The Ethical Debate of Genetic Engineering

As our world continues to evolve into a society that is more and more reliant on science

and technological advancements, the manner in which those sciences and technologies are used

is becoming a source of increasing ethical debate. One of these scientific developments is the use

of genetic engineering on human embryos, which has left many people asking whether or not it

is ethical to use genetic engineering to produce offspring, and what limits/standards should be

implemented to ensure proper use of this scientific development. Genetic engineering can be

defined as the manipulation of genetic material to deliberately modify an organism’s

characteristics. Advances in genetic engineering include CRISPR technologies, mitochondrial

replacement techniques, and in vitro gametogenesis, which are three of the most common

methods used to alter the genes of human embryos. People have begun using genetic engineering

techniques for a variety of reasons, with increasing application in the predetermination of certain

traits in a child, as well as techniques to eliminate select genetic diseases.

Through research of multiple scientific studies, current and predicted applications, and

the varied ethical debates concerning genetic engineering, it is clear that the long term risks in

genetic engineering outweigh the benefits, ​which is why it is important to ensure strict guidelines

over the use of this technology.​ Genetic engineering, left unchecked by legal and ethical

constraints, can lead to unintended genetic mutations, put at risk the consent of those subject to

its effects, and bring about the extinction of traits that make our society diverse. Proper legal and

ethical standards for genetic engineering must be implemented to ensure the protection of

human rights ​(our moral, natural, and legal rights),​ and for the protection of our diverse society.
 As previously referenced, ​The world is continuously evolving and adapting to scientific

discovery and technology. More specifically, in the realm of influencing human offspring,

scientific processes have been developed to determine gender before birth, to determine if the

offspring will be born with any type of disease or mutation, combined with ongoing

advancements in gene alteration to promote a desired result and to ensure children are born

without disease (Klipstein 29). The predetermination of select aspects of birth has been prevalent

for some time, but the pace of scientific advancements is growing substantially based on rapid

technology advancements. And at the same time, interest in genetic engineering is increasing as

people search for ways to create a healthier world. Since the use of genetic engineering is

relatively new, with inherent dangers readily recognized, the argument over ethical application is

an area of growing debate in the scientific world today.

It can be argued that the use of genetic engineering is ethical and practical for reasons

such as disease prevention, enhancements of physical characteristics, and infertility treatment.

Although all of these aspects of genetic engineering may appear very attractive, they all have

high medical and societal risks and should only be used under certain conditions and set rules.

Supporters of genetic engineering mainly argue that the use of this technology offers tremendous

promise in disease prevention. ​The main use of genetic engineering comes from a technology

called CRISPR, which stands for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. What

this means, is that this technology produces enzymes which bind to DNA and cuts it, eliminated

the specific gene being targeted. ​For example, a medical team from Oregon Health and Science

University reportedly used CRISPR technology to successfully correct a genetic defect of a

heritable heart condition, leading to a disease-free human (Rubeis 135). ​This scenario was one of
the defining points of CRISPR, and this Oregon Health and Science University operates under

intensive ethical and scientific oversight. ​If successes like this occurred consistently, the obvious

argument would be to support the use of genetic engineering, but this is not always the case.

Another argument supporting genetic engineering is the enhancement of physical characteristics

and infertility treatment for parents who are not physically able to conceive. Parents want their

children to have the best of everything; to be healthy, smart, creative, and a long list of other

highly desirable traits. The use of genetic engineering has the potential to enable the production

of designer offspring, to include a wide range of desirable traits. Infertile parents are also given a

chance to have a child with the parents’ genes. Despite these strong arguments in support of

continued advancements in genetic engineering, there are clear medical and societal risks that

outweigh these potential benefits ​without the implementation of proper standards.

The principal technology driving rapid advancements in genetic engineering is CRISPR,

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat. ​Jeantine Lunshof, an ethicist at

Harvard Medical School’s Department of Genetics explains how it is becoming hard to

determine where to draw the line with the use of genetic engineering. “Where to draw the line is

frequently asked with new developments in genome editing, especially when the genome editing

tool CRISPR is mentioned” (Lunshof). Her writings explore the continuous growth of new gene

editing technologies, but indicate arguments remain relatively unchanged; that genetic

engineering is a touchy subject in the aspect of ethics. “In 1993, Frederico Mojica of the

University of Alicante (Spain) described a curious phenomenon set highlighted by a few

scientists, allowing bacteria to expel the virus infecting them by creating a true memory of these

attacks” (Hirsch 1). This technology basically means that when a virus attacks bacteria, DNA
fragments protect the bacteria and are able to store the information to combat the virus if it

appears again. This technology has been around for some time, but has more recently surfaced in

the world of bioethics. The first genetically modified humans were reported by a chinese

scientist; “Dr. He​, an assistant professor at the Southern University of Science and Technology in

