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 as to what they would like and the doctor would be able to use technology to build the parent's dream child. Among thousands of other possibilities, genetic disease could be eliminated, intelligence boosted, height increased or decreased, and eye color chosen. Although this concept may seem far-fetched or impossible, a recently-invented technology 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-Cas9 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("CRISPR-Cas9"). 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 (Doudna). 

Since its invention, this technology had sparked widespread debate among members of the science community. The CRISPR-Cas9 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 ridding genetic disease would be a significant medical advancement and is difficult to ignore. Millions of lives could be saved in a relatively simple way, which prevents 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. Many fear 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, a ban on the technology exists in the United States. The ban states that the technology should not even be allowed for use in experimentation with human germline cells. The ban was established by a prominent group of scientists at the International Summit on Human Gene Editing that took place at the end of 2015 ("A Chance"). This ban must be 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). If germline engineering was allowed, all 7.9 million of these could be potentially be eliminated. It would be a simple cure to problems that affect children all over the globe. 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 typically starts shortly after a child is born and the child, who exhibits mental and physical retardation, usually only survives until somewhere between five and eight years of age (Herdon). Imagine a young couple thrilled with the prospect of starting a family. However, both the husband and wife have a family history of Tay Sachs disease. Since they are both carriers, their child would have a one in four chance of having the disease (Herdon). The couple would be plagued by fear due to knowing how high the chance of having a child that will die is. They will likely experience severe stress and fear during the pregnancy, which should be a happy time for the couple. The fear may even be enough to stop the couple from reproducing. With CRISPR-Cas9, the couple could have peace of mind, knowing they will not have a child with the disease. They could have a chance at a happy and normal pregnancy. 

It is easy to see the benefits germline engineering would have on specific families; however, the positive effects CRISPR would have on the human genome as a whole should be noted. Russel Powell, a philosopher at Boston University, points out that this technology could eliminate a variety of problems the overuse of medicine has led to. Large numbers of lives are saved every day with the wide array of healthcare, vaccines, and medicines available. Although saving lives and helping people feel less sick benefits society, this has led to the passing on of many genes that would not be passed on in nature (Powell). Since lives are prolonged and people are able to live to the 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). Humans would not have to rely on medicine and doctors as much as we currently do. As another scientist puts it "Some people say we should not go against nature, but that's illogical because every time we cure a disease we go against nature" (Catalano). People often do not consider the broad implications the use of medicines has on our species. The use of medicines, from painkillers to antibiotics, has become so common that it is difficult to see they are not natural. The wide variety of medicine used today would be looked at the same way we now consider germline engineering. 

The problems CRISPR-Cas9 can solve are too severe to allow experimentation to be banned. The technology may not be ready to be used to fully produce genetically engineered children. However, it is never too soon to allow studies to be done on humans. As put by one researcher, "the time to start assessing the safety and efficacy of CRISPR/Cas9 in human germ cells is now" (Xiao-Jie). There is no reason the process cannot be studied. No permanent problems will be caused simply by observing the new technology. Once studies are done, more informed decisions will be able to be made. New information about what the technology does and the changes it causes in humans over time will be extremely influential and helpful to the germline engineering debate. In addition, if more is known about the technology, it will be seen as safer and it will be easier to see the positive effects it can have.

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 so-called "designer babies." Michael Catalano, a scientist who analyzes germline engineering, believes that doctors would ultimately lead to using the technology to construct perfect children only for rich, privileged individuals. Although this is a threatening possibility, it does not need to be this way. Germline engineering could simply be restricted to only curing disease instead of making physical and mental changes to a child. There is no reason to suspect the technology could not be strictly controlled and monitored. There is a plethora of technologies currently in use today that have the capability of being abused, and they are not. The other part of Catalano's claim addresses a belief that only wealthy individuals will have access to the CRISPR-Cas9 technology and its benefits. However, as previously mentioned, this technology is on the cheaper side. If experimentation was allowed, it could be made even cheaper, which would allow for access for nearly all families. 

