There has always been a sense of wonder and confusion surrounding human genetics and how our DNA works. Starting in 1990, the Human Genome Project (HGP-read) was a publically funded international scientific research project that aimed to sequence the nucleotide base pairs that make up human DNA. In 2004, the project was completed, having been the first successful mapping of an entire human genome. Following the completion of HGP-read, HGP-write was proposed in 2016 with the intention of improving the cost, technology, and quality of DNA sequencing. The stated goal of gene editing is to “eliminate serious diseases like cystic fibrosis and cancer, as well as improving fertility rates and in vitro fertilization techniques and reducing miscarriages” (Lifezette.com). Genome synthesis is an extension of synthetic biology, a branch of biology that is combined with tools used for engineering. It can be broadly described as “the design and construction of natural biological systems for useful purposes” (Synesthetic Biology Project). It is an emerging area of research that aims to create structures in biological systems that do not occur there naturally, with a purpose to improve the system or creature. Within this field of study have been recent breakthrough advancements that have the potential to change lives for the better. Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), genome editing technology, and whole-genome sequencing are revolutionizing the ways in which we could potentially use gene editing technology to edit harmful or deadly diseases out of genes in human embryos. In theory, and potentially someday in practice, these technologies would be able to modify disease-causing genes in embryos that are brought to full term, successfully eliminating the faulty gene from the genetic code of that person, and possibly their future descendants as well. For the elimination of diseases and the betterment of society, CRISPR technology should be introduced to human embryos and used in practice for strictly medical applications only.  

The CRISPR system was first discovered in 2013 in bacteria systems as a mechanism of defense against foreign DNA. In the field of genome engineering, the term CRISPR is used when referring to the entire CRISPR-Cas9 system, which can be programmed to target specific parts of genetic code and to edit DNA at specific locations. In a simplified explanation, a CRISPR “spacer” is transcribed into a short RNA sequence, which guides the system to match with the DNA. When the target DNA that needs to be edited is found, the CRISPR system binds to the specific strand of DNA and cuts it, which shuts off the targeted gene. The gene can then be edited and manipulated without harming the remainder of the DNA strand. Using these tools to edit DNA at precise spots would allow scientists to permanently modify genes in living cells. Because of its clear cut gene cuts, CRISPR would be able to provide an alternative to other gene-therapy methods that are not always successful. Other genome editing tools require a pair with an enzyme in order to cut DNA, while CIRPSR is capable of cutting DNA on its own. Also, CRISPR-Cas9 can be used to target multiple genomes at the same time, which is yet another advantage that sets it apart from other gene-editing technologies. This would provide flexibility in cutting the genes, allowing for multiple opportunities for correct editing to occur. 

 The possibility of being able to edit the genes of an unborn child has raised many concerns from parents, scientists, and human-right activists. Provocative terms like “designer babies” are often tossed around without a real understanding of how the technology works in an attempt to scare the general public. Satirical advertisements for such technology describe a world in which parents could select their unborn child’s hair, eye, and skin color, as well as pick from an assortment of physical traits like freckles, birth marks, height or weight. In 1999, Princeton biologist Lee Silver wrote about an imagined fertility clinic of the future which would offer “Organic Enhancement” for everyone, regardless if you had any real fertility problems or not. His ad copy read “Keep in mind, you must act before you get pregnant. Don't be sorry after she's born. This really is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for your child-to-be” (Harris). 

What these opponents of human-embryo genetic engineering fail to admit is that CRISPR has the potential to actually better the lives of unborn children. In the article Tomorrow’s Children: What would genome editing really mean for future generations, author Erika Check Hayden interviews families who testify as to why they would choose to use CRISPR technology to germ-line edit their family’s genetic makeup. John Sabine was once described as one of the brightest legal-minds in England for his generation, but now suffers from a late state of Huntington’s Disease. Charles Sabine, his younger brother, carries the same genetic abnormality that causes Huntington’s disease, and like his brother and his father before him, Charles knows that he too will suffer from the same deterioration of his brain and body. Between the two men, they have five children, all of which have a 50% chance of having inherited the genetic mutation. Charles explains that “Anyone who has to actually face the reality of one of these diseases is not going to have a remote compunction about thinking that there is any moral issue at all…If there was a room somewhere where someone said, ‘Look, you can go in there and have your DNA changed,’ I would be there breaking the door down” (Hayden). To Charles and others who live with deadly diseases, there is no legitimate ethical argument as to whether gene editing should be used, either to treat themselves from the condition, or to save their children from it. 

