Advantages

A research study by Furtado (2019) states that, the ability to modify the genomes of various
living things has been made possible by the advancement of editing technology. These methods
have an impact on various fields, including environmental sciences, agriculture, fundamental
biomedical research, and disease management. They might also be applied to human
customization for extra-therapeutic augmentation. The improvement of gene and cellular
therapies is one of the advantages of editing intended for medical purposes. Advancement in
these sectors would help at least nine areas: 1) Oncology; 2) Infectiology; 3) Hematology; 4)
Hepatology; 5) Neurology; 6) Dermatology; 7) Ophthalmology; 8) Pneumology; and 9) Organ
Transplantation.
Another study by Gyngell et al. (2019) reveals that, when it comes to reproduction, genetic
information—which can be obtained through a variety of technologies—imposes new
obligations on how and when to behave. A specific outcome is sought by prospective parents
who want to use this knowledge to ensure or prevent certain genetic variants in their offspring.
They want a specific kind of child, meaning that it should be genetically connected to them and
should not have any certain characteristic, disease, or trait. One option for parents to pursue such
objectives is through assisted reproductive technologies, such as pre-implantation genetic
diagnosis; however, these methods depend on an adequate quantity of embryos. Given that many
people strongly desire genetically related offspring, if this is not possible, HGE (Human Genome
Editing) may be more acceptable than alternative ways to become parents, such as donated
gametes. Because so many genes are involved, there is a chance that complicated diseases that
are frequent in populations and challenging to avoid through selecting means can be avoided by
employing HGE. When HGE becomes widely accessible in the future, the paper envisions a
plethora of potential uses. These can include enhanced defenses against illness and injury,
endurance to harsh environments, superabilities, or other diverse traits like the capacity to
produce vitamins on one's own instead of requiring consumption. Acknowledging the benefits of
Heritable Human Genome editing is somehow significant given that concerns over the use of
gene editing to produce live births are legitimate. Such applications for reproduction can be
prohibited. However, therapeutic research could make use of the technology to comprehend
sickness and create novel remedies. And this needs to be considered in whatever limitations we
impose on it. Safety concerns can be used to support legislation prohibiting reproductive gene
editing, but not to support legislation prohibiting therapeutic gene editing. Ignoring the benefits it
can provide for a large number of people—including the most vulnerable—would be the
equivalent of outlawing it.
Similarly Bando (2018) points that, heritable human genome editing shows potential for
alleviating severe heritable diseases, lowering disease occurrence, fostering fairness and well-
being, expanding reproductive choices, improving autonomy, and developing a scientific
understanding of human genetics. The study outlines the possible benefits and disadvantages of
Heritable Human Genome Editing, highlighting its significance across various societal domains
such as healthcare, reproductive rights, and scientific progress. Understanding these implications
is crucial for informing ethical and societal discourse surrounding GGE, which aligns with the
research objectives. By exploring the ethical complexities, potential benefits, and risks associated
with GGE, the research can contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discussion and help guide
responsible decision-making in this field.
The article constructed by Sutipatanasomboon (2022) claims that there are multiple benefits to
the application of genetic engineering. It could improve and enhance existing laboratory
techniques, help deepen understanding of biological phenomena, aid in the development of new
technologies, create new therapeutic approaches such as therapeutic proteins and gene therapy,
and also generate characteristics not found in nature. Though there are risks and issues associated
with utilizing this technology, if it is employed properly, considering ethical and safety
considerations, it could help enhance overall quality of life. The insights provided by
Sutipatanasomboon (2022) regarding the benefits and implications of genetic engineering are
highly relevant in the current landscape of scientific and medical research. The application of
genetic engineering holds immense potential to revolutionize laboratory techniques, advance our
comprehension of biological processes, drive innovation in technology development, and pave
the way for novel therapeutic interventions such as therapeutic proteins and gene therapy.
