Is human genome editing inevitable - Essay Example

Is human genome editing inevitable? Throughout the world, millions of people are affected because of mutations of genes in human genome and the resultant rare health disorders. Scientists of Genetic Engineering Technology have been carrying out extensive researches with the aim of perfecting gene therapies for treating various genetically-affected medical conditions. Genome editing is a type of genetic engineering that purports to insert, replace, or remove a genome through artificially-engineered nucleases or molecular scissors. Widespread adoption of this process has recently fueled a technique called CRISPR-Cas9 - a new approach that generates RNA-guided nucleases with customizable specificities. However, there have been worldwide debates regarding the ethical and legal aspects of human genome editing. So, this discussion is about the new molecular technique of CRISPRs, analyzing its present hype, benefits, and risks behind it. Moreover, the discussion traces critical perspectives of human genome editing and possibilities of this inevitable science in future. The analysis also justifies the ethical process and critically examines opinions of others on these emotive issues. In the past few decades, genome editing methods have been successfully experimented on animals and in the field of agriculture. In that direction, recent advancements have increased the possibilities of experimentation with human genomes. However, the inefficiency of the previous methods and lack of specificity raises doubts, with many sections terming it as inappropriate and unsafe for humans. Of late, the latest weapon added to the armory of human genome editing is a technique called Crispr-Cas9. The main reason for this technique to receive universal acclaim is that, unlike the previous methods, it is possible for scientists to insert, modify, or delete DNA with unprecedented precision, increased efficiency, specificity, and more flexibility. Because of this precision and efficiency, human body achieves optimal strength to impede attacks of microorganisms. “The method, known by the acronym Crispr-Cas9, co-opts the natural immune system with which bacteria remember the DNA of the viruses that attacks them so they are ready the next time those same invaders appear” (Wade 2015). CRISPR-Cas9 is a form of genome editing that uses segments of prokaryotic DNA. Actually, CRISPR is a naturally –occurring mechanism used by bacteria for defending and protecting themselves using their strange pattern of genomes, which contains short repetitions of base sequences followed by ‘spacer DNA’. This configuration is termed as ‘Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats,’ or shortly as CRISPR. The controversy lies in the “genetic cut-and-paste system called CRISPR/Cas9, in which a stretch of RNA called CRISPR, targets specific spots on the genome, and an enzyme that works with CRISPR called Cas9 cuts them, leaving an empty space in the genome” (Ghose 2015). So, when a replacement DNA is provided, it gets inserted into the slots left by Cas9. This method seems to be powerful and also works on all cells. “Initially, CRISPR appears to be better suited for destroying ‘bad’ versions of genes that cause disease, but eventually the technique may also be able to replace those bad gene versions with normal, healthy copies.” (Patterson 2015). However, this potential of CRISPR raises serious questions about exploitation of human genome and possible unintended mutations or new diseases. Presently, researchers use Crispr-Cas9 for learning about how the human genes control development, and how these affect health and manipulate genetic diseases. The use of such techniques in pluripotent stem cells or others for correcting genetic defects or for introducing any potential therapeutic changes provides a vast scope for its application in human health. For instance, in radical therapies, scientists drew immune cells from cancer affected patients and rewrote them with specific genomes, which when put back into the system would destroy tumors. Similarly, there are also experiments about making people resistant to HIV by rewriting genomes with natural immunity. “Deleting a bit of DNA, rather than adding a gene, may indeed be the key to treating many illnesses. With the new genome-editing tools, rewriting the defective DNA may be possible” (Young). The other benefit is that positive changes in the germ line are intended to be passed on to the next generation and so genetic diseases can be stopped from being transmitted to generations ahead thereby eradicating those devastating and disease causing genes forever (Krishnan, Kanchan and Singh 2015, p.2). So, scientists are strongly considering CRISPR for many of their genome related researches and it can replace all the old methods of genome editing and splicing. However, the recent researches using CRISPR on genetically-engineered human embryos has created media