Genetic engineering has been around for thousands of years, changing how an organism is made by altering its genes. It was originally used by "farmers who domesticated plants, such as corn, wheat, and rice, and selectively bred animals, such as the mule" to make them bigger or more valued for sale (Miller). This process, or genetic engineering, is known as the "the process of cutting and altering genes in an organism's DNA and transferring them in order to bring out favorable changes" (Miller). It allowed them to enhance their crops and make new advancements in agricultural technology. Now scientists are discovering new ways to use this genetic technology to enhance human beings. But, without regulating the ways in which it is used, there is no limit to what scientists can do. With advancement after advancement, scientists have now developed the technology to treat and even cure some genetic diseases but also to "design babies". Many consequences can arise from this sort of use of the technology that would affect everyone in society and all the future generations. This is why the United States government should place regulations on genetic engineering in humans to prevent the use of this technology from being used to "design children" but allow it to be used to help cure and treat medical conditions and diseases.

Scott and Monique Collins were one of the first and most well known couple to select the gender of their next child. The Collins had already had two boys so they were determined to conceive a girl. In 1996, they saw doctors at the Genetics and IVF Institute in Fairfax, Virginia and from there, they proceeded with the use of genetic engineering to insure their next baby was a girl. Their case was "one of the first highly publicized instances of [genetic engineering] in which the selection of the embryo was not performed to address a specific medical condition, but to fulfill the parents' desire" (Ly). Their case raised the issues concerning the ethicality of their "designer baby" and the capabilities of parents now being able to choose the traits their child will have.  The publicity from their case enlightened the public about genetic engineering in humans and especially publicized that it was now possible to choose a child's eye color, hair color, athleticism, or height (Ly.) The advancements do not stop there. Scientists are finding even more and more traits to enhance and to this day, are still furthering in their research. They are now close to being able to genetically enhance a person's intelligence or memory before they are even conceived (Miller). 

Allowing parents to pick what genetic traits their child will have is an incredible advancement but also morally wrong. On the other hand, when using this technology to decrease the chance of a child having a genetic disease or even cure a child from a genetic disease, it could save millions of lives. This causes a big controversy over whether or not genetic engineering should be legal to perform on humans. In the early 2000s, Anti-abortionists were highly against it and successfully fought to ban federal funding in this field. Although, fertility doctors ended up not even needing that government funding because "[with] millions of American couples unable to conceive, doctors and embryologists found a lucrative market for the end products of their work, which could legally continue so long as it involved no federal funds" (Brownlee). Other than the no governmental funding, "the United States is one of the few countries with an advanced biomedical sector that does not have any law against human germline modification ... it could be used for any purpose" (Cussins and Darnovsky). Without any form of restrictions, scientists in the United States have no limits on their research in this field. 

The technology used to create these genetically enhanced children has quickly evolved over the years. The most current technology is known as CRISPR, an acronym for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat. The CRISPR system binds and cuts DNA using guide RNAs. The most advanced model of this technology is known as the CRISPR type II, or the RNA-mediated Cas9 adaptive system; this system cuts DNA so precisely so that "it can be customize to target any sequence" (Farasat). Then, "[by] forcing the host to repair these precision DNA cuts, the [system] allows recombinant DNA to be inserted at desired genome locations" (Farasat). In short, this process allows certain parts of the DNA to be entered or removed. By inserting the parts of a DNA strand that contains the wanted trait in the place of the removal of the part with the unwanted trait, the DNA will then repair itself and become genetically altered with the new trait.  