Furthermore, the ability to engineer characteristics not naturally occurring in nature opens up
new avenues for scientific exploration and discovery. While it is crucial to acknowledge the risks
and ethical considerations associated with genetic engineering, the responsible and ethical
application of this technology can lead to significant improvements in the quality of life for
individuals. By prioritizing safety protocols, ethical guidelines, and rigorous oversight,
researchers can harness the power of genetic engineering to address pressing healthcare
challenges, enhance medical treatments, and ultimately contribute to the betterment of society as
a whole. The balanced consideration of both the potential benefits and ethical implications of
genetic engineering underscores the importance of thoughtful and informed decision-making in
the pursuit of scientific progress. Also in accordance with the clarified statement of Moralli &
Monaco (2020), their study discussed that the development and application of human artificial
chromosomes (HACs) can be used as a research tool and offer more understanding of the
structure of human chromosomes, also for expressing large genes and gene loci. In addition to
that, they can explore more potential uses of this alteration to humans such as developing new
hypotheses that can be of great use to improve the alteration. Although there are some challenges
in manipulating HACs for efficient gene delivery, advancements have still been made and this
approach allows simultaneous delivery of multiple genes. This will allow humans to have a
deeper understanding that may change their current perspective and dominate their negative
standpoint to see the advantages more than the disadvantages.
As stated by Gallego Bartolomé et al., (2018) the potential benefits of genome editing by
methods have been thoroughly studied. Studies have revealed that the human TET1 domain can
be used to target DNA demethylation in the Arabidopsis genome. This study highlights how
genome editing tools may precisely alter DNA methylation patterns, which influence gene
expression and developmental processes. Furthermore, Wang & Doudna (2023) makes case that
CRISPR technology is well recognized as a technique for genome editing with. Likewise Duan
et al. (2021) pointed that several research have investigated the versatility of CRISPR/Cas9 for
editing, such as its ability to distribute nanoparticles Wu et al. (2021) makes also a point that the
development of CRISPR Cas12f nucleases for targeted genome changes. These discoveries
demonstrate the ability of genome editing technology to make efficient modifications to the
genome, opening up new paths for combating genetic illnesses and improving human health.
These advancements offer promising possibilities for addressing genetic diseases and improving
human health through heritable human genome editing, potentially enabling the correction of
disease-causing mutations and enhancing overall genetic well-being.
As reported by Stein (2020) Gray, the first American to undergo CRISPR gene editing for sickle
cell disease, has seen remarkable improvements in her health one year after treatment. The
therapy, which involves modifying cells to produce fetal hemoglobin, has effectively alleviated
her symptoms, providing relief from pain crises and reducing the need for hospitalizations and
blood transfusions. Gray's experience offers hope for others with similar conditions, as the
treatment shows promise in improving quality of life and potentially providing long-term
benefits. Despite challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic and social unrest, Gray remains
optimistic about the future and looks forward to being present for important milestones in her
family's life. Her story serves as a beacon of hope for those seeking effective treatments for
genetic disorders. Gray's experience with CRISPR gene editing for sickle cell disease serves as a
beacon of hope, highlighting the transformative potential of genetic medicine to improve the
lives of individuals with genetic disorders and offering insights into the broader implications for
healthcare and society. In a similar manner in 2015, according to National Human Genome
Research Institute (2019) scientists successfully used somatic gene therapy when a one-year-old
girl named Layla in the United Kingdom got gene editing treatment to assist her in fighting
leukemia. Layla was treated with TALENs rather than CRISPR. Doctors attempted several
treatments before this, but none worked, so scientists were granted special authorization to treat
Layla with gene therapy. Even though Layla is safe because of the treatment, such treatments are
still experimental because the scientific community and policymakers are still debating the
technical and ethical issues surrounding genome editing. Even though CRISPR has improved
over previous genome editing technologies, it is still flawed. For example, genome editing
technologies have a chance to cut in the wrong place. Scientists are not yet sure how these flaws
may affect patients. The usage of gene treatments and the development of genome editing
methods have become a necessity, as specific cases of diseases cannot use the available known
treatments to save one’s life. Research and continuous study are essential to ensure this
technology is ready for human usage.
Synthesis:
The acknowledgment of the benefits of Heritable Human Genome editing is crucial, especially in
light of concerns surrounding its use for reproductive purposes. While reproductive gene editing
may be subject to restrictions, therapeutic applications hold promise for understanding diseases
and developing new treatments. Safety concerns should guide legislation on reproductive gene
editing but not necessarily on therapeutic gene editing. Ignoring the potential benefits of genetic
engineering, including advancements in medical research and treatment options, would be a
disservice to society. Responsible decision-making, informed by ethical considerations and
safety protocols, can harness the power of genetic engineering to address healthcare challenges
and improve quality of life. Despite challenges in gene delivery, advancements in genetic
engineering offer promising possibilities for correcting disease-causing mutations and enhancing
overall genetic well-being. The transformative potential of genetic medicine, exemplified by
cases like Victoria Gray's experience with CRISPR gene editing for sickle cell disease,
underscores the importance of ongoing research and development in this field. While genome
editing technologies like CRISPR are not without flaws, continued research and study are
essential to ensure their safe and effective application in improving human health.