hype and apprehensions among various sections. That is, the key apprehension is that CRISPR technique can be used in nonviable human embryos to modify human sperm, eggs, and embryos thereby leading to the development of designer babies (Sample 2015). In that regards, as altering human embryos are not yet legalized because of its risky nature, this human genome editing researches are open to controversial debates. As Genetics is still not a fully explored subject, there is a high probability of genetic tweaks to cause unexpected or even harmful effects. The problem with CRISPR is that there is a possibility for the guide RNA to miss the target and bind with other spots, leading to off-target cuts. In that case, “it could lead to the introduction of harmful genetic mutations in embryos. Another risk of CRISPR is that it creates genetically mosaic embryos, meaning that different cells in the body would have different DNA” (Ghose 2015). Moreover, the consequences of genome editing is not limited to the current system but would possibly be passed on to future generations as well. There are many scientific, ethical, and regulatory issues surrounding the practice of human genome editing. The major ethical concern is that this technique can directly influence lives of future generations, without taking into consideration their free-will. As Wrigley (2015) stated CRISPR can control genetic destiny and if this technique can be used widely “without careful oversight governing its use, it can readily become a new norm or an expectation.” In that direction, the scope and scale of the research seems to be yet another ethical concern. Scientists are upbeat about the advancement in these genome editing techniques but still for a larger part, the genome editing is prone to controversial therapies (Zetsche et al. 2015). The problematic issues arising out of modifying the DNA of embryos was pointed out by National Institute of Health’s director Dr. Francis Collins, who stated, “These include the serious and unquantifiable safety issues, ethical issues presented by altering the germline in a way that affects the next generation without their consent, and a current lack of compelling medical applications.” (cited in Gallagher 2015). This Gene therapy can be a turning point in the history of medicine, but still for the sake of humankind, the UN panel calls for a moratorium on them. Similarly, according to UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), “interventions on the human genome should be admitted only for preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic reasons and without enacting modifications for descendants” (Cook 2015). So, it is evident that this technique has to be moved forward with a lot of care and concern. From the above discussion, it is obvious that advent of CRISPR technology has spurred great progress in the field of genetics. However, an in-depth analysis of this human genome editing is necessary to examine what can be done and what should not be done. In the current scenario, experimenting with human genome, in any means – either be cloning or editing, - is unlikely because governmental or legal approval or federal funds are not possible. Alternatively, the role of private sectors in shaping this discussion is not clearly delineated. At the same time, there are opinions about the certainty and success of human genome editing in future. However, if human genome editing becomes inevitable, it is important to draw a definite line between what are all acceptable and what are not. References: Cook, M., 2015. UN panel calls for moratorium on editing human genome. [Online] Available at: (Accessed on 24 Nov. 2015) Gallagher, J., 2015. US will not fund research for modifying embryo DNA. [Online] Available at: (Accessed on 24 Nov. 2015) Ghose, T., 2015. Human embryo editing is incredibly risky, experts say.” [Online] Available at: (Accessed on 24 Nov. 2015) Krishnan, K., Kanchan, T and Singh, B., Human Genome Editing and Ethical Considerations. Science and Engineering Ethics, pp 1-3 Patterson, T., 2015. Unproven medical technique could save countless lives, billions of dollars. [Online] Available at: (Accessed on 24 Nov. 2015) Sample, I., 2015. Genome editing: how to modify genetic faults – and the human germline. [Online] Available at: (Accessed on 24 Nov. 2015) Wade, N., 2015. Scientists seek ban on method of editing the human genome. [Online] Available at: (Accessed on 24 Nov. 2015) Wrigley, A., 2015. Genome editing poses ethical problems that we cannot ignore. [Online] Available at: (Accessed on 24 Nov. 2015) Young, S. Precise and easy ways to rewrite human genes could finally provide the tools that researchers need to understand and cure some of our most deadly genetic diseases. MIT Technology Review, [Online] Available at: (Accessed on 24 Nov. 2015)\ Zetsche, B et al., 2015. Cpf1 Is a Single RNA-Guided Endonuclease of a Class 2 CRISPR-Cas System. Cell, 163 (3), pp.759 – 771. Read More