While there are a myriad of potential applications for genetic engineering technologies, there are also a handful of concerns surrounding its future success.  In her article The Gene Editor CRISPR Won't Fully Fix Sick People Anytime Soon, author Jocelyn Kaiser outlines some of the issues associated with CRISPR. She analyzes the safety risks, explaining that while cutting a slice of specific DNA sequence, that other accidental cuts in parts of the genome could result in unintended mutations of the gene. While this is a fair concern, there is no evidence to prove that the creation of an accidental mutation could be harmful to the embryo. There are gene mutations that occur naturally that can go unrecognized because they are not dangerous to humans. Kaiser also mentions how using CRISPR to cut out part of a gene, instead of actually correcting the genetic sequence, is easy and is already being used in practice. She goes on to explain that when cells edit DNA, they use a process called homology-directed repair, (HDR), and that is only active in dividing cells. Cells like liver, neuron, muscle, eye, and blood stem cells, are not normally dividing cells; however, genetic engineering researchers are already working on ways to get around this limitation. CRISPR researcher Feng Zhang of Cambridge’s Broad Institute says that “genes for HDR are present in all cells, and it’s a matter of turning them on, perhaps by adding certain drugs to the cells” (Kaiser).

Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, spoke out in her article about why we should not open the door for editing genes in future humans. She questions “from a policy perspective, how would we draw the distinction between a medical and enhancement purpose for germline modification?” (Darnovsky). As addressed easier, if CRISPR technology were to be introduced into human embryonic development, it should be for strictly medical purposes. It’s not hard to see the stark difference between editing your child to make them taller because you want them to play basketball versus removing the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that make you 45% more susceptible to falling victim to breast cancer, and 39% more likely to develop ovarian cancer (National Cancer Institute). Talk about creating genetically modified humans has been debated since the late 1990s; the focus now needs to transition from whether or not we should allow for it, but to creating a set of regulations that outlines for exactly what medical conditions should be allowed to be edited or removed. The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, which was launched in 2004 “to improve human health by using genomics to advance our understanding of the biology and treatment of human disease” recently licensed their CRISPR technology under a patent portfolio (broadinstitute.org). This license demonstrates a new solution to the problem regarding genetic engineering regulations, by using a patent license to restrict controversial applications of the genome editing technology. When a patent is put into place, one may not practice a creation claimed by the patent without the patent holder’s permission. If the patent holder were to deem an application unethical, they would have the power to prohibit the continuance of research. The patent license would be used as a function of governance. Because patent rights are only valid for a span of 20 years, this would give policy makers a time extension to create an actual way to regulate and govern genetic engineering technology, so that we could avoid issues like bioterrorism (Geneticliteracyproject.org). At this point in time, using a patent license to pause the emerging biotechnology advancements has multiple advantages over putting set laws in to place. Unlike most regulated guidelines set by a law, a patent can be manipulated and tailored to specific situations and circumstances, allowing for the continual study of genetic engineering, but eliminating the potentially unethical practices. This would allow for medical studies and research to continue, but would minimize the opportunities for CRISPR technology to be abused and used unethically. 

Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, has recently raised the issues of consent and morality. He explains that “Ethical issues presented by altering the germline in a way that affect the next generation without their consent constitutes strong arguments against engaging in gene editing” (Harris). All parents make decisions for their children all the time, whether they’re too young to do so themselves, or because they do not exist yet. Collin’s argument goes back to one of the articles previously referenced by Ericka Check Hayden. As a parent, if you knew you were going to pass on a harmful disease or genetic mutation to your child, would you try and convince yourself the best option was to do nothing even given opportunity to prevent all the agonizing pain and suffering that they would endure? As a parent, you’re going to do all that you can to make sure that your child is going to be healthy. Today, we have pre-natal screenings that check for health issues like HIV, anemia, Hepatitis B, Down Syndrome, as well as other possible birth defects. Before birth, parents are already checking to see what the future holds for the unborn child. CRISPR technology could potentially fix any defects that were found in a prenatal screening, giving parents a peace of mind and a healthy child. 