Disadvantages
Based on Center for Genetics and Society (n.d) Germline editing, which involves altering the
genetic makeup of future generations, presents a significantly more contentious approach to
human gene editing. Through germline modification, the DNA of embryos, eggs, or sperm is
targeted, and since germline DNA is inherited, any alterations, whether positive or negative,
would be perpetuated through subsequent generations. While some advocate for the use of
germline editing to prevent hereditary diseases, it is argued to pose unacceptable levels of risk in
terms of safety, ethics, and societal impact. Moreover, it is argued to be unnecessary given the
existence of safe and efficient methods for preventing the transmission of inherited diseases. For
instance, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows individuals at risk to screen embryos
created through in vitro fertilization and select those unaffected by the condition, thus enabling
them to have genetically related offspring without transmitting genetic disorders. Although PGD
raises its own ethical concerns, particularly regarding disability rights and justice, it is considered
to carry fewer risks to safety and society compared to germline editing. Germline editing lies in
its potential to reshape the genetic landscape of humanity, with far-reaching implications for
safety, ethics, and society as a whole. It raises profound questions about our responsibilities to
future generations and the ethical boundaries of manipulating the human genome. Likewise in
accordance with the article by Bando (2018) it explores non-therapeutic heritable human genome
editing (GGE), presenting significant insights alongside prominent disadvantages. Its in-depth
exploration of ethical considerations could pose accessibility difficulties for a broader audience,
potentially overwhelming readers with its comprehensive coverage. Despite supporting diverse
representation, some perspectives may be marginalized, reducing the depth of ethical discussion.
While valuable, the article's intricacy, lack of accessibility, and limited practical guidance may
hinder successful engagement. Nevertheless, the ethical intricacies of GGE, incorporating
autonomy, welfare, and societal implications, highlight the importance of fair and equitable
implementation.Examining the ethical complexities surrounding non-therapeutic heritable human
genome editing (GGE) within the article offers significant insights yet presents several potential
disadvantages. It emphasizes the importance of making discussions about non-therapeutic
heritable human genome editing (GGE) available, thorough, inclusive, and practically beneficial.
It accentuates researchers' significance in reaching diverse audiences, simplifying complex ideas,
incorporating marginalized viewpoints, and offering actionable advice. These principles can
optimize comprehension, encourage comprehensive conversations, and endorse informed
decision-making in this morally intricate domain.
A research study by Frontier Technology Quarterly (2019) explains that there are good, bad, and
ugly sides to utilizing genetic technologies. Though it has many positive effects on society, it
also has its disadvantages. The study first states that not everyone has the capacity to afford this
kind of treatment, meaning not everyone will benefit from it. Although it has been proven to cure
diseases, the price of it is not affordable for everyone. It also states that this process raises many
ethical questions, considering that infants formed from genetically modified genes are not
created "naturally." The article also discusses finding an appropriate balance. It emphasizes that
subjects should have their own privacy, consent should be given, their information should be
confidential, and ethical boundaries should be respected. Lastly, it states that not everyone is in
favor of this, resulting in a lack of cooperation. Scientists have urged governments to establish
specific standards and guidelines for overseeing technologies at a global level. The World Health
Organization (WHO) and other global bodies should continue educating about genetic
technology and set universal rules, guided by the principles of the UN Charter and the Human
Rights Declaration, to protect present and future generations. Any mistake in this matter would
come at a high price for humanity. The affordability of this treatment poses a significant barrier
for many individuals, as it comes with a high price tag that not everyone can afford. This
financial burden can create disparities in access to the treatment, limiting its benefits to only
those who can afford it. Additionally, the treatment faces controversy and opposition from some
individuals, further complicating its acceptance and implementation in society. The differing
opinions and debates surrounding the treatment highlight the need for open dialogue and
consideration of various perspectives to address the complex issues at hand. In alignment with
the research soon to be conducted, the study by Escher, J., Yan, W., Rissman, E.F. et al. (2021)
suggests that gene alterations could lead to complications, specifically mentioning Autism
Spectrum Disorders as a potential outcome. The process involved, molecular perturbation,
