Human Gene Editing Receives Science Panel's Support

Norah Foley

Core Biology // Current event #3

Mr. Ippolito

February 15th, 2017

Article title: Human Gene Editing Receives Science Panel’s Support

This article published by the New York Times science section discusses a previously unthinkable proposition: the modification of human embryos to create genetic traits and to prevent potential diseases or disabilities . The reason this controversial topic is being broadcasted is because an important science advisory group formed by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine recently endorsed the idea. The proposition of such genetic modification has been longley perceived as too controversial for consideration. It has long been feared by scientists that the techniques used to prevent genetic diseases might also be used to provide the babies with unfair advantages such as enhanced intelligence or strength. The article discusses the report the advisory group wrote, and the terms they placed on the new genetic modification. The advisory group chose to only support alterations that are designed to prevent babies from acquiring genes known to cause “serious diseases and disability”. They also suggested it should only be used when there is no “reasonable alternative”. The importance of the report is that until now the government has been avoiding supporting any kind of genetic modification. However, this report has provided such explicit rationale, the government is forced to consider it. A recent invention of a powerful gene-editing tool called Crispr-Cas9 enables researchers to snip, insert, and delete genetic material with increasing precision. The topic still remains highly controversial as some people view it as humanity intervening with its own evolution. Other opponents of human germ line editing argue that if enhancements in intelligence, strength, and beauty are made possible they will create a social divide between those who can afford enhancements and those who can’t. In addition to such social concerns people also question the safety of the editing. While Crispr is precise, it is known to sometimes have “off-target” effects, accidently cutting DNA where it is not supposed to. People fear a child produced through a gene-editing technique could be harmed or disabled in an unintentional way. To refute such concerns the report calls for the prohibiting of any alterations that provide “enhancements”, but it is unclear who will draw those lines and how well they will be enforced.   R. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a leader of the panel that wrote the report is now encouraging the public “ to discuss whether or how to pursue clinical trials of such applications”.  The article is closed with a quote from Sharon Terry, the president of the Genetic Alliance, a patient advocacy group, patients who may participate in clinical trials must begin a conversation. She said “My hope is that there would be serious considerations about what we are balancing here,”.

This article is extremely relevant to our current world. We are a very technologically advanced world, everyday we find new ways to make our lives easier through technology. Now there are ways to edit a baby’s genes through technology to prevent genetic diseases and to enhance its strength, brains, and appearance. Reading this article, frankly frightened me a bit. The gene-editing reminded of a science fiction futuristic dystopia. Learning that scientists today posses the power to literally design a baby's genes made me flabbergasted. The idea that genetic diseases such a s Huntington's or certain forms of Cancer could be removed from a baby's genes amazes me. I think if that were to be accomplished it would change the medical world forever. However reading this article also made me very skeptical. I do not think we should be able to provide certain babies with enhancements that will serve as major advantages in their future lives. I agree with the opponents of the genetic-editing when they predict a social divide between those who can and can’t afford enhancements. I believe it would have a horrible impact on society, as intelligence would be able to be bought. It would also interfere with our nation’s ideals that everyone is born equal. Despite reassurance that enhancements would be prohibited, I am not convinced. I don’t think the prohibition would last or be very strong. I think if people have access to those kind of advantages, they would seize them.

This article was very well-written, and extremely captivating. The author did not blatantly choose a side, and gave a voice to both sides of the argument. She provided a sufficient explanation on the terms of the report written regarding the proposition of genetic-editing. She also thoroughly explains the argument of the opposition. She expresses some of the risks involved as well as the positive outcomes. She basically provides an overall summary of the two sides so the reader can decide for themselves which side to choose. Something I think she could improve on is providing a more detailed description of how the genetic editing works. She did explain the tool used to edit, but did not dig into the real science behind how it works. It was hard to imagine how something that sounded so futuristic is actually being conducted today. I think having a more scientific explanation for it may change people’s perspective.

Works Cited:

Harmon, Amy. "Human Gene Editing Receives Science Panel's Support." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Feb. 2017. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.