Imagine a factory that creates baby dolls. All the dolls are pieced together, one by one. All have blue eyes, fair skin, brown hair, they all look the exact same. They look almost too flawless, even. Now, imagine if humans were made that way. The parents could sit there, and pick out every aspect of their baby, customize it to whatever they like. They can give it how ever much height, athleticism, and brain power as they want. They can cut out anything that would make their baby less than perfect. They would be able to make their child better than well. This child would go to a school with all the other children whose parents did the same thing. All the children will be perfect, beautiful, obedient custom orders to their parent’s specification. None would have any diseases, no cognitive limits, they would all be perfect little humans. They will grow up and continue to go to school with their custom-order counterparts, and eventually they would marry one of their kind, and then they would go on and design their next generation of designer baby. This designer baby doesn’t come to order, though. It’s not packaged right, it’s different, it isn’t quite perfect. It’s not what the parents wanted. So it goes where the rest of the non-custom babies go. This is a much different world. This is a world of poverty and segregation. The non-custom babies live away from the custom babies. They grow up in squalor going to run-down schools, they have diseases, they have pimples, some are short, some don’t have straight teeth, and most don’t get straight As; they are forgotten about. The custom-babies don’t associate with the non-customs, and none will marry one either. The non-customs aren’t able to compete with the customs; they don’t get into as good of colleges, they can’t get as good of jobs, and they aren’t able to make as much money, leaving them unable to afford to create their own custom baby and give it the opportunity to be raised up out of poverty. This creates a vicious cycle of poverty, discrimination, and segregation all due to uneven access of a world-altering tool. This may sound impossible, but it could be the future. CRISPR-cas9 will make all of this possible, and if put into the wrong hands, it absolutely will happen. 

CRISPR-cas9, CRISPR for short, is a gene-editing tool that is revolutionizing modern biology (Park, A). CRISPR allows scientist to slice and dice a person, animal, or plant’s gene in order to make it how ever they please. One author described it as “…a pair of molecular scissors.” (Elowitz). This means human’s genes can be edited to give them everything from a specific eye color to the ability to learn an entire new language in just days. Animals can be customized to do everything from simply produce more milk, to becoming incubators that grow human organs (Elowitz). Plants can be innocently edited to withstand droughts, while some can be edited to be extremely poisonous. Some scientist argue CRISPR is the next major scientific advancement, while others argue it is the beginning of extremely tumultuous times within our society (Miller). CRISPR has even recently made the Department of the Interior’s weapons of mass destruction list (Park, A). Fortunately, most scientist agree that editing germline cells, the kind that are irreversibly passed down to future generations, is an unsafe decision-for now. The fact is, now that it has been discovered, it’s like having the key to Pandora’s box. It is just a matter of time before scientists find a way to justify this extremely dangerous tool, and open the box. Once it’s opened, there will not be any turning back, and society will not ever be the same. Opening this ‘box’ will create a snowball effect that will come with irreversible societal consequences. 

Using CRISPR on animals would allow scientist to do a multitude of things. Scientist could program cows to make more milk, which is quite innocent to begin with. What is more unsettling though, is that scientist would be able to turn pigs into incubators for human organs. (Elowitz). Humans could literally have hearts that were grown inside of a pig. One scientist describes this as “…overrid[ing] nature’s selections, generating an outcome that [she] has designed.” (Park, Alice). Not only is this unsettling, it’s taking a giant leap across a very thin line in the sand, into a world where humans can create whatever they want; good or bad. To make things even more science-fiction horror, scientists could also use CRISPR to bring back the dead. CRISPR can be used on any piece of DNA, which can then be cultivated, incubated, and raised in a lab (Elowitz). This means that the bringing back of extinct animals is completely plausible. That sounds great for the polar bears, but does anyone want dinosaurs back? Genetically modified animals, and those brought back from extinction, would have unknown and possibly catastrophic effects on nature’s very fragile ecosystem. As one scientist described it, “If we tinker with mother nature, we break her.” (Miller). All of this seems to just be affecting animals, but some labs are already using this as a disguise to find benefits for humans. This is why there should be a complete ban on using CRISPR for genetic modification in humans and animals. It is impossible not to have a snowball effect- one minute cows are producing more milk, and the next, rabbits and dogs are “…building muscles to hulk like proportions.” (Park, A). Genetically altering animals, for more than just health benefits, is the first step to doing the same in humans. 