determines how molecules will be modified, potentially leading to failed brain transcription and
resulting in brain abnormalities, including Autism Spectrum Disorder. These abnormalities can
manifest during fetal and early life brain development. Molecular perturbation failure most
commonly results in Autism Spectrum Disorder. Male germline mutation failure occurs when
mature spermatozoa fail to complete apoptosis, resulting in damaged DNA. Finally, monitoring
of female germline mutations should be conducted per trimester or as dictated by the progression
of alterations.In alignment with the research soon to be conducted, this study by Escher, J., Yan,
W., Rissman, E.F. et al. (2021) suggests that gene alterations could lead to complications,
specifically mentioning Autism Spectrum Disorders as a potential outcome. The process
involved, molecular perturbation, determines how molecules will be modified, potentially
leading to failed brain transcription and resulting in brain abnormalities, including Autism
Spectrum Disorder. These abnormalities can manifest during fetal and early life brain
development. Molecular perturbation failure most commonly results in Autism Spectrum
Disorder. Male germline mutation failure occurs when mature spermatozoa fail to complete
apoptosis, resulting in damaged DNA. Finally, monitoring of female germline mutations should
be conducted per trimester or as dictated by the progression of alterations. When utilizing
germline alteration, the potential risks and consequences must be carefully considered. Failure in
the modification process can lead to serious outcomes, such as brain disorders like autism
spectrum disorder. In males, the fully matured spermatozoa lack the ability to make changes in
DNA, and if altered genes are abnormal, they cannot be corrected. For females, monitoring of
altered genes during embryo development is crucial due to the risks associated with potential
failures. This monitoring process should be conducted diligently on a trimester basis to ensure
the safety and efficacy of the genetic modifications. It is essential to approach germline alteration
with caution and thorough oversight to mitigate potential risks and ensure the well-being of
individuals involved.
As outlined by Robinson (2023) every human has two alleles or versions of every gene on the
human genome—one from each parent. However, one parent can or will possess a recessive
disease-causing mutation that is balanced out by the other parent's dominant healthy version of
the same gene. Usage of gene editing can result in the deletion of one gene and the duplication of
another, sometimes causing a condition called loss of heterozygosity. A problem arises when the
disease-causing gene is copied leading to two mutant copies of the bad gene; significantly
increasing the risk of a cancer. With the community’s current knowledge about genome editing,
a frequent scenario of loss heterozygosity is bound to happen. As we try to repair one known
mutation, it can create more problems than it solves. This disadvantage of the current
technologies or methodologies serves as one of the hindrances to why Heritable Human Genome
Editing is still not yet acceptable to use clinically. In accordance with this Khalil (2020)
highlighted concerns about the potential unintended consequences and the idea of making
customized babies, who also draws attention to the concerns regarding human genome editing.
The author suggests that changing the germline may result in changes to the human gene pool,
raising ethical concerns about "playing god" and the possibility of eugenics. As shared by Zhang
et al. (2020) these concerns who underlines the importance of thoroughly considering the
impacts of heritable genome editing. The authors caution that the ability to modify the germline
might lead to inequalities and discrimination based on genetic traits. Concerns about
consequences, difficulties, and the reinforcement of bias and inequity caused by hereditary traits
in heritable human genome editing highlights the possible drawbacks. These problems point out
the societal challenges related to changing the germline, emphasizing the significance of careful
consideration and moral discussions before initiating such actions.
As indicated by Hammerstein et al. (2019) human dignity is upheld by Articles 2 and 3 of the
European Convention on Human Rights; furthermore, the UNESCO Declaration on the Human
Genome and Human Rights (UDHGHR) implies that the underlying similarity and intrinsic
dignity of all members of the human family are derived from the human genome. These
statements are supported by the Council of Europe, which emphasized human dignity in its
recommendation on Heritable Human Genome Editing. Human dignity has been linked to the
human genome in at least two ways: the respect for the intrinsic worth of an individual human
being in relation to their genome, and the significance of the human genome for the integrity of
the human species. Another research by Biller-Andorno et al. (2019) states that assessing
attitudes has brought attention to worries about parents being under more and more social
pressure. It can be interpreted that failing to get tested equates to not being a responsible parent
and relinquishing control over the health of a future child. In light of this, Hammerstein et al.