Shenzhen, told the world that he had made gene-edited babies by altering the DNA of human

embryos with a new technology called Crispr” (Zimmer). Specifically, Dr. He used CRISPR

technology to eliminate a gene called CCR5, the absence of which is known to promote

resistance to HIV infections. Immediately, Dr. He was questioned under a Hong Kong

gene-editing conference for his use of the CRISPR technology and was ruled “irresponsible” and

“reckless”. “While the United States and many other countries have made it illegal to

deliberately alter the genes of human embryos, it is not against the law to do so in China, but the

practice is opposed by many researchers there” (Proulx). This is why Dr. He was ​technically​ able

to perform the procedure, but due to the opposition from much of the scientific community, Dr.

He​ basically went under the record ​went ahead with his experiment without ethical approval. ​His

study was designed poorly, and many scientists questioned if he had actually removed the wrong

chunk of the CCR5 gene. The Chinese government quickly ruled the procedure illegal and

opened an investigation. With little knowledge on the overall use of CRISPR, it is highly likely

mistakes of this nature will occur, as they did in the case with Dr. He and his study with the

genetically modified twins (Zimmer). ​If there is a possibility to explore the use of the CRISPR

technology with cautious procedures and ethical guidelines, it is possible that the scientific world

can gain an adequate amount of knowledge to proceed with genetic engineering to benefit future

generations.
 The Dr. He case was the first instance of genetic engineering to spark a major debate on

the issues of ethics, resulting in worldwide attention to the new scientific breakthrough. Since the

science is so new, there is a major lack of ethical procedures and guidelines, which is the main

reason why the case with Dr. He went so wrong. Dr. He argued that the procedure was in fact

safe and that no other genes were affected. “However, targeting the CCR5 gene is just one

potential route of virus cell entry clearly pointing out that this procedure could not be seen solely

as a consequence of a real medical need, rather more like a ​proof of concept. ​More precisely, this

experiment on human embryos that could not be seen as absolutely necessary for the care of the

unborn” (Hirsch 2). Although nothing went severely wrong in this case, it is clearly possible that

if society and the scientific community continues to allow genetic engineering to take place

without establishing specific standards, ​without following ethical standards, ​things could go

devastatingly wrong in future scenarios.

Many people viewed the Dr. He case as a cause for alarm and action, with Glenn Cohen,

a professor at Harvard Law who specializes in reproductive technologies, as one of the first and

foremost critics. Cohen referenced a prior genetic engineering case which involved

mitochondrial replacement, a genetic replacement attempt which took place in the mid 1990s by

fertility doctors in New Jersey. This case was initiated to help infertile mothers have children.

The New Jersey doctors suspected the infertile status was due to defective material in the

patients’ eggs, so “to rejuvenate them, the doctors drew off some of the jellylike filling in eggs

donated by healthy women and injected it into the eggs of their patients before performing in

vitro fertilization” (Zimmer). In vitro fertilization allows the sperm and egg to be joined outside

of the body. In this specific case, the doctors did not seek approval from the Food and Drug
administration, which is a clear concern in regards to ethics. Procedures like this are a world of

unknown, and many people reacted with shock. The New Jersey doctors actually created

embryos with the genetic material of three people instead of two. The embryos were found to

have mitochondrial DNA not only from their parents, but from the donor. This case was quickly

brought up in response to the instance with Dr. He. Referencing the opinion of Professor Cohen

of Harvard, he predicted that there will soon be a ban on the technology because of the risks and

concerns of what may arise from the use of genetic engineering (Zimmer). ​Since these doctors

decided to proceed without the approval from ethic agencies, their errors could have been

avoided if they followed ethical guidelines.

Mutations can easily arise with the use of genetic engineering. As in the case involving

the fertility doctors, humans with the DNA of three persons instead of two can drive unintended

consequences that science has yet to study or fully understand. ​“​Since interventions in the

germline mean that the modified genetic trait is passed on, errors in editing may have negative

effects on future individuals. It is extremely difficult to predict which consequences genetic

mosaicism for example will generate in one individual” (Rubeis 140). Learning from the

mistakes of genetic engineering is the only way to further progress the use of this new scientific

technology. But the research itselfs presents a tremendous risk, with unknown ramifications

worldwide. ​to our entire society​. An article by Haoyi Wang analyzes cases with gene edited

babies that have gone wrong as well as problems that could continue to occur if we don’t

implement ethical standards on the use of genetic engineering. Wang explains how the CRISPR

technology can lead to mutagenesis effects. “Besides the types of insertions, deletions,

translocations, and rearrangements, on-target effects include large chromosome deletions,

chromosome truncations, and homozygous of the genome by inter-homology repair” (Wang 3).