The idea of being able to stop terminal illness and end diseases that plague third world countries is a comforting thought. One scientist promises an “ultra-safe” (Boeke) cell that will have not only virus resistance but cancer resistance as well. Although CRISPR holds the hope for that, it is a motive that not only is premature, but will create an entire new argument on equality. On the surface, it sounds simply like CRISPR can cure cancer and end genetic diseases and genetic mutations. Looking deeper, it is clear that using CRISPR for these problems will create many, many more issues. For now, scientists agree that “…CRISPR technology is…not yet safe or efficient enough for therapeutic applications.” (Reyes). One warns that when it comes to CRISPR, “The tools outpace the knowledge.” (Voosen). Quite simply, it’s like toddlers with forks: they could either use it to eat their food, or stick it in an electrical socket. Scientist could either use CRISPR for something as innocent as a more effective tool for genetically modified crops, or they could decimate the population. That alone should be enough cause for concern, but even more problems persist. One huge issue is that the editing out of one disease can very well make humans extremely more susceptible to another (Park, A). One application of CRISPR can be editing female mosquitos from being able to pass on malaria to humans (Park, A). The end of malaria sounds fantastic- but studies have shown that this mutation actually makes humans more susceptible to having sickle cell anemia (Park, A). One scientist points out the danger of editing diseases- the ability to create super strains. She warns “… most… infectious diseases are just a few DNA edits away from becoming super strains that could wipe out unprepared populations.” (Park, A). Another scientist warns of a similar danger- “… with the tools easily bought online, it would be theoretically possible to engineer a killer mosquito…and decimate the population.” (Park, A). These concerns are so legitimate, that it prompted CRISPR to be classified as a weapon of mass destruction (Park, A). 

These concerns of editing out diseases in other organisms do correlate to editing out diseases in humans, but even more issues surface when it comes to that particular aspect. Not only is it an unsettling reminder of eugenics, but it also will create an unrepairable social cleavage that will change how humans perceive equality. Yes, scientist have harnessed the power to create a disease-less society. But should they? All this power and this hope is an unnerving reminder of the eugenics experiments widely practiced in the mid-20th century. David Baltimore, a respected leader of the scientific community, warned of the dangers of all this hope for what simply is a new tool for eugenics (Miller). He points out a time when eugenics was extremely popular, saying “…some of the best scientists believed in it.” (Baltimore, Miller). He warns that CRISPR is just a modern tool for eugenics, and implores “Just because we can do it with more foresight and precision today doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.” (Baltimore, Miller.) Baltimore makes an extremely compelling argument that strikes to the core of anyone, which is almost everyone, who is against eugenics. Furthermore, it has already been established that editing out diseases is dangerous and the technology just isn’t there yet. The uncertainty that surrounds the long-term effects of gene editing is rooted in simple evolution- and the fact that “…any change in genes…in a living thing may affect its ability to survive and reproduce…down the line.” (Park, A). This outlines the dangers of what truly is a temporary fix to an evolutionary problem.  Even if scientist could be sure it would be 100% effective, is it ethical? According to one disabled child-no. Erika Hayden, an author who interviewed this child, describes her reaction as absolute. “Ruthie didn’t hesitate before answering…Would she ever consider editing the genes of her future children…Again…no.” (Park, E). This illustrates what many people don’t think of when considering editing out genetic diseases- what does the actual disabled person want? Again, it’s an eerie reminder of eugenics. The people subjected to those experiments didn’t go in willingly, and those who would have their genes edited by CRISPR wouldn’t be either. Another issue is the social consequences editing out diseases may have. Hayden continues by pointing out that editing out diseases “…goes against [the] drive towards inclusion.” (Park, E). Today, so much emphasis is placed on being inclusive and respectful towards everyone, and the idea that diseases should be edited out “…could create a harsher social climate…” (Park, E.), warns one scholar. Another scholar, Calum Mackellar, brings up another pivotal point in the argument against editing out diseases. He questions “If we start to say certain people with genetic conditions should not exist, then what message does that send to people who already have that same disorder?” (Park, Mackellar). Not only would this be unfair to those who are already experiencing that suffering, it would make them feel even more ostracized from the rest of society. Mackellar continues by warning that editing out genetic diseases will bring society “…to the point of saying that certain people are no longer equal. And that’s a terrible position to be in.” (Park, Mackellar). Not only would people who already have a certain condition believe that, but what about those who couldn’t afford to edit out their own or their children’s diseases? This is by far the most ominous power that CRISPR holds-the ability to create a social canyon between the rich and the poor. 