(2019) contend that the prospective parent would therefore have a moral obligation to act
independently rather than a right. That being said, there has been a plea for a right to be ignorant
due to the possibility that the weight of information (for both patients and future parents) may be
too much. This claim is supported by the argument that, in the absence of any means of treatment
or risk reduction, genetic testing may reveal to a patient information about their heightened
susceptibility to serious diseases. Furthermore, proponents of the "right not to know" contend
that being aware of these hazards could be excessively onerous and result in excruciating
psychological suffering. Accordingly, it is asserted that the burden of information and decision-
making may also accompany the understanding of an embryo's genetic characteristics. Together,
this shows that making decisions in reproductive medicine can be extremely difficult since it
involves considering feelings of uncertainty and emotion that are inherent to the process of
starting a family. Future parents' autonomy must be protected since it would be devastating if
this idea were to become an obligation to manage one's own life or the life of one's future child.
Synthesis:
Germline editing has the potential to reshape the genetic landscape of humanity, raising profound
questions about safety, ethics, and societal implications. Discussions on non-therapeutic heritable
human genome editing (GGE) must be inclusive, thorough, and beneficial, emphasizing the
importance of researchers in simplifying complex ideas and incorporating diverse viewpoints.
Affordability poses a significant barrier to access, creating disparities and controversy
surrounding the treatment. Failure in the modification process can lead to serious outcomes,
necessitating cautious oversight and diligent monitoring during embryo development. Concerns
about consequences, difficulties, and societal challenges highlight the need for careful
consideration and moral discussions before implementing heritable human genome editing.
Decision-making in reproductive medicine involves navigating uncertainty and emotion,
emphasizing the importance of protecting future parents' autonomy in such complex and morally
intricate processes.

BIOETHICS
As claimed by Frixione et al. (2021) technologies for modifying the human genome have a lot of
potential benefits. However, some ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of such
technologies are important to any discussion about their application. As a result, a range of
specialists in politics, science, bioethics, and public opinion have expressed caution about the
proper application of heritable human genome editing and its potential impact on future
generations. The UNESCO International Bioethics Committee (IBC) book is the most
comprehensive to date. The paper titled "Reflections on Human Genome and Human Rights"
lists five primary ethical precepts and social challenges: (a) respect for privacy and autonomy;
(b) justice and solidarity; (c) comprehension of health and illness; (d) the cultural, social, and
economic context of science; and (e) future generations' rights. Selected areas of recently
developed genomic medicine applications are covered, including direct-to-consumer testing,
personalized, and precision medicine. The parties involved are assigned responsibility, including
countries, researchers, academics, physicians, regulators, for-profit businesses, and the media.
Distributive justice and international solidarity are also addressed.
In line with Townsend (2020). Ethics describes how society "ought to be" or "should be," and it
is based on norms and ideals. Occasionally, it's unclear how much good or harm is being done.
Genetic therapeutic treatments are by definition "uncertain" and so inherently unknowable
because they take place in a universe in which complete certainty can never be attained. On the
other hand, risk can be calculated, measured, and managed. It may be properly determined using
probabilistic outcomes. However, in order to effectively manage risk, we must comprehend the
probabilities at play, including the possibility that extremely unusual and unfavorable
occurrences will transpire. Therefore, our readiness to take on risk will rely on our
comprehension of the potential consequences and our ability to effectively manage the risk that
genome editing poses. Essentially, it is a careful balancing act between the prospective rewards
and the probability dangers. One should not allow caution to serve as a justification for
overlooking risks and neglecting to take necessary steps to address them. Individuals can be
relied upon to make prudent decisions in such circumstances. It may be essential to assess not
just what is completely safe, but rather what is deemed "safe enough" within the realm of
genome editing, considering the interplay between risks and advantages. Technologies with a
higher potential for harm may require a more stringent regulatory structure.
As reported by Stein (2023) in the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing in
London convenes a diverse group of professionals including scientists, doctors, bioethicists,
patients, and others to deliberate on the intricate issues surrounding gene-editing technologies.
