by: Tanya Chang

Sports Editor

Over the course of several decades, people have considered the idea of editing human DNA to be scientifically impossible. Books warn of genetically enhanced humans and societies divided by biology rather than opportunity. Today, that future is becoming closer. Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR), allows us to make gene editing efficient. Originally, it was meant to help save people, but it is quickly shifting to alter personal traits. This raises ethical problems that society is not ready to face. Lawmakers and scientists must work together to enforce limitations on gene editing before CRISPR advances more quickly than our ability to prevent the consequences of it.

CRISPR has potential in the medical field. Researchers have successfully treated sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia by editing the faulty genes, creating a possibility for curing inherited disorders. According to the National Institutes of Health, gene editing could remove diseases that currently require intense treatment. However, this same technology which can heal can also be put to misuse. CRISPR does not separate between correcting harmful mutations and enhancing traits simply because they are more desirable.

The dangers of unregulated gene editing became clear in 2018, when Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced the world’s first gene-edited babies. His actions violated moral principals and were considered unsafe across the world, yet they demonstrated how easy it is to cross limitations. Restrictions for CRISPR vary drastically across countries, allowing dangerous experiments to take place without the proper regulations.

In addition to ethics, gene editing also has biological risks. One mistake in mutation choice can create damaging changes, causing new diseases. Germline editing affects future generations where mistakes can’t be fixed once the mutation is passed down. The World Health Organization has warned that changing DNA without a set limit could have unpredictable consequences for humanity. There are also serious social risks because if the wealthy gain access to gene editing, society could face a new branch of inequality rooted in biology. Enhancing intelligence, strength, or appearance could create even more pronounced social divides and lead to discrimination. 

Critics may argue that placing limits on CRISPR will slow innovation and delay life-saving treatments. However, getting rid of this technology completely is not the solution; setting regulations that will be followed is sufficient. Clear restrictions can ensure that gene editing is used responsibly and for the benefit of all of humanity rather than personal profit.

CRISPR holds a lot of promise, but possibility without limits is dangerous. The future of human genetics should use ethics, not personal motive, as a guide. Acting now is the best way to ensure that scientific progress helps humanity rather than reshaping it beyond recognition.

(Sources: AAAS, NIH, WHO)