliminate diseases such as cancer in living adults, or to stop all hereditary diseases in human embryos. Diseases like Huntington’s, Hemophilia, or Muscular Dystrophy could be history. But there are perhaps, more terrifying applications.
Among the socio-economic concerns surrounding CRISPR, there are also concerns rising among environmentalists. Where this is coming from is the potential use of CRISPR for advances in agriculture. Farmers want to use CRISPR to increase the yield of their crops and the health of their livestock, but this may have unpredictable consequences. Due to the lack of conclusive research about this, we cannot tell what affects it may have on the environment but, according to Stanford Medicine, “Laboratories have already used CRISPR to engineer bigger tomatoes, longer-lasting mushrooms and leaner pigs”. As you can see, experiments are already beginning with the lack of guidelines that are in place.
Now although things like eradicating diseases and having healthier children don't sound like the aforementioned “sinister purposes”, without solid, clear regulations, they could spiral out of hand very quickly. Disease eradication would be a great step forward for humanity, but might cause unforeseen mutations in the human genome. Editing our children could potentially widen the already existing social and financial divide in America, not simply make them healthier. Agricultural modifications could significantly improve the economy, but simultaneously worsen the deteriorating state of the environment. Because of these potentialities, all CRISPR related development apart from contained and controlled government research needs to be banned until there is evidence that the technology would have no negative, long lasting effects on the human species or the environment. However, a blanket ban on the technology is not what is being advocated for here, but simply restrictions until we can assure the safety of it. Although, if CRISPR does prove to be dangerous, then a ban may be something to consider. Until then, knowledge is our best tool. Simply not enough people know about what happened in November and what may come after it. In order to raise awareness, we need to spread this information.
Scientists fear that CRISPR may be used to create “Designer Babies”, babies that parents have given “desirable” traits such as being more muscular, or having blonde hair, etc.. While this may not seem so bad at first glance, there are tremendous socio-economic implications that come with it, such as the technology making its way into the hands of large companies. This would allow private corporations or organizations to market the technology. If it were released into the market, the division between wealthy individuals and poor ones would grow to no longer be simply financial. Since wealthy people would have greater access to the presumably expensive procedure, there would then be both a physical and mental divide between the rich and the poor where more fortunate children would be potentially stronger and smarter than the less fortunate. Vermont already requires genetically modified food to be labeled, so will we prohibit genetically modified children altogether or just label them as well?