This summit follows the controversial 2018 announcement by He, a Chinese researcher, who
claimed to have produced the first gene-edited babies using CRISPR technology. His actions
were widely condemned as irresponsible human experimentation, resulting in his imprisonment
for breaching medical regulations. Despite advancements in gene-editing methods and a better
understanding of associated risks, ethical dilemmas persist regarding the modification of human
DNA in sperm, eggs, or embryos to address genetic disorders. While this approach could offer
potential benefits to families affected by genetic conditions, concerns about unintended
consequences, such as the emergence of new genetic diseases or the concept of "designer
babies," remain. The ongoing debate revolves around whether the potential advantages of gene-
editing outweigh the ethical and societal implications. It is crucial to address the issues
surrounding genome editing due to the evolving focus among scientists on ensuring the safe
editing of genomes. The discourse has shifted from debating the permissibility of inheritable
genetic modifications to overcoming technical hurdles for safe editing and determining which
diseases to target for eradication. Emphasizing safety and ethical considerations is paramount in
this rapidly progressing field. Moreover, the failure to fully acknowledge the high-pressure
environment of biomedical research that may have influenced past controversial actions
underscores the necessity for a more ethical and responsible approach moving forward.
Additionally, as concerns of equity come to the forefront, it is vital to consider the accessibility
and affordability of current and future gene therapies to ensure widespread availability and
prevent exacerbating existing healthcare disparities. Addressing these issues is crucial to
navigate the ethical, safety, and equity concerns associated with genome editing technologies.
As per the study developed by Joseph et al. (2022), human genome editing is widely accepted in
the ethics of medicine and philosophy worldwide. They gathered information regarding the said
topic and studied each of them to determine whether it could be considered or not. It is said that
it can be of great use, especially to this unhealthy generation wherein the environment
themselves are causing the humans to catch diseases or develop their inherited genes. When the
embryo twins were experimented in China, they explained to the public that genome editing
could be used in the early future as “early in-life genetic surgery” to be used to prevent possible
upcoming diseases or defects that could affect the infant/s in their early life stages. It is also
clarified that the alteration that occurred was only for the benefit of the child and not for vanity.
There is a high risk as altering genes may cause complications, in other perspectives, there is a
high rate of success in altering the genes as a lot of people who have tested it had a successful
result, however, there are also some who failed the alteration resulting them to develop
complications. Human genome editing has shown a high success rate in embryo stages, making it
a promising technology for addressing genetic diseases and defects early on. With its widespread
ethical acceptance worldwide, genome editing offers a potential solution to health challenges in
our current unhealthy environment. By utilizing this technology responsibly, we can potentially
prevent and treat genetic disorders, providing hope for a healthier future for generations to come.
Similarly Bergman M.T. (2019) indicated that, in terms of biology, it is widely accepted,
especially by the medical staff, they are in favor of altering the genes for the change and
evolvement of this world, once they pursue altering the genes for the sake of saving people and
also for the environment, there will be an innovation for it to be 100% or almost 100% safe. The
conclusion to the gathered information about the statements given by the professionals is that the
purpose is only for those who suffer or who will suffer from diseases. Technology nowadays is
making its way to innovate new things to prevent and cure diseases of people before they are
born or during having symptoms of a possible disease. This innovation can also help the poor,
for them to prevent being infected and it will be more convenient to them as they won’t pay any
more hospital bills or worse could lead them to death. Moreover, the world is still undergoing the
evolution process and it can be of great use in many ways. Lastly, the environment is being
manipulated by humans which can result in being exposed to chemicals that can alter the
human's genes unknowingly. Providing free or low-cost programs can be a significant help to
those in need, particularly the economically disadvantaged, as it enables them to access
preventive measures against diseases. By leveraging technology to innovate in this area, we can
empower individuals to adapt to the challenges of our rapidly changing environment. Offering
affordable solutions and resources can make a meaningful difference in improving health
outcomes and enhancing overall well-being for underserved population.
On the other hand, Baylis (2019) pointed out that in the future, children born of embryos whose
genomes have been modified to be “genetically healthy” may also experience psychological
harm as a result of the modification done to match their parent's preference. With the freedom to
choose a genetic advantage in the future, one can imagine how many parents are willing to pay
just to make their children superior in specific fields, possibly constraining the child's trajectory
of life. For example, Neil Hoekstra is aware that his adopted son, Liam Hoekstra, will have more
muscle mass than the typical individual due to a defective MSTN gene. Hoekstra sees this
deficiency as a plus, saying, "I want him to be a football player. He might become the next
Michael Hart”. If a child's genetic advantage can be planned and paid for rather than just the
result of "luck", many would use human genome editing as a way to make their child
“genetically outstanding” for their preferred fields rather than to make them genetically healthy.
