Dutta 1

Arshiya Dutta

Ms. Fillman

Honors English 10

5/19/17

Playing God: The Dangers of a Gene-Editing Culture

Introduction

Every living thing has a code. This code, deoxyribonucleic acid, better known as DNA, is

the hereditary material comprised of a unique combination of nucleotides that defines an

organism’s characteristics and behaviors. When editing sequences of DNA, people are generally

comfortable with using Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, which are found in fruits

and vegetables. However, when this same concept of gene editing is applied to human embryos,

the ethical stakes are raised.

Human Genome Editing is a form of genetic engineering in which DNA is altered using

molecular scissors. These molecular scissors create double strand breaks in a targeted region of

the DNA. Gene mutations in DNA can cause changes in almost any aspect of a human’s growth,

physical health, or mental health. A simple gene mutation can change anything from a person’s

eye color to their predisposition of cystic fibrosis. A gene-editing tool, called CRISPR, or

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, is a significant breakthrough in the

scientific community. Not only can it treat incurable diseases such as Huntington’s Disease and

Sickle Cell Disease, but it can also prevent these diseases from affecting a person’s lineage

(Achenbach). This powerful genetic tool has the potential to cure the human race of any and all

genetic diseases at the snip of a pair of microscopic scissors.

 Dutta 2

With that power, however, comes a risk of abuse. CRISPR can be used to modify any

aspect of a person’s physical appearance, mental capacity, athletic abilities, and even their

personality traits. With CRISPR, parents have the potential to use gene modification to create the

perfect child, known as a “designer baby.” CRISPR could be the gateway to generations of

prodigious children with perfect bone structure and exceedingly high IQ’s, with parents paying

for these traits. There is even discussion of genetically modifying children to have “night vision

from an owl” and “supersensitive hearing cloned from a dog” (Darnovsky).

As of today, several Chinese teams are experimenting with CRISPR, and it has

reaffirmed the dangers of gene modifications in humans. None of their many experiments on

embryos from fertility clinics have experienced 100% success, and many embryos died in the

process. Scientists are not ready to practice gene modification in humans because it is not

completely safe yet. Although human genetic modification can present many advantages for

people with devastating diseases, the door to human DNA editing cannot be opened. Human

embryo genetic engineering should be banned because it ruins human evolution, creates class

divisions based on beauty standards, and is an unsafe practice.

An Intrusion on Evolution

Human genetic engineering should be banned because it can risk damaging the delicate

process of human evolution. Although it is a popular belief that gene editing can help progress

the process of human evolution, the goals of evolution and genetic modification are very

different. According to Dr. Jim Kozubek in his book Modern Prometheus, Charles Darwin stated

that evolution works in “tinkering toward adaptation in local niches,” rather than in “progressing

towards an ideal model or more perfect form” in his theories of natural selection (Kozubek).
 Dutta 3

Natural human evolution involves adaptation and takes millions of years, while genetic

modification only serves to creating a very modernized version of the “perfect human race.”

People with disorders and disabilities play an important evolutionary role. Despite this,

the goals of gene modification are essentially to eliminate disorders and diseases (Kozubek).

There are several theories that prove that disorders and mutations are valuable to evolution,

including the Vulnerable Ape Model, created by Anthropologists at the University of York. This

theory states that early humans, who were considered disabled because they were hairless and

weaker than their ape counterparts, turned out to be fitter than non-disabled apes and hence

evolved into modern humans (“The Vulnerable Ape Hypothesis”). Along with physical

mutations, wiping out personality disorders with CRISPR can result in a loss of a generation of

geniuses. Dr. Jim Kozubek says “figures show that writers are ten times more like to suffer from

bipolar than the general population and poets are 40 times more likely to be diagnosed with it”

(Knapton).

Secondly, human gene editing could be harmful for the natural process of evolution

because humans cannot predict what is beneficial for them at an evolutionary level. For instance,

in many countries and communities, lighter skin is considered more desirable than darker skin,

and if given the opportunity, many parents would opt for a lighter skin color gene modification

for their child. This could present dangers if eventually generations got lighter in regions where

UV rays are more potent, as melanin is vital for protection against skin cancer. As the earth’s

ozone layer gets thinner and people’s skin gets lighter, they can become increasingly more

susceptible to UV rays, causing a skin cancer epidemic (Silver).