All of these effects clearly seem terrifying, and in addition to the potential risks, Wang explains

that there is no current method to detect these on-target effects. Clearly we are outpacing

ourselves under the use of this technology. With little knowledge on the effects of gene editing, it

is unethical to allow the use of the technology if it is a risk to the safety of humans. ​Because of

this, it is necessary that strict laws need to be implemented to create standards for genome

editing.

The use of genetic engineering has a goal to create positive effects, but another argument

to take into account is that the embryos modified during genetic engineering are not able to give

consent to what is being done to them. For centuries, dating back to enlightenment thinkers, it

has been a common belief that humans have equal moral status and natural human rights.

“Indeed, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly states that ‘all human beings are

born free and equal in dignity and rights’” (Liao 99). There are many approaches and beliefs

which tackle the fact that we have a sort of moral agency and undeniable natural born rights

which may otherwise be compromised from the use of genetic modifications. Genetic

modification focuses on altering genes in an embryo to obtain certain genetic traits, and Liao, an

author affiliated with the Center for Bioethics and New York University, argues that genetic

modification could “​raise issues of narrative identity and personal autonomy” (Liao 101). ​This

means that if someone undergoes genetic modification, they have altered their original identity,

which could create potentially create issues for self esteem because of their inability to make

decisions for themselves. ​Humans created from the results of genetic engineering are not able to
consent to what is being done to them; and the potential effects could be life changing

considering the common mistakes that come alongside the use of genetic engineering.

In the medical world, it is a common legal and moral standard that adults are not to be

subjected to medical treatment without their consent. This raises the question about whether or

not genetic engineering is inherently immoral because “future generations will not have

consented to being genetically engineered” (Gunderson 1). It is confusing to think about what a

basically nonexistent person would consent to, but it is unethical to think that we should be able

to make significant life choices for a person before they are even born. “We are typically in no

position to make reasonable predictions about what people in future generations will approve of

and hence what they will consent to” (Gunderson 3). The biggest concern under the question of

consent for the use of genetic modification is a person’s autonomy. Typically, bioethicists think

of autonomy in terms of self-governance along with aspects of personal and authentic values.

The argument of the ethics of genetic engineering in the case of autonomy is that we are not able

to know what desires and values the specific person may hold. The use of genetic engineering

would alter the original identity and create a sense of autonomy that would not exist without the

alteration. The fact that the use of genetic engineering has raised issues concerning mutations

and other on-target effects, it is not fair to the person undergoing the editing because there is no

way for them to consent to what they are doing. It is important for a person to be born with every

possible human right, and the use of genetic engineering could potentially compromise a

person’s life.

Lastly, genetic engineering could be considered unethical because it may cause the

humans to be affected in terms of societal values. Although a good amount of uses for genetic
engineering revolve around medical reasons, many cases are proposed surrounding the use of

genetic engineering for altering an embryo to have certain desirable traits. Parents could

potentially create their ‘dream child’, with access to constructing an embryo with certain traits

such as eye color, height, intelligence, and many more which would be seen to enhance the

offspring. “GGE could be used without any medical indication for enhancement purposes.

Genetic Enhancement is seen by many as societal risk because it could lead to the creation of

two classes of humans, the enhanced and the non enhanced” (Rubeis 136). This is a scary

concept to consider, especially with our society continuously evolving more and more into a

technology based society, which is creating increasingly higher standards. Many people are

focused on being better than others, and much of our society is turning into an unending

competition. The use of genetic engineering as a means of enhancement would only encourage

our society toward genetically engineered perfection among those with the resources to achieve

that end. While there is a defensible argument to use genetic engineering to mitigate medical

problems, the debate over its use for enhancement purposes is one that is very difficult to defend.

Rubeis makes the argument that the use of genetic engineering for enhancement would

“compromise social justice and equality”. If people have access to enhancing their offspring,

many people would jump at such an opportunity if they are able. Those who are able and those

who are unable to afford this technology would quickly be divided into two categories, creating a

societal split of superior and inferior humans.