Creating such an advanced technology like CRISPR to genetically engineer a human is a huge technological and biological breakthrough, but it does come with its risks. Some of these risks include: health risks to future children, thin medical justification, treating human beings like engineered products, risking the public trust in responsible science, and creating inequality and discrimination in the world (Genetically Modified Humans? Seven Reasons to Say "No"). With this kind of technology still being fairly new to the public, there have not been enough successful cases to deem this process as "safe" for both the mother and the baby. Without full knowledge of what to expect when using the system on humans, "we can't predict what those added or deleted genes might do in the cell or the organism" (Genetically Modified Humans? Seven Reasons to Say "No"). Also, with the implantation of these genetically modified embryos into the mother, there is a higher risk of her becoming pregnant with multiples (twins, triplets, etc.). This adds to the risk of the mother because "women pregnant with multiples are more than likely than those with singletons to suffer premature delivery, toxemia, and hemorrhage", and their children are "vulnerable to cerebral palsy, learning disabilities, blindness, developmental delays, and mental retardation" (Brownlee). If any of these possible risks occur, not only will that child or mother be affected, but also all of the later generations to follow from their gene pool as they pass it on to their children. 

Taking into account the people in future generations is often overlooked when debating about a current issue, but in this case, it is extremely important to consider those future generations. When changing the DNA in an embryo, you will not only be changing that person in particular, but also their offspring and every person in the future who will stem off of their bloodline. By making that one change in a gene, you would be technically changing millions of lives. Usually, when making big medical decision like this, it is required to get consent from all of those affected, but in this case, it is impossible to "get consent, either by that child or any of the subsequent generations whose every cell in their bodies will also be changed" (Zepps). 

Another factor people tend to leave out is the parental factor. A child created through the genetic engineering process ultimately has three parents. The procedure used by the CRISPR/Cas9-system involves "removing the nuclear material either from the egg or embryo of a woman with inheritable mitochondrial disease and inserting it into a healthy egg or embryo of a donor ...  Any offspring would carry genetic material from three people  --  the nuclear DNA of the mother and father, and the mitochondrial DNA of the donor" (Darnovsky). Although this may not seem like a huge issue on the surface, it could defeat the purpose of infertile couples using genetic engineering as a way to create a baby of their own because the child will not be solely made up of their genes. 

Aside from the medical risks and the fact that there is very thin medical justification, there is also the risk of the child being treated differently. As a genetically engineered child, big expectations are placed onto them before they are even fully created. If a parent genetically "designs" them to have a higher intelligence, more athletic ability or a certain personality trait, they will be fully expected to possess those traits. Since the process is not deemed 100% effective, there is the chance that the child may not actually end up the way they were "designed" to which could lead to disappointment or even rejection from the parents. Most parents would like to provide their child all of the best opportunities to succeed in life, but "it's one thing for parents to offer their kids opportunities like music lessons or extra coaching; it's another to force them into a pre-determined biological mold" (Genetically Modified Humans? Seven Reasons to Say "No"). Everyone should have the right to an open future, not an expected future. 

Along with the expectations placed on genetically enhanced people as individuals, there will also be expectations placed on all genetically enhanced humans as a group. This group of unique people would be expected to be the smarter, more athletic, better "bred" people in society due to the fact that they were specifically designed to be in such a way and that would cause major conflict in society. This conflict would lead to discrimination, new stereotypes and probably even new social classes. 

The discrimination between the extremely wealthy and the lower classes in society would come up when differentiating between the non-genetically enhanced and the genetically enhanced due to the "potential of [having] some people who are born after genetic editing [be] considered superior" over those who were born completely naturally (Zepps). The stereotypes will form when these "designer babies" enter society because they will be the first to introduce to the public a new "type" of person they have not yet been exposed to. The social classes will then change, as the gap between the wealthy and the lower classes grows larger, due to the dissimilar amounts of money these people would have at their expenditure. This difference is the reason the gap will increase because in order to genetically engineer a human embryo, it could cost anywhere from around a total of $50,000 to $100,000 (Lehmann-Haupt). Since there is no government funding or insurance companies to help pay, the entire price of this process would come straight from the pocket of the consumer. These high prices would create a conflict in which only the wealthiest social class would be able to afford it, therefore causing the genetically enhanced humans to be solely from the wealthiest social class. This could then cause an entirely new social class of superior human beings to form  -- being that they have the 'best' genes and the most money- and probably seizing the spot as the highest social class. 