Another example of a direct intrusion on evolution is the threat to the human sex ratio.

Fisher’s principle is the evolutionary theory explaining the 1:1 ratio of males and females
 Dutta 4

(Carvalho). Many countries and communities value males over females, and when given the

opportunity to change their child’s sex, parents would likely modify their girl into a boy. If this

genetic operation were to spread to masses of parents in countries like India and China, Fisher’s

principle would be thrown off balance, and the propagation of the human race would be at stake.

Lastly, human gene editing can create an evolutionary and biological divide in people

who are genetically “perfect” and those who are not. Princeton geneticist Lee M. Silver

hypothesizes in the book Remaking Eden that, “as time passes,...the GenRich class and the

Natural class will become...entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as

much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee” (Silver).

In a situation eerily similar to Eloi and Morlocks in H.G. Well’s The Time Machine, the

GenRich, or people who have perfect genes, may be unwilling to mate with the GenPoor, or

“natural class,” and the two groups will evolve into different species. This frightening, yet

possible situation can be avoided if human gene editing is banned. Human gene editing is a

direct threat to the process of human evolution, and if human gene editing is banned, the natural

course of evolution will be preserved.

Class Divisions and Designer Babies

Human gene editing should be banned because it creates class divisions based on whether

someone’s genes have been edited, deepening the divide between the rich and the poor. Society

is already divided based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status, and gene

editing could easily become another factor of divergence. In a world where people can pay for

blue eyes and fair skin, people will divide themselves naturally based on whether they have the

money for cosmetic gene alterations. The GenRich and the GenPoor will form the two distinct

classes (Silver). Science-fiction films, such as the 1997 film Gattaca, show a futuristic world
 Dutta 5

where there is a clear difference between the GenRich and GenPoor, and non-modified people

face extreme discrimination and inequity. Although these are fictional ideas, they can easily

become a reality as these gene modifications are passed down for generations.

Additionally, stigma about mental disorders, personality disorders, and diseases can be

propagated in a society of genetically modified people. One of the main goals of human genetic

engineering is to rid the human race of chronic, incurable diseases such as cancers and cystic

fibrosis, but other, less life-threatening diseases, like personality disorders, can be cured as well

(Achenbach). If a parent knows that their child will have a personality disorder that can be cured

with CRISPR, they may face an ethical dilemma: to cure the child so he/she will have an easier

life, but also change such a major part of the child’s identity, or to let the child face the hardships

of a personality disorder without changing the child's identity. With the possibility of modifying

the child’s genes to cure him/her, friends and family members of parents may pressure the

parents into changing their child’s genes so they can be “more successful” (Parens) . In schools,

children with disorders and disabilities can be bullied for not having “normal” genes, as their

genes could have been changed at birth using CRISPR (Ly). In a gene-modifying culture, if a

person has a genetic disorder, they can be judged for not being able to afford a genetic “fix.”

This furthers stigma about disorders and disabilities and widens the gap between the GenPoor

and GenRich.

Lastly, in a gene-editing culture, any achievements of mankind would be accredited to

altered genes. Children with natural genes may face self-confidence issues by thinking they will

never be as good at something as people who were, quite literally, born to do the same thing

(Jabr). Writer Farris Jabr for Scientific American explains that “An era of market-based eugenics

would exterminate any lingering notions of meritocracy. Perseverance, adaptability, and self-
 Dutta 6

improvement would become subordinate to to what people would see as innate talent and near

certain prosperity preordained by one’s genes” (Jabr). This could lead to issues with the

standards of success between the GenRich and GenPoor. Class-based discrimination is a harmful

symptom of permitting human gene editing. Class-based discrimination can lead to stigma

against disabilities, diseases, and imperfect genes, and would lead to an uneven genetic playing

field based on economic status. In order to keep people from dividing into classes based on

genetic operations, genetic editing must be banned.