Often CRISPR-Cas9 is thought of as not being necessary. As one source states, "being a good parent is surely not about enhancing our children but about enhancing our children's lives through making them feel loved, accepted and wanted" (Catalano). While this may be true for choosing traits for things like height or intelligence, it is untrue for curing disease. How can parents love, accept, and want their children if the child is dead? While the technology may be unethical to use for choosing traits, it is certainly ethical for curing disease. This way of thinking is clearly coming from someone who does not have firsthand experience with genetic disease. Genetic disease takes a heavy toll on families that is unimaginable to those who do not experience this kind of struggle. It is unfair to refer to genetic engineering as "enhancing" a child. While it may technically be a method of enhancement, this word places a strong negative connotation on germline engineering, which could be used simply to enhance genes by stopping disease. 

The CRISPR system is often criticized by claiming it is unsafe because it is a new technology and has never been used on humans. If one applies the logic that humans should not try new things 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. Imagine if the cell phone had been banned when it was first created. Surely, this piece of technology was frightening when it was first invented. With every technology, unprecedented effects could occur. This fear does not stop most technologies from being used, and it should not stop genetic engineering. 

Another reason CRISPR-Cas9 is a safe method of engineering is because it is modeled after behaviors of bacterial cells. In fact, it was discovered incidentally during a study of the process in which bacteria infect their hosts. CRISPR utilizes these same behaviors by "infecting" its host, except that instead of infecting the host, it simply injects 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 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. Mitochondrial gene editing is just as invasive as germline engineering. In this process, a healthy gene is inserted into the mitochondria or the mitochondria is replaced by a donor's (Angeles Avaria). Mitochondrial gene editing crosses as many ethical lines as the CRISPR-Cas9 system would, only does not have as many abilities. This technology can only fix disease and other problems that are passed down through the mitochondria. Many of today's severe, deathly diseases are not caused by genes in the mitochondria. CRISPR-Cas9 opens a whole new door, with its ability to benefit thousands of diseases and defects. Another method that is used is selective abortion. This could be considered more unethical than germline engineering. Instead of simply intervening in a cell in order to change small parts of DNA like CRISPR-Cas9 does, selective abortion destroys embryos. Once a woman's eggs are fertilized, a doctor examines the DNA of the zygote and aborts those that have copies of lethal or disease-causing genes (Mudiyanse). This process is risky and sometimes, healthy fetuses are also aborted. How is it that a technology that can kill a healthy child is allowed to be used, while one that fixes unhealthy genes and saves lives is not even allowed to be tested on human embryos? With CRISPR-Cas9, no potential babies would have to be killed. A few genes are simply edited, so no child has to be killed or has to die young. Thirdly, people believer artificial insemination, or egg donation can solve the problems of couples who know they have high-risk of disease. Sperm and egg donations are effective; however, this is not the same as a couple being able to produce their own, healthy child. 

As the invention of the CRISPR-Cas9 system begins to be seen in the public eye, massive debates ensue as people try to come to a conclusion on where to draw the line with genetic engineering. It is not as simple as being for or against germline engineering. There is a wide range of opinions on what exactly should be done to control genetic engineering technology.  Regulations must be put in place and people must agree on how often and for what reasons it should be used. For CRISPR-Cas9 to be used effectively, the technology must be limited to just working with disease and defect-causing genes. Only the most highly-trained doctors should be allowed to actually use the technology and there should be checks put in place to ensure they do not begin abusing the technology. With these regulations, this new method of germline engineering could be put to great use in a safe manner that refrains from crossing ethical boundaries. 

With nearly every new technology comes fear and disapproval. Since the CRISPR-Cas9 system would lead to such enormous benefits for the entirety of the human population, the fear behind experimenting with genetic germline engineering must be suppressed. The ban that exists on experimentation with the CRISPR-Cas9 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 in knowing there is an effective way to ensure they will have a healthy child. The current technologies that exist to prevent and help cure genetic problems are not enough to combat the problems of disease and defects caused by faulty genes. People must realize that the risks of this technology are worth the reward.

