Imagine a world in which parents could choose the traits their child will possess. When a mother and father are ready to have a child, they simply instruct a doctor of what they would like and the doctor would be able to use technology to build the parent's dream child. Genetic disease could be eliminated, intelligence boosted, height increased or decreased, eye color chosen, among thousands of other possibilities. Although this concept may seem far-fetched or impossible, there is a recently-invented technology that can do exactly this. 

The CRISPR-Cas9 system is a method of editing the DNA of germline cells, which consist of the egg cell, sperm cell, or a zygote (a combination of egg and sperm cell). CRISPR is a brand-new technology, invented at the end of 2015 by Jennifer Doudna and a team of colleagues. The name CRISPR-Cas9 represents the two key parts of the system. CRISPR is a piece of RNA, or a messenger protein that leads the Cas9 part of the system to a specific location on the germline's strand of DNA. Cas9 is an enzyme that does the actual editing of the genes ("CRISPR-Cas9"). It goes into a germline cell and removes or adds a specific piece of DNA that codes for the gene that is to be changed (Doudna). From here, the new or deleted copy of the gene replaces the old copy and will then cause changes to the child's health and fitness. 

Since its invention, this technology had sparked widespread debate among members of the science community. The CRISPR system is not the first method of germline engineering to be invented, however; it is the first way that is extremely accurate and inexpensive. For the first time, there is a possibility for germline engineering to be easily available to a large portion of the world's population. With this availability comes many ethical and moral considerations. On one side, the possibility of riding of genetic disease would be a huge medical advancement and is difficult to ignore. Millions of lives could be saved in a relatively simple way, preventing loss of family members and friends. On the other hand, some think stopping genetic disease is not worth the potential negative side effects that may stem from the technology. There is fear by many that the technology will be abused and not simply used to cure disease, but also to construct perfect humans. 

Scientists' opinions on the matter vary widely, with some favoring immediate use of the technology, others believing it should never be used, and an overwhelming majority favoring a postponement on the CRISPR system (Saey). For this reason, there is currently a ban on the technology that exists in the United States. The ban states that the technology should not even be allowed for use in experimentation with human germline cells. It was established by a prominent group of scientists at the International Summit on Human Gene Editing that took place in at the end of 2015 ("A Chance). It is crucial that this ban is lifted as soon as possible, so that disease can begin being cured immediately. This process will bring immense rewards to families all over the world and will help the human genome to be fixed.

The prospect of curing genetic disease would greatly increase the quality of many people's family lives. "Out of 9 million babies born with severe form of a birth defect, 7.9 million babies have genetic origin for their defect" (Mudiyanse). In addition to the high numbers of genetic disease or defects, genetic diseases also often have high mortality rates (Xiao-Jie). For example, Tay Sachs disease is one in which severe mental and developmental retardation occurs. It typically starts shortly after a child is born and the child usually only survived until somewhere between five and eight years of age (Herdon).

It is easy to see the benefits germline engineering would have on specific families; however, what is not as simple to recognize, is the positive effects CRISPR would have on the human genome as a whole. Russel Powell, a philosopher at Boston University, points out that this technology could eliminate the variety of problems the overuse of medicine has led to. With the wide variety of healthcare, vaccines, and medicines available, large numbers of lives are saved every day. Although saving lives and helping people feel less sick is a great thing, this has led to the passing on of many genes that would not be passed on in nature. Since lives are prolonged and people are able to live to an age of reproduction, their alleles that code for terrible genetic diseases are passed on and allowed to persist in the human gene pool. With germline engineering, the alleles would be taken out of the population, which would take the gene pool to a place similar to where it would be without medicine (Powell).

Many people believe this technology crosses an ethical boundary because of the hypothetical situation in which it is abused by scientists. It is feared that instead of curing diseases, doctors would create 

The CRISPR system is often criticized, claiming it is unsafe because it is a new technology and has never been used on humans. This is an unfair statement in several ways. If this logic was applied to all aspects of life, no change or advancement would ever occur. As one scientist in the field of genetics explained, "[The effect of] Information technologies like the internet and mobile phones [ ... ] on future generations is very hard to predict, and though they could be catastrophic (for example, through cyberterrorism), this does not mean on balance they should be banned" (Savulescu). All technology has to begin somewhere, despite the dangers it could cause. Another reason CRISPR is a safe method of engineering is because it is modeled after behaviors of bacterial cells. CRISPR-Cas9 was discovered during a study of the ways bacteria infect their hosts. CRISPR utilizes these same behaviors by "infecting" their host, except that instead of infecting, they simply inject new genetic material into the host cell (Doudna). Since bacteria are successful in creating disease, it can be assumed that CRISPR would also be successful, due to being nearly the same process. Finally, people in opposition fail to mention this type of germline editing does not necessarily have to be permanent, in the case that something did go wrong. It is stated that, "There is nothing to stop us from using the same technique to correct any mistakes ("A Chance). With this type of safety net, it is difficult to see how experimentation could possibly be unsafe.

Another large part of the opposition to experimentation on germline engineering comes from those who think the unknown consequences can be avoided by using other options of curing disease or engineering. These other methods are far inferior to the CRISPR technology and also have their own ethical issues. For example, one method of genetic engineering that is used today is mitochondrial gene editing. 

As the invention of the CRISPR-Cas9 system begins to be seen in the public eye, there is sure to be massive debates, as people try to come to a conclusion on where to draw the line with genetic engineering. 

With nearly every new technology comes fear and disapproval. Since the CRISPR system would lead to such enormous benefits for the entirety of the human population, the fear of behind experimenting with genetic germline engineering must be suppressed. The ban that exists on experimentation with the CRISPR system should be removed, so that the human genome can be cured of many deadly diseases. In addition, families that run high risk of producing children with a devastating disease can finally be relieved, knowing there is an effective way to ensure they will have a healthy child. People must realize that the risks of this technology are worth the reward. 

