You sit down to type a sentence when you realize you hit an incorrect key and have inserted a letter that does not belong. Because this wrong letter changes the original meaning of the sentence, you go back to delete the wrong letter and replace it with the correct one. The computer’s technology allows you to fix this mistake quickly, and now the sentence is the way it was meant to be. Scientists across the world are beginning to successfully use this same process to edit genes in organisms due to the discovery of CRISPR-Cas9, a bacterial defense system that protects cells against invading viruses by targeting DNA and destroying it. This technology can be applied to editing genes that cause certain inherited medical conditions and diseases. The ethical and moral concerns of creating “designer babies” with CRISPR has led people to question whether it should be legal or not and how this decision will impact future generations. Genetic engineering in the human genome will prevent individuals from being born with deadly or life debilitating diseases, but it should be limited to avoid cosmetic and personality changes.

CRISPR-Cas9 (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat) is found in the genomes of many simple life forms, such as microorganisms and bacteria. These unique DNA sequences are an essential component in the immune system because their main function is to defend cells by destroying the attacking viruses they encounter. CRISPR fundamentally works by three steps: adaptation, production of CRISPR RNA, and targeting. This system is especially effective in destroying these on-going viral infections in organisms because it can precisely target the DNA in a virus’s genome that allows for replication of the virus. Spacers, short variable sequences found between the DNA repeats in CRISPR, are created when a virus attacks a cell. These spacers have the capacity to remember genetic information from previous viruses to destroy those infections, but when a new virus enters the system, a new spacer is created and thus added to the long chain of spacers. Because the CRISPR RNA are exact copies of the DNA of the virus, it is relatively easy for the system to find, target, and eradicate the invading virus. A common misconception is that CRISPR is a new technology that was artificially designed to edit genes as its sole purpose; however, it is a naturally occurring process. Scientists are simply using CRISPR’s ability to precisely cut and replace DNA and applying it to human DNA. 

Over the past two decades, CRISPR has increasingly gained popularity due to the research that has been published and the possibilities that this research suggests. So how exactly can CRISPR be applied as a new genome editing tool? “With gene editing, scientists home in on a piece of DNA and use molecular tools that act as scissors to snip that spot -- deleting a defective gene, repairing it or replacing it” (Gene Editing). The enzyme Cas9 is responsible for the “cut-and-paste” capability of CRISPR. Although other gene editing techniques exist, CRISPR is unique and promising because it is a much simpler process and is extremely precise in the fact that it can specifically target one single, problematic gene, unlike other methods. For years scientists have used radiation, various chemicals, and other processes to produce mutations, but they had no control over where in the genome the mutation would occur. Not only is this process of editing a gene faster with CRISPR, but it is less expensive than other techniques. Vivek Wadhwa elaborates on just how cheap CRISPR is in his article, stating, “To set up a CRISPR editing capability, a lab only needs to order an RNA fragment (costing about $10) and purchase off-the-shelf chemicals and enzymes for $30 or less” (Washwa). CRISPR is changing the way we look at gene editing and the expense of it by eliminating complex labs and thousands of dollars.

The success of CRISPR has been documented through numerous studies published within the years on different types of organisms. One study, aimed to use CRISPR-Cas9 to modify the embryos of zebrafish, found that:

“Previous studies showed efficient germline transmission of all ZFN-and TALEN-engineered somatic mutations present at rates of 2% or greater in zebrafish embryos that develop normally. Because all of the active sgRNA:Cas9 endonuclease combinations described here induced somatic mutation rates well above 10%, and these mutations were detected in normally developing embryos, we expect that germline transmission of sgRNA:Cas9-induced mutations will be as efficient as those induced by ZFNs or TALENs” (Hwang). 

The significance of this study is that the effectiveness of CRISPR is the same, if not better than other gene editing methods. It was observed that the frequency of dead or deformed embryos was similar to the other methods in different experiments. The evidence from this study strongly promotes the use and expansion of CRISPR to modify certain genes in other organisms due to its success in zebrafish.