Risky Business

Finally, human genetic engineering should be banned because it is an unsafe practice. In

April of 2015, a team of Chinese scientists led by Junjiu Huang conducted one of the first gene-

editing experiments ever, and failed. The team used 86 embryos from local fertility clinics, and

using CRISPR, they targeted a gene with β-thalassaemia, a lethal blood disorder. However, out

of the 86 injected, only 71 survived 48 hours after. Out of the 54 tested by the scientists, only 28

embryos were successfully edited, and the rest of the embryos were mutated in unwanted regions

(Cyranoski). In order for CRISPR to be performed in patients, the success rate must be 100%,

and scientists are nowhere near reaching that benchmark.

One reason as to why Huang’s experiment failed is because of the polygenicity of traits.

Human traits are very complicated and are present in numerous genes rather than in just one ,

which makes them polygenetic (Jabr). This makes the process of editing a single gene more

complex; in order to change a simple physical trait, many DNA operations are involved. Writer

Farris Jabr says, “More than a dozen genes likely interact to determine the hue of your iris. So,

when it comes to something as multifaceted as intelligence or personality, we may never have a

 Dutta 7

particularly useful predictive genetic test” (Jabr). Polygenic traits, such as one’s predisposition to

a disease, appear among several genes, and the more genes operated on, the more room for error.

An additional explanation for the failure of Huang’s experiment is off-target mutations.

Off-target mutations result from CRISPR acting on other parts of DNA and creating unintended

mutations (Cyranoski). Huang’s team found multiple sources of off-target mutations by only

operating on a small part of the genome. If scientists were to use CRISPR on a whole genome,

off-target mutations would be much more prevalent (Cyranoski). Perhaps the most devastating

aspect of it all is that if a mistake were to happen, the mutation would be passed on for

generations. Just as a gene correction can be inherited, so will a gene mutation. There are many

reasons as to why the Chinese experiments were so unsuccessful, including the polygenicity of

traits and off-target mutations, and they all contribute to reasons why human genetic engineering

is unsafe. Human genetic editing is not safe enough for human use, and should be banned.

Conclusion

Human gene editing should be banned because it ruins human evolution, it creates a

class-based and beauty-centric society, and it is unsafe. Currently, scientists are diving more into

bringing this technology to the public, as the U.S. Panel has given a yellow light to human gene

editing. Scientists in countries like India are already instituting CRISPR to produce genius

babies, without restriction from the government. Human gene editing is unethical and dangerous,

yet it is becoming an international sensation. The door to designer babies and purchasing

physical traits needs to be closed once and for all. What people must do is contact their local

congressperson and lobby for legislation banning genetic engineering in humans. Human gene

editing is overstepping the boundaries of parental discretion to the point of playing God, and it

must be banned.
 Dutta 8

Works Cited

Achenbach, Joel. "Scientists Debate the Ethics of an Unnerving Gene-editing Technique." The

Washington Post. WP Company, 01 Dec. 2015. Web. 12 May 2017.

Carvalho, Antonio Bernardo. "An Experimental Demonstration of Fisher's Principle: Evolution

of Sexual Proportion by Natural Selection." Genetics.org. Genetics, 01 Feb. 1998. Web.

12 May 2017.

Cyranoski, David. "Chinese Scientists Genetically Modify Human Embryos." Nature News.

Nature Publishing Group, 22 Apr. 2015. Web. 12 May 2017.

 Dutta 9

Darnovsky, Marcy. "The New Eugenics: The Case Against Genetically Modified Humans."

San Francisco State University. Web. 16 May 2017.

Jabr, Ferris. "Are We Too Close to Making Gattaca a Reality?" Scientific American Blog

Network. Scientific American, 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 12 May 2017.

Knapton, Sarah. "Genetic Editing Could Rob World of Creative Geniuses." The Telegraph.

Telegraph Media Group, 25 Dec. 2016. Web. 12 May 2017.

Kozubek, Jim. Modern Prometheus. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2016. Print.

Ly, Sarah. "Ethics of Designer Babies." The Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Arizona Board of

Regents, 31 Mar. 2011. Web. 12 May 2017.

Parens, Erik. "Can Parents Be Trusted with Gene Editing Technology?" Aeon. Aeon Media

Group Ltd, Web. 12 May 2017.

Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden. New York: Harper Perennial, 2007. Print.

"The Vulnerable Ape Hypothesis." Internet Archaeol. Internet Archaeology, 3 June 2015. Web.

12 May 2017.