Exploring the Controversial Future of Gene-Edited Babies
Written on
Chapter 1: Public Perception of Gene Editing
The advent of gene editing technology has stirred considerable debate, especially following the revelation of the world's first gene-edited babies in November 2018. Chinese scientist He Jiankui conducted experiments using CRISPR to alter the genomes of two embryos, aiming to enhance their resistance to HIV. This clandestine research sparked widespread condemnation within the scientific community, prompting calls for a halt on further gene-edited births.
In contrast, a recent survey suggests that public opinion may be shifting toward acceptance. Conducted across 67 countries with 1,537 participants, the study, published in the Journal of Human Genetics on July 31, indicates a general endorsement of germline genetic editing—the kind that modifies an embryo's DNA in a way that can be inherited by future generations.
Participants were first shown an educational video detailing the principles of CRISPR gene editing, followed by information about germline editing. Unlike somatic editing, which targets only the individual being treated and is being explored for cancer therapies and specific genetic disorders, germline editing has broader implications.
After viewing the materials, respondents were asked to express their agreement with various hypothetical applications of germline editing, covering medical and enhancement uses. A significant number expressed strong support for using this technology to prevent serious or life-threatening conditions arising in childhood or adulthood. However, support waned for its application in preventing mental illness in adults and for providing immunity against infectious diseases.
Interestingly, about half of those surveyed were opposed to using germline editing for enhancing traits such as vision, athletic ability, intelligence, or self-discipline. Notably, men were found to be twice as likely as women to endorse enhancement applications, with over 50% of male respondents supporting all forms of germline editing.
The ethical dilemma of designer babies | Paul Knoepfler - YouTube This video delves into the moral complexities surrounding the creation of genetically engineered babies, exploring the societal implications and ethical concerns.
Section 1.1: Parental Perspectives
Parents displayed less support for germline editing compared to non-parents. Religious individuals were the most resistant, and those with knowledge or experience in genetics were also less favorable towards it. Bioethicist Hank Greely from Stanford University, who did not participate in the study, noted that a lack of understanding about genetics might lead to a more accepting stance on germline editing.
"That seems right to me," Greely remarked. "The less you know, I suspect the less you see some of the possible alternatives to germline gene editing."
Subsection 1.1.1: Alternatives to Germline Editing
One alternative is preimplantation genetic testing. This method allows prospective parents concerned about hereditary diseases to screen embryos before in vitro fertilization (IVF), ensuring that only healthy embryos are selected for implantation. Another option being explored is gene therapy, aimed at providing long-lasting treatment for various challenging diseases.
Section 1.2: Limitations of the Study
While the findings are intriguing, the study has limitations. It relied on social media for recruitment, which may have skewed the demographic of respondents, with a significant portion coming from the U.S., Australia, Canada, and the U.K., and predominantly white individuals with some college education.
Moreover, the survey presupposed that germline editing is safe and effective, a claim that remains unverified. For instance, evidence has emerged that Jiankui's editing resulted in "mosaicism" in the twin girls, which could leave them susceptible to HIV. Although Jiankui asserted the babies were healthy, doubts linger regarding the safety of gene editing.
Chapter 2: Safety Concerns and Regulatory Landscape
Should We Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies? - YouTube This discussion examines the potential benefits and risks of using gene editing technologies to enhance human capabilities, raising questions about ethics and safety.
Recent research from the U.K. has highlighted safety concerns, revealing that CRISPR can inadvertently cause DNA damage in human embryos. Experts warn that such unintended mutations could lead to genetic disorders or increase the risk of cancer in genetically altered babies. Similar findings have been reported by U.S. research teams, which have yet to undergo peer review.
The new study aligns with previous surveys, such as one conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2018, where 72% of U.S. adults deemed it acceptable to modify an unborn child's genes to address serious health conditions present at birth.
Greely expressed skepticism regarding the survey's representation of public opinion, suggesting that a more thorough deliberative process might yield different insights. In the U.S., a de facto ban on gene-edited babies has been in place since Congress passed legislation in December 2015. While numerous countries have established laws against gene-edited births, there is no international consensus on regulations.
The authors of the current study caution against a blanket prohibition on germline editing, suggesting that public attitudes may be more nuanced, depending on the specific applications of the technology.
"It's an interesting straw in the wind," Greely remarked about the study, but he added, "it's not enough to convince me that I know which way the wind blows."