Genetic engineering in humans is necessary because it has the capability to save millions of people. It is estimated that 3-4% of the 4 million babies born each year have a genetic disease, and more than 20% of infant deaths result from genetic conditions and birth defects (Matthews).

Parents across the world fear they cannot have children because they have tested positive for or currently have a life debilitating disease that they could potentially pass along to their offspring. Couples who find out their child has a genetic disorder before he/she is born struggle with the guilt of bringing a child into the world with a biological disadvantage and may be tempted to terminate the pregnancy. Guilt is often associated with genetic disorders because no parent wants to see their child suffer from a disease that resulted from their DNA. Even siblings who are healthy can feel shame and immense guilt that they were spared the burden of a deadly genetic disorder unlike their brother or sister. As an evolutionary species, it is biologically hardwired in our brain to reproduce, and genetic disorders are preventing parents or making it more difficult for them to do so. Integrating CRISPR into healthcare will allow for the elimination of dangerous inherited diseases such as Sickle Cell, Huntington’s, Cystic Fibrosis, and more. Additionally, diseases such as hemochromatosis, which is thought to have once been evolutionarily beneficial to us, can also be deleted and replaced to prevent the excess buildup of iron in the blood that we no longer need. Continuing research and experiments with CRISPR will greatly increase the chances a cure will be found for millions of people suffering from genetic related medical conditions. CRISPR might be the only chance some people have at living a healthy, normal lifestyle, and it will result in a stronger gene pool and better quality of life for everyone. 

As with every new technology, there are many discoveries still left to be made. Altering human DNA, for most people, creates a daunting ethical area of uncertainty. Changing the human germ line is incredibly dangerous until we know how our DNA fully functions. Prior to a few years ago, researchers believed that “junk” DNA existed, or DNA that was useless to us and seemed to have no purpose. Now it is apparent that this junk DNA serves an important role in regulating genetic expression and is fundamental to many biological processes. Perhaps if we discovered CRISPR earlier we would have edited out the junk DNA we thought we didn’t need, which would have been extremely hazardous. One study done by a group of researchers states: 

“In this report, we used tripronuclear (3PN) zygotes to further investigate CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human cells. We found that CRISPR/Cas9 could effectively cleave the endogenous β-globin gene (HBB). However, the efficiency of homologous recombination directed repair (HDR) of HBB was low and the edited embryos were mosaic. Off-target cleavage was also apparent in these 3PN zygotes as revealed by the T7E1 assay and whole-exome sequencing” (Liang). 

This study is important because researchers were able to arrive at the conclusion that while CRISPR was effective in cleaving a certain gene, there were many other off-target complications that resulted, such as the edited embryos being mosaic (containing normal and abnormal cells). The group’s final consensus is that it is crucial we expand our knowledge on CRISPR’s specificity and proceed cautiously before there can be any further clinical applications done with it. Although the success of CRISPR looks promising, it is too early to tell whether it is completely safe for our environment and society.

The possibilities of CRISPR are endless, and saving people’s lives seems like a “no brainer”, but how can this process be so dangerous? Due to the technology possibly leading to “designer babies”, The future of CRISPR is being debated. If scientists can discover genes that code for diseases, it is only a matter of time until they will be able to sequence which genes code for physical and personality traits. Parents always want the best for their children, and making their child taller, more extroverted, different hair and eye colors, etc. seems like the perfect solution. There are favorable traits that almost every parent wants in their child, such as good looks, intelligence, and athleticism, among many others. If parents are able to design their child to look a certain way, and every other parent will design their child to look the same way too, then the human genome will lack diversity, which could cause defects among many other problems. ‘“This opens the door to advertisements from fertility clinics of giving your child the best start in life with a gene-editing packet,’ said Marcy Darnovsky, the executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society” (Harmon). If CRISPR is used for cosmetic and medically unnecessary reasons, children will lose their identities and a large gap in society will be created. Although genetically engineered children are an option and not a requirement for all parents, division in society would still occur because those genetically edited would be viewed as superior to those who weren’t. Researchers and investors across the world have already begun to patent the technology, and this could greatly increase the cost and the accessibility of CRISPR, taking away the two most unique and valuable aspects of it. Those who could not afford it or don’t have easy access to it would automatically be seen as lesser in value and incapable of achieving the same success as the genetically edited. Discrimination due to genetic makeup would create a new social standard in order to be accepted, wealthy, or even obtain a certain level job. Parents who choose to have modified and unmodified children will further complicate the issue by dividing families through bad relationships, stemming from hatred and jealousy. We all have that one thing we wish we could change about ourselves, but in reality, these different features and traits separate us from one another. We are truly unique beings with our own individuality, and changing these aspects will erase the exceptional identities of our future generations.