Editing out disease is the last step before humans will begin editing their offspring for cosmetic purposes-again widening the social cleavage between the rich and the poor. What’s even scarier is that it is actually easier to edit humans cosmetically than it is to edit out diseases. Some parents are already able to choose the gender of their baby, and CRISPR will make it possible to choose everything from their eye color to their intelligence. These will be nothing short of designer babies. Not only will it be cosmetic, but the intelligence of humans will also have the opportunity to be enhanced. This could create humans with super-memory, or ensure that Tommy will grow up to be 6’2 and make the Duke basketball team. (Although he might not want to be on it right now, go Cocks!). The point is, children will be made “better than well.” (Sandal). Although this sounds great, one scholar points out “When science moves faster than moral understanding, as it does today, men and women struggle to [understand] their unease.” (Sandal). Would you ever consider giving your newborn a nose job, or lip injections, or liposuction to make it lose the baby weight a little faster? Obviously, this is extremely frowned upon. But this is exactly what using CRISPR to edit human genes is. It is literally Botox for babies, except it can do so much more than make them look beautiful. 

This power that CRISPR holds reflects an initial reaction of hope and excitement, but the consequences it will inevitably cause are simply going to be detrimental to the already teetering balance society has. Society has enough of a cleavage between the rich and the poor, and using CRISPR to edit human genes will turn it into a canyon. Uneven access to this tool is simply inevitable, the ability to use this technology to earn money will be irresistible to some business tycoons. The CRISPR market will be like the diamond market-completely monopolized. Diamonds are abundant, it’s those who have cornered the marker that have turned them into such a commodity and symbol of wealth. CRISPR is cheap and easy to use, and for now it’s accessible. But once its powers are more popularly realized by the large pharma companies and IVF clinics-it will be the new diamond market. Being able to use CRISPR to edit genes will be a new symbol of wealth. 

Unlike the diamonds, though, CRISPR won’t just be a small, shiny reminder that some are more wealthy than others. It will be a massive, society-changing reminder of who is rich and who is poor. It will ostracize members of society who cannot afford to make themselves and their children beautiful. Most sadly, though, it won’t just be the cosmetic side of CRISPR that is monopolized. If CRISPR ever is deemed safe and effective enough to be used on editing out disease, companies will corner the market on editing out diseases as well. Editing out genetic mutations is wrong enough to begin with, and the greed that will lead to the monopolization of the market will be emotionally and physically detrimental to those in society who cannot afford it. It won’t just be poor homeless people, either. A single mom struggling to raise a disabled child will feel even more ostracized. A homeless Veteran won’t be able to have the benefits either. Someone recently laid off from work due to a chronic illness, they won’t be able to get this technology. All this and more put together will create an intense, razor sharp divide in society that will be harder to cross and overcome than ever before. 

The American dream will be edited out with this technology, our society and our world will never be the same. Populations, cultures, traditions, entire ethnicities stand to go extinct. Is the race to be beautiful and in perfect physical and mental condition worth it? Is the human race ready to lose what makes us so unique, are we ready to say goodbye to the diversity that makes our entire world tick? This is what will happen with CRISPR. First it will be in animals, then they’ll figure out they can test editing out genetic mutations on those animals. From there, it will be used in humans, creating a divide between the disabled and non-disabled. Next, humans will use it to alter themselves, innocently enough at first. As history demonstrates, there is no way greed won’t overtake our good intentions CRISPR will be turned into a commodity only the wealthy can afford. Then, only the rich will be able to be healthy, beautiful, and smart; getting the best jobs and making the most money and cultivating more designer babies. The end of society is only spelled with one word, and that word undoubtedly is CRISPR. 