This issue can be compared to the kind of social issue society faced during the Holocaust. Eugenics, or the "science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed", was given a terrible reputation because of Adolf Hitler (Merriam-Webster). Hitler had decided that blonde hair and blue eyes were the best traits and that Germans were superior, consequently, in his own way, "during WWII, [he] attempted to remove certain traits from the gene pool to create what he thought would be [this] supreme race. Most would agree that this is unethical, but would gene selection through science make it suddenly acceptable?" (Miller). As more and more humans are "designed", it is probable that the most 'popular' traits will be used most often, causing the human race to become more and more uniform. But who is to say what the best traits even are? 

There are already so many problems in society with individuals always trying to be "perfect", especially when it comes to the idea of beauty. By allowing the use of genetic engineering to be used to genetically enhance humans, society will quickly form an idea of what the "perfect" features are and start to pick those features for their children. Although right now there is still a limit to the characteristics that can be chosen, "it will open the door to all gene editing for human enhancement", also known as the "slippery slope argument", meaning that by allowing enhancement of a few genes, it will open the door to the future opportunity to edit any and all genes (Venter). By adding this new method for people to have all the desired traits and look "perfect", just adds yet another factor for an individual to compete with which could just create a stronger desire for that individual to strive towards this modernized idea of "perfection". This stronger desire to compete with "perfectly designed" people will cause issues like eating disorders, body manipulation, and depression to skyrocket and for self-confidence and self-acceptance to plummet. Society needs to strive more towards accepting everyone as individuals rather than manipulating society into become more uniform. 

The views of society in the twenty-first century are influenced largely on the newest and most popular technologies to arise. This is where the public trust of responsible science comes into play. As most technologies derive from some form of science, society trusts that when new technological advances are made and brought to the public, they will be safe and non-detrimental. If by allowing genetic engineering in humans to continue freely without any form of regulation causes so many issues in society, the public will soon start to loose trust in scientific breakthroughs, creating conflicts over how far science will be allowed to go. Thus, creating limitations on scientific research, and, ultimately, could put a halt to future scientific or technological advancements. This would create a huge issue because in order to make any kind of technological advancement  -- especially in the medical field  --  scientific research is essential. 

Although the genetic engineering technology can be used in such a way that could create so many risks, it is also being used for good too. The CRISPR technology not only allows for an enhancement of traits but also to treat and even cure many genetic diseases found within the DNA. Masha Gessen, a Russian journalist, proves how genetic engineering can be used to save lives and suffering of future generations through the use of this technology for medical purposes. She is a Russian-born Ashkenazi Jew, meaning she "comes from a population that has a high rate of genetic diseases, including breast cancer" (Scott). Her mother died from breast cancer around 1993, following several other family members who had also passed away as the result of breast cancer (Scott). Due to this, in 2004 Gessen decided to get herself checked for the gene that had caused breast cancer in all of her relatives, BRAC1  --  a "gene that means Masha has an 85 percent lifetime risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent lifetime risk of ovarian cancer" (Scott). Her test came back positive. Gessen's genetic mutation can be prevented from passing on to her children and the generations that follow by simply "editing" out the gene that carries that mutation. This technology can also be used to prevent other diseases such as cystic fibrosis and hemophilia (Scott). 

Most recently, scientists have found a way to use the CRISPR system to "destroy potentially harmful DNA sequences at 62 sites in the animal's genome ...  raising hopes that the technology can finally render pig organs fit for human bodies" (Servick). This is a huge breakthrough because "[about] 122,500 people in the United States alone are waiting for a life-saving organ transplant, and some have argued that a steady supply of pig organs could make up the shortage, because they are similar in size to those of people" (Servick). By creating a way to make pig organs an option to transplant into humans, this process could save the thousands of lives of the people who die waiting on an available organ suitable for their needs. 

With no regulations set, genetic engineering can be used to treat and cure disease as well as possible save millions of lives in the future but at the same time, it is destroying society. Currently, the US government chooses to focus "on the nature of the products, rather than the process in which they were produced" (Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States). However, the US government should place regulations on the genetic enhancement of human beings to prevent it from being used for personal causes but yet still allow for it to be used for the medical benefits. 

