1

Should gene-editing be abolished?

Analury Sanchez

Professor Ocxanne Jean, Ph.D.

Advance Writing and Research-DL-B

Apr 02, 2022

2

Should gene-editing be abolished?

I. Introduction: In the recent years, humans have witnessed technological developments

whereby tomatoes ripen slowly, cattle without horns, and even mosquitos that cannot transmit

malaria. This has been necessitated by gene editing. According to Ayanoğlu, Elçin & Elçin (2020),

gene editing is a technology that provides scientists with an opportunity of making changes to the

DNA of an organism. Thanks to gene editing, it is possible to edit a particular disease out of an

individual. The increase in ethical controversy of gene editing can be attributed to its potential of

asserting some significant control over the kind of future for humans. This topic emphasizes why

gene editing should be abolished due to the unprecedented health implications of genetically

modified humans.

II. Background: According to Abuhammad, Khabour and Alzoubi (2021), genetic

modifications can lead to the creation of super-humans and "designer babies" while also

perpetrating fundamental alteration of the human species. As a matter of fact, genomic research

may potentially be weaponized towards targeting as well as harming particular population groups.

The moral, ethical, and legal boundaries of utilizing genetic technologies are largely unclear, which

creates opportunities for their abuse and misuse. On the other hand, Howard et al. (2018) argued

that gene-editing technologies are associated with diverse ethical concerns, particularly when the

process is utilized towards addressing a given genetic diagnosis of an unborn child due to the

potential evolution of off-target edits.

Gene editing can result in unprecedented and unwanted heritable genetic alterations that

may contribute to long-term risks in clinical space (Conboy, 2018). Accessing gene therapies for

combating diseases, for instance, could be limited to those who can afford them, which increases

health inequality outcomes across and within countries. Ethically, there are safety concerns to the

3

side effects of the technology, including lack of informed consent for germline as the affected

clients by the edits are not yet born (Holm, 2019). Many countries, particularly the developing and

underdeveloped nations, may fail to afford the technology, which increases the inequality gap in

society. Should gene-editing be abolished? Gene editing should be abolished due to the potential

impact on society and serious ethical concerns associated with the technology.

III. Arguments: Medicine has recently reached a turning point with major changes highly

likely to be experienced, particularly with the growth of disruptive technologies like cell therapies,

RNA, and gene enabling scientists to approach diseases in ways that have never been witnessed

before. From a scientific perspective, medical researchers are keen on establishing the risks and

opportunities of gene editing. In this regard, critics of gene editing argue that the technology could

be associated with unpredictable implications on the environment and human health, especially

fears of creating “designer humans.”

a. Reason 1: Altering the genes of a child before birth implies that such alterations are

passed on to future generations, meaning that the DNA of the child’s body is permanently and

irreversibly changed.

i. Evidence 1a: There is a need to preserve the human right to an open future and

bodily integrity. According to Davies (2019), there is a high potential for errors being

experienced in the process of gene editing.

ii. Evidence 1b: Gene editing could have errors associated with devastating effects

like accidentally deleting a gene, thus leading to developmental defects in the unborn child

(Davies, 2019).

iii. Evidence 1c: There is a possibility that germline editing and adverse effects

may be passed on from one generation to another (Davies, 2019).

4

b. Reason 2: Gene editing is bound to reinforce inequalities in society as the commercial

and social dynamics whereby modifying the human germline may exacerbate global disparities and

take structural inequality to greater heights.

i. Evidence 2a: When humans are presented with an opportunity of accessing the

technology, there could be serious challenges in that attempt to control what it is used for,

thus creating a slippery slope. In this regard, parents-to-be could utilize the technologies in

what may be termed as racist or sexist (Khan, 2019).

ii. Evidence 2b: If parents are given an opportunity of choosing the sex of their

baby, it could lead to sexism.

iii. Evidence 2c: The ability to choose the physical characteristics of a child so that

s/he is more attractive could lead to racism (Khan, 2019).

c. Reason 3: Gene editing entails a change of cellular structure.

i. Evidence 3a: A slight change of cells can result in new creatures that can

threaten societal existence (Abuhammad et.al, 2021).

ii. Evidence 3b: A small error in gene editing is likely to lead to an undesired

outcome. Some of the experiments are meant to create diseases resistant human beings

(Conboy, 2018).

iii Evidence 3c: There is some likelihood of creating some deadlier diseases in the

process (Conboy, 2018). Therefore, gene editing is a dangerous experiment.

III. Refuting Opponents’ Arguments

a. Opposing view 1: A. Those supporting gene editing have argued that technology is

instrumental in dealing with the most severe and deadly diseases.

5

i. Evidence 1a. Diverse genetic mutations affecting millions of people globally

could end if humans are actively involved in genetically engineering the next generation

(Conboy, 2018).

ii. Evidence 1b. Genetic modification in mice has been shown to have

unanticipated long-term adverse effects (Conboy, 2018).

iii. Evidence 1c. CRISPR Gene Editing has been shown to increase the risk of

developing cancer cells and affect healthy cells faster (Conboy, 2018).

b. Opposing view 2: Gene editing can extend the human lifespan as diseases and illnesses

that shorten the lifespan of many people are eliminated.

i. Evidence 2a: To this end, genetic editing can reverse the most fundamental

reasons for the natural decline of the human body on a cellular level (Holms, 2019).

ii. Evidence 2b: Drastically improving both the quality of life and span (Holms,

2019).

IV. Conclusion: Gene editing is a technology that should not be embraced anywhere due

to the increasing uncertainty of the side effects and implications on future generations. There is a

need for more research on the topic towards establishing the potential benefits, opportunities, and

risks associated with the technology for it to be advanced. This topic is important because changing

the genetic inheritance of the human species may potentially provoke a backlash, which implies

that people need to condemn pernicious genetic technologies while encouraging those that can

benefit the human species.

6

References

Abuhammad, S., Khabour, O. F., & Alzoubi, K. H. (2021). Researchers views about perceived

harms and benefits of gene editing: A study from the MENA region. Heliyon, 7(4), e06860.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06860

Ayanoğlu, F. B., Elçin, A. E., & Elçin, Y. M. (2020). Bioethical issues in genome editing by

CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Turkish Journal of Biology, 44(2), 110-120.

https://doi.org/10.3906/biy-1912-52

Conboy, I. (2018). Faculty opinions recommendation of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing induces a

p53-mediated DNA damage response. Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of

the Biomedical Literature. https://doi.org/10.3410/f.733427168.793553934

Davies, B. (2019). The technical risks of human gene editing. Human Reproduction, 34(11), 2104-

2111. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez162

Holm, S. (2019). Let us assume that gene editing is safe—the role of safety arguments in the gene-

editing debate. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 28(1), 100-111.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180118000439

Howard, H. C., van El, C. G., Forzano, F., Radojkovic, D., Rial-Sebbag, E., de Wert, G., … &

Cornel, M. C. (2018). One small edit for humans, one giant edit for humankind? Points and

questions to consider for a responsible way forward for gene editing in humans. European

Journal of Human Genetics, 26(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-017-0024-z

Khan, S. H. (2019). Genome-editing technologies: concept, pros, and cons of various genome-

editing techniques and bioethical concerns for clinical application. Molecular Therapy-

Nucleic Acids, 16, 326-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omtn.2019.02.027

7