The ethical issues of CRISPR have put a pause on research and how CRISPR is being used across the world. Countries such as China and the United Kingdom have begun to allow research on human embryos (although they cannot develop past seven days), while the United States has strictly opposed it. Science and politics have always struggled to coincide, and determining the laws for CRISPR and other new breeding technologies (NBTs) has proven to be a difficult task for government officials. These NBTs do not fit into the GMO definitions previously established by agencies around the world, and they require their own attention. In his article about gene editing, John Harris states, “The matter of consent has been raised by Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health. ‘Ethical issues presented by altering the germline in a way that affects the next generation without their consent,’ he has said, constitute ‘strong arguments against engaging in’ gene editing” (Harris and Darnovsky). The reality is that every day we are forced to make decisions for future generations or decisions that will affect them whether we like it or not. In fact, parents make all decisions for their children because they are too young to consent for themselves or are not born yet. There is no doubt scientists and parents need to be responsible when considering how these decisions will impact those of the future, but decisions cannot be solely based on the consent of those who do not exist yet.

Another line gene editing in humans seems to cross is the violation of certain religious beliefs and morality. A common argument against CRISPR is that it violates the laws of nature and how God created human beings. For this argument to be true it relies on the presumption that natural is inherently good, but genetic diseases are natural, and millions of people are prematurely dying and suffering as a result. If we were to reject all medical treatments because they were unnatural, medicines such as antibiotics and essential treatments would be deemed unethical as well. Walter Glannon, author of Genes and Future Peoples and a specialist in Biomedical Ethics, relates philosophical issues in human genetics to provide insight on whether we should proceed with CRISPR. He argues against gene editing to increase the human life span by saying, “Accordingly, we would do well to relinquish our generocentrism and egocentrism and come to realize and accept the biological and psychological limits of our organisms and our selves. We should live by the wisdom of Psalm 90:12 and make the days we have in our actual limited lives count” (Glannon). He describes how manipulating genes to extend our life span beyond its normal conditions is selfish and unnecessary. We are so focused on finding a solution to extend our time on Earth that the days we have right in front of us are passing by, and increasing the human life span will only hurt us in the end. Using CRISPR for medically unnecessary reasons is morally wrong, however it is justifiable for curing genetic diseases.

Ultimately, CRISPR is the key to unlocking further advancements in human health and endless possibilities with gene editing.  Like every new technology, there comes equal danger and uncertainty from potential misuse and unknown consequences or side-effects. While CRISPR seems to be the perfect solution to save those who suffer from genetic disorders, the truth is we do not know enough about how genes interact with one another to start applying it to humans. This doesn’t mean we should stop researching because we fear the unknown, but rather we should proceed with caution until scientists are fully capable of editing genes in a safe, effective, and sensible manner. Laws and government regulation should prevent the abuse of CRISPR by only allowing it for medically necessary reasons to protect from “designer babies”. The future of the human genome relies on our ability to use CRISPR responsibly, but when such horrible genetic disorders cause endless suffering and death for many, we need to keep the door open to genetic engineering in human embryos. 