Other opponents of modifying human embryos claim that it’s unnatural, or even amounts to “playing God” (Harris). This argument is based on the idea that anything natural is therefore good and right and should remain pure and untouched. However, diseases occur naturally, and every year, 37.6 million humans die from a combination of preventable and unpreventable diseases (Globalissues.org). Of the half million babies that will be born in the United Kingdom this year, about 4% of them will be carriers of a genetic or birth defect, one which could result in a premature death of the child, or a debilitating disease that will affect not only the child but their family too (Theguardian.com). If the basis of their argument is that we should let nature run its course untouched, then why do we use antibiotics to kill bacteria, or otherwise practice medicinal techniques or combat famine and pestilence? Developed nations have health care systems in place to better their society and to try and extend the lives of their people. The editing of human embryos to eliminate disease should be considered to be morally and ethically equivalent to using laser surgery to correct eye defects, or a surgeon operating on a baby to fix a heart defect; these procedures aim to fix the person and better their life, the only difference is that one is conducted before the defect comes to life, so to speak.  

Another concern associated with modifying genomes is that it’s dangerous because at this point in time, we do not know all the ways that it will affect the individual in the future. These people forget to take into account all of the innate dangers in the natural way humans reproduce. According to the March of Dimes foundation, every year, “7.9 million children—6 percent of total births worldwide—are born with a serious defect of genetic or partially genetic organ” (Marchofdimes.org). In addition to this statistic, two-thirds of human embryos fail to develop successfully and are terminated prior to delivery (Harris). Since the discovery of CRISPR technology, scientists and researchers have been racing to learn about its applications and how it will affect the unborn child later on. In the article Introducing precise genetic modifications into human 3PN embryos by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing, a team of scientists worked together on a medical research study with the intention to “evaluate the technology and establish principles for the introduction of precise genetic modifications in early human embryos” (Journal of Assisted Reproduction & Genetics). Using CRISPR related technology, the scientists used zygotes injected with Cas9 (CRISPR related protein) messenger RNA, and injected them into the donated human embryos. It was discovered that by injecting the Cas9 RNA, in addition to other types of DNA and mRNA, that they were able create a naturally occurring allele in a human embryo by using synthetic methods. It was concluded that their discoveries had the potential to help develop therapeutic treatments of genetic disorders in the near future. A team based at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania reported that using CRISPR technology, that they successfully corrected a genetic liver disease in new born mice. The goal of studies like these are to eventually take the technology used on the mice and use it on human embryos to correct genetic diseases in the womb (Theguardian.com). In Sweden, scientist Fredrik Lanner was recently granted permission to edit DNA in healthy human embryos. While the embryos are not allowed to develop after fourteen days, Lanner is attempting to learn how genes regulate embryonic development. He explained that his main goal was to find a way to “treat infertility and miscarriages,” because "If we can understand how these early cells are regulated in the actual embryo, this knowledge will help us in the future to treat patients with diabetes, or Parkinson, or different types of blindness and other diseases" (Stein). While we do not yet know exactly what the future would hold for a child whose DNA was edited while in the womb, scientists are making strides in research that someday in the near future, will provide us with the answers needed. 

One of the most alluring reasons for wanting to use CRISPR technology to edit human embryos is its potential to correct and prevent damaging genetic diseases like Huntington’s disease or cystic fibrosis. For many people who suffer from genetic diseases, or parents whose children suffer, germ-line editing is an exciting alternative to conventional gene-therapy methods. By using CRISPR technology on human embryos, an unintentional slippery slope may be created, opening doors for abusive practices of editing human embryos for malicious purposes rather than for the greater good. Genetic enhancements for musical talent, athletic strength, or memory enhancement, to name a few, are inherently and undeniably wrong. However, we should not ignore CRISPR’s potential for helping to better the lives of unborn children. With effective regulations and governing methods in place, the success of CRISPR technology would be immense. It’s indisputable that before this technology can be implemented into everyday medical practice, that researchers, scientists, and expecting parents need to be as knowledgeable as possible regarding the risks and side-affects associated with genetically modifying human embryos. If we may soon have the option to avert suffering and death due to genetic disorders, why would we not want to take advantage of this technology? 