In the factual study made by Avital (2022) the article explores the bioethical aspects of
CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing, especially in human germline modification. It acknowledges the
moral intricacies connected and stresses the necessity for safety measures, regulatory
supervision, and public involvement. It addresses technical issues and ethical standards,
emphasizing transparent decision-making and ethical consideration in gene editing technology
research and clinical use. The article addresses significant ethical challenges, including the
repercussions of heritable alterations to the human genome and the need for rigorous regulatory
surveillance and ethical principles. It explores safety, efficiency, consent, public involvement,
and the ethical implications of altering future generations' genetic makeup. By examining these
issues, the article promotes ethical discussions and guides the establishment of ethical guidelines
and policies in this field.
In addition Lander et al. (2019) makes the case that in recent years, heritable genome editing, or
the process of modifying human germlines with CRISPR technology, has raised questions of
ethics for scientists) As it present a strong case in a significant paper for a temporary ban on this
technology, arguing that there may be consequences far beyond the imaginable scope of this
matter and hence need to be ethically thought through carefully. Additionally, Brokowski (2018)
raises questions concerning the scientific community’s readiness to tackle ethical dilemmas
brought by CRISPR germline editing, thereby questioning their competence towards such
complexities of the technique.
Mostly as a result of revolutionary developments in CRISPR technology, genome editing has
dramatically shifted over the past decade. This is emphasized by Wang and Doudna (2023), as
they also mention that humans are only at the beginning of an epoch-making period in relation to
genome editing. However, Brokowski (2018) states that, as research advances in this area, it is
important to cautiously consider the ethical and bioethical implications of such developments.
Human genetic modification concerning CRISPR technology is a highly contested topic. Thus,
modifications to the human germline may result in long-term health issues, particularly in
relation to hereditary illnesses. As a result, there is a need for ethical discourse and investigation
into the broad consequences of such advances, wherein ethical considerations regarding altering
a person's genome must be addressed.
Synthesis
The importance of addressing risks and ethical considerations in genome editing is emphasized
in the discourse. It is crucial to strike a balance between safety and innovation, considering the
potential benefits and risks associated with technologies. The focus has shifted towards ensuring
safe editing practices and targeting specific diseases for eradication. Ethical guidelines and
policies are essential to navigate the ethical, safety, and equity concerns surrounding genome
editing technologies. Providing affordable access to gene therapies can help improve health
outcomes and well-being, particularly for underserved populations. The article highlights the
need for ethical discussions and investigations into the broader consequences of human genome
editing, emphasizing the importance of ethical considerations in altering a person's genetic
makeup.

References
U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2020). Heritable human genome editing. National
Center for Biotechnology Information. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32897669/
What is Human Gene Editing? (n.d.-b). Center for Genetics and Society.
https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/internal-content/what-human-gene-editing
World Health Organization: WHO. (2021, October 20). Human genome editing.
https://www.who.int/health-topics/human-genome-editing#tab=tab_1

Soni, S. (n.d.). Human gene editing: who decides the rules? The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/human-gene-editing-who-decides-the-rules-128434
Βaylis, F., Darnovsky, M., Hasson, K., & Krahn, T. (2020). Human Germline and Heritable
Genome Editing: The Global Policy Landscape. The CRISPR Journal, 3(5), 365–377.
https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2020.0082
Stein, R. (2023, March 6). Experts weigh medical advances in gene-editing with ethical
dilemmas. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/06/1158705095/genome-
summit-gene-editing-ethics-crspr
Stein, R. (2020, June 23). A year in, 1st patient to get gene editing for sickle cell disease is
thriving. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/23/877543610/a-year-in-
1st-patient-to-get-gene-editing-for-sickle-cell-disease-is-thriving
Philippines on the right path with genome editing regulations. (n.d.). Crop Biotech Update.
https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=18955
Dellureficio, A. J. (2019). A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to
Control Evolution. By Jennifer A. Doudna and Samuel H. Sternberg. Boston
(Massachusetts): Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishers. $28.00. xx + 281 p.; ill.; index.
ISBN: 9780544716940 (hc); 9780544716964 (eb). 2017. The Quarterly Review of Biology,
94(4), 439. https://doi.org/10.1086/706411