Peter Zuk of Baylor College of Medicine and Rice University explores how genetic

engineering is leading to obsolescence, creating these two groups of superiority and inferiority. If

genetic engineering continues to develop, phenotypes will improve along with it, which could
potentially lead to the creation ‘the obsolete and the enhanced’. Zuk explains that those who are

obsolete would compare themselves to those who are enhanced, creating feelings of inferiority

and distress. With the creation of these two classes of people, those who are part of the enhanced

may become “rewarded with employment and education opportunities, even sexual selection”

(Zuk 35). This could potentially create an unwanted society which creates unfair and unequal

opportunities in our world. Another article by Natalie Proulx, explores the ethics of the situation.

“If human embryos can be routinely edited, many scientists, ethicists and policymakers fear a

slippery slope to a future in which babies are genetically engineered for traits — like athletic or

intellectual prowess — that have nothing to do with preventing devastating medical conditions”

(Proulx). This is something critical to think about in regards to the continuation and

advancement of genetic engineering. To avoid this, we must ensure standards are followed to

avoid the unethical division of society into two classifications based on whether or not a person

is enhanced.

Many parents are concerned with the way their child will turn out in terms of health,

intelligence, and talent. If parents are able to choose traits that will allow their child to be born

with certain levels of each of these categories, they may reasonably and understandably fear the

potential risks that may come if the genetic modifications do not turn out how they intended. “If

choice leads to unforeseen outcomes, parents may blame themselves. This is a heavy weight to

bear, and one that most parents would not select even if given the choice.” (Klipstein 31). If most

parents would fear the outcome of using genetic modification technologies on their children, this

is another commonality that shows the use of such technology is not ethical, since having the

burden of the potential risks and unintended outcomes is so undesirable by parents.

 Genetic engineering is a very concerning, yet very important topic. There are many

reasons why it should be regulated and tightly controlled via governing laws and ethical

standards to protect human rights. As science and technology continue to advance, it is becoming

increasingly difficult for ethics to keep pace. Although scientific debate and international

recognition of the concerns outlined in this paper have prompted relatively strict standards

specific to genetic engineering, we must continue to uphold and evolve these standards to protect

basic human rights. Issues including genetic mutation, lack of consent, and the concern for

societal classifications are all problems that have and will continue to legal and ethical debates

tied to genetic engineering.

 Works Cited

Gunderson, Martin. “Genetic Engineering and the Consent of Future Persons.” ​Journal of

Evolution & Technology​, vol. 18, no. 1, Sept. 2008, pp. 1–8. ​EBSCOhost​,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34706043&site=ehost-live.

Hirsch, Francois, et al. “Ethics Assessment in Research Proposals Adopting CRISPR

Technology.” ​Biochemia Medica​, vol. 29, no. 2, June 2019, pp. 1–8. ​EBSCOhost​,

doi:10.11613/BM.2019.020202.

Klipstein, Sigal. “Parenting in the Age of Preimplantation Gene Editing.” Hastings Center

Report, vol. 47, Dec. 2017, pp. S28–S33. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1002/hast.792

Liao, S.Matthew. “Designing Humans: A Human Rights Approach.” ​Bioethics​, vol. 33, no. 1,

Jan. 2019, pp. 98–104. ​EBSCOhost​, doi:10.1111/bioe.12519.

Lunshof, Jeantine E. “Gene Editing Is Now Outpacing Ethics.” The Washington Post, WP

Company, 12 Dec. 2017,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2017/12/12/bioethics/.

Proulx, Natalie. “Is It Ethical to Create Genetically Edited Humans?” ​The New York Times​, The

New York Times, 6 Dec. 2018,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/learning/is-it-ethical to

create-genetically-edited-humans.html.

Rubeis, Giovanni, and Florian Steger. “Risks and Benefits of Human Germline Genome Editing:

An Ethical Analysis.” ​Asian Bioethics Review​, vol. 10, no. 2, July 2018, pp. 133–141.

EBSCOhost​, doi:10.1007/s41649-018-0056-x.
Wang, Haoyi, and Hui Yang. “Gene-Edited Babies: What Went Wrong and What Could Go

Wrong.” ​PLoS Biology​, vol. 17, no. 4, Apr. 2019, pp. 1–5. ​EBSCOhost​,

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000224.

Zimmer, Carl. “Genetically Modified People Are Walking Among Us.” ​The New York Times​,

The New York Times, 1 Dec. 2018,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/01/sunday-review/crispr-china-babies-gene-editing.ht

ml.

Zuk, Peter, et al. “Could Genetic Enhancement Really Lead to Obsolescence?” ​American

Journal of Bioethics​, vol. 19, no. 7, July 2019, pp. 34–36. ​EBSCOhost​,

doi:10.1080/15265161.2019.1618962.