The Ethical Limitations of the CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing System
Written By: Arman Momeni
The CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing tool allows humans to make precise and calculated changes to the DNA of living organisms. The precision and efficiency of the CRISPR-Cas9 model revolutionize the gene editing process and allow for increased accessibility to the technology. However, the potential widespread use of the technology threatens current ethical frameworks and questions moral principles. While many studies have reflected upon the ethical considerations of CRISPR-Cas9, they have ultimately neglected the need for adjusted ethical systems. New research is fundamental in discovering how moral philosophies should adapt to match the growing gene editing industry.
The discussion surrounding CRISPR-Cas9 and its ethical limitations has ultimately been inconclusive. There is a pertinent need for new research to assess the connection between the applications of CRISPR-Cas9 and existing ethical frameworks. By finding connections between the applications of the technology and existing frameworks, a new ethical framework to detail appropriate applications for CRISPR-Cas9 can be established.
The development of the CRISPR-Cas9 model throughout the 21st century has reshaped the practice of genome editing, opening new outlets for curing, and suppressing genetic diseases. The CRISPR-Cas9 system comprises two essential components: a simple guide Ribonucleic acid (sgRNA) and a CRISPR-associated endonuclease (Cas9). The Cas9 enzyme recognizes the specific target Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and creates a double-strand break, allowing the sgRNA, a pre-designed RNA sequence, to bind to the DNA (Redman et al., 2016). While the CRISPR-Cas9 mechanism can save lives and propel immense advancements in the medical field, it encompasses several restrictive and corrupt consequences (Newman et al., 2020). Not only does the model pose several understudied health effects, but the technology can be used beyond therapeutic purposes, posing potential concerns for tyrannical use. Such ramifications detail the clear ethical limitations regarding the technology and evoke questions surrounding an appropriate approach to use CRISPR-Cas9 in human applications.
The new opportunities and solutions that CRISPR-Cas9 offers to the field of medicine suggest the inevitability that the technology will continue to be expanded and applied to various health-related sectors. Therefore, researching the applications of CRISPR-Cas9 and their connection to moral frameworks is crucial to both understanding the ethical limits of the technology and designing specific applications suitable for the use of CRISPR-Cas9. It is vital to fill the knowledge gap between the technology and common people, distinctively explaining the accessibility, intended use, and appropriate applications.
Current ethical concerns surrounding CRISPR-Cas9 relate to the unknown ramifications of the technology and question whether it is appropriate to interfere with the evolutionary process, which has been successful since the dawn of human existence (Hawkes, 2016). In the field of childbirth, certain conclusions state that the use of CRISPR-Cas9 is advocated when used to remove disease-causing genes; however, moral questions arise when it is used to genetically enhance embryos to birth children with inclined probabilities of being intelligent, tall, or good-looking (Foht, 2016). Nonetheless, as the technology cannot consistently and effectively complete such tasks, many researchers have deemed moral considerations irrelevant until further advancements are made (Grant, 2016). However, if the technology continues to expand without rudimentary ethical foundations in place, uncertainty and controversy surrounding CRISPR-Cas9 will only continue to grow. Other research urges the need to ensure a proper balance between governing CRISPR-Cas9 and allowing it to be used medicinally, stating that ethical concerns must not hinder the technology’s ability to aid those in need (Newson & Wrigley, 2016). The current debate on the ethical limitations of gene editing is pertinent; however, it is ultimately inconclusive, failing to provide a concrete answer on the jurisdictions surrounding the technology. It is crucial to satisfy the recent controversy surrounding CRISPR-Cas9 by using previous data and new empirical data to develop specific frameworks, restrictions, and guidelines surrounding the use of the technology.
Works Cited:
Foht, B. P. (2016). Gene Editing: New Technology, Old Moral Questions. The New Atlantis, 48, 3–15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43766980
Grant, E. V. (2016). FDA Regulation of Clinical Applications of CRISPR-CAS Gene-Editing Technology. Food and Drug Law Journal, 71(4), 608–633. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26661118
Hawkes, N. (2016). New gene editing technique CRISPR-Cas9 raises important ethical questions, says advisory body. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 354. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26945440
Newman, A. et al. (2020). Cas9 Cuts and Consequences; Detecting, Predicting, and Mitigating CRISPR/Cas9 On‐ and Off‐Target Damage. BioEssays, 42(9). https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000047
Newson, A., & Wrigley, A. (2016). Being Human: The Ethics, Law, and Scientific Progress of Genome Editing. AQ: Australian Quarterly, 87(1), 3–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24877806
Redman, M. et al. (2016). What is CRISPR/Cas9. Archives of Disease in Childhood – Education and Practice, 101, 213-214. https://ep.bmj.com/content/101/4/213.short
