Why Genome Editing Is Bad Essay
Why Genome Editing Is Bad Essay
Why Genome Editing Is Bad Essay
Jiya Patel
Mrs. Fezjullai
American Literature II
20 March 2023
Are people en route to becoming the next Frankensteins? With more people deciding to
have their children and themselves undergoing genetic modifications, it appears that way.
Frankenstein, a literary classic novel by Mary Shelly, describes a genetically engineered monster
that becomes murderous due to isolation and loneliness faced by society and the abuse faced by
its creator. The novel provides a parallel to a possible future society, in which science has been
taken too far. As genome editing methods, such as CRISPR, are brought into the spotlight,
individuals’ interests in the field are peaked. CRISPR is a powerful means of genetic editing, in
which DNA is cut with precision, letting DNA naturally repair the cut segment. The negative
consequences of this technology, on the other hand, are disregarded. Genetic modifications have
paved way for unethical behavior, and a disregard for one’s quality of life and creates a hierarchy
Scientists that are conducting genetic modifications on embryos are disregarding all
established ethical grounds. Curiosity is rooted in human nature, so it is expected that scientists
are trying to push the limits to see the possible beneficial outcomes of genetic editing
technology. Yet, when the limits are pushed too far, the ethical basis that the technology has
been built on entirely ends up being disregarded. As a consequence of that, not only is it harming
those who are in the society, but entirely discrediting the moral and ethical foundation that the
medical and scientific community is praising themselves on. There is no doubt that the ethics of
2 Patel
genetic editing have been taken too far, a prime example being Chinese scientist He Jiankui, who
had disabled the CCR5 gene, preventing the experimented gene-edited children from inheriting
their father's HIV infection by using CRISPR-Cas9. It was shocking to the scientific community,
because he disregarded morals and ethics, implanting the genetically edited embryos in the
mother’s womb for reproductive purposes (Botting 1). This event sparked internal outrage, as
there were much safer and effective ways to achieve that goal which were must less controversial
(Stein 2). Although this may have seemed a beneficial approach to prevent the couple’s future
children from having a difficult life, it was entirely unethical. Producing two children who have
undergone genetic alterations unknowing of how their life will come to pass throughout their
lifetimes. This did not only make them susceptible to the judgment of others but to their own
Scientists propose that there was no purpose for the twin’s genetic engineering. Professor
Julian Savulescu stated, “It had no moral or scientific justification, given that the medical
profession can successfully prevent fathers from transmitting HIV without genetic engineering”
(Botting 1). Further more Dr David King, Human Genetics Alert director argues that, “there are
already reliable ways of avoiding the conditions: “This is high-tech medicine at its worst and
most unnecessary” (World's First 'Three-Parent' Babies Could Be Born in the UK 2). This
exemplifies the fact that the genetic alterations were futile, furthermore indicating that scientists
will do specific immoral tasks for their own gain and fame. A question poses itself; If there was
no motive for these genetic modifications for the embryo, then why has it been done? The role of
ethics has been discussed extensively by researchers and bioethicists, stating that they are,
“concerned that any genome editing, even for therapeutic uses, will start us on a slippery slope to
using it for non-therapeutic and enhancement purposes, which many view as controversial,” and
3 Patel
generally agree that, “until germline genome editing is deemed safe through research, it should
not be used for clinical reproductive purposes; the risk cannot be justified by the potential
benefits.” (NIH 1). As a whole, the scientific community has agreed that genome editing is not to
be used for reproductive purposes, but still many people have and will continue to use this
technology for erroneous intents. Whether that be to prevent a treatable disease, enhance certain
traits and characteristics of a human, or for their personal benefit. Genetic editing carries risks
that far outweigh any potential advantages. Ultimately, doing something wholly unjustifiable for
There is exclusively a focus on the short-term outcomes, as the long-term effects have yet to be
observed. Quality of life, over an immediate result, is what most desire, to live a happy and
healthy life. In spite of that, the people who undergo genetic modifications, such as savior
siblings, don’t get to experience such joys of life. A savior sibling is defined as, “a child who is
born to provide an organ, bone marrow or cell transplant, to a sibling that is affected with a fatal
disease”(Zuniga-Farjuri 1). With the help of genetic editing—in vitro fertilization and
preimplantation genetic diagnosis, these children are able to help their sick siblings treat their
fatal disease. In reality, to support and take care of their siblings, they are being neglected and
dehumanized.
In most cases, these young children pose as donation machines, constantly giving and
never receiving. The negative impact that genetic modification has on them can be observed,
“Both bone marrow and live organ transplants have been related to a number of psychosocial and
physiological risks for both donors and recipients. HSCT studies on infant donors show an
increase in stress and anxiety and lower self-esteem in donor siblings, as well as moderate levels
4 Patel
of post-traumatic stress. The physiological problems that infant donors face often have to do with
the medicines used for anesthesia during the transplant procedure and the adverse effects of the
transplant itself” (Zuniga-Farjuri 6). The period in which genetic engineering on embryos is
conducted is short, and the results are immediate after the birth of the child. Regardless, the child
is the one who lives with the condition from childhood to adulthood and experiences the
milestones of life. When viewed from their perspective, a savior sibling faces nothing but
physiological and psychological trauma throughout the various stages of their lifetime. They
have to undergo transplants regularly, becoming weaker as a result of their efforts to help their
siblings deal with the disease. They may also sense that there is increased attentiveness towards
their sick sibling, while they are unwell in other ways. The feeling that they are only alive to help
their siblings survive harms their mental health, and this will become more prevalent in the
New methods of genetic modification have created a superiority and inferiority complex
between those with and without genetic modification. Throughout time we have seen the thirst to
be on top, status, and hierarchy become engraved in society. Those who are wealthy are at the
top and those who aren't are below them, in that same way, genetic editing will create a similar
problem. Wealthy people who can afford the costs of genetic modifications will produce children
who have more benefits than those who are not able to afford or have access to genetic
modification. Creating this mentality that whoever possesses any form of genetic alterations is
automatically categorized as superior, compared to those who have not undergone any
inherited HIV. As a result of his experiment, he “left the second twin vulnerable to HIV—and
the control subject for the twin with both copies disabled” (Botting 1). By conducting this
5 Patel
experiment, and leaving one of the twins susceptible to HIV, he has already paved the way for a
superiority and inferiority relationship between the twins. Questions have also been asked by
other researchers, “Researcher Maria Jasin of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
pointed out that this experiment might hurt the “family dynamics” among the twins and their
parents. One twin has been deliberately and permanently enhanced more than the other. How
will that affect the siblings — not only their health but also their relationships and
society?”(Botting 1). As they grow older, the second twin might realize that they are different
from their sibling; they may also face demeaning and snarky comments for being different than
their sibling, even though they both underwent genetic editing. This can result in an outward
expression of their relationship, but also inward feelings of being inferior because their sibling
has more medical benefits than them. As genetic modification becomes more common in daily
life, it can be expected that a divide will grow and a hierarchy will be created.
Future genetic modifications will soon reveal these negative effects on society and one’s
personal well-being. The development of unethical behavior, disregard for quality of life, and a
hierarchy between those with and without genetic modifications are all negative effects of this
technology. There are significant consequences to consider when it comes to genome editing, as
it can lead to unintended and unforeseen harm to both society and individuals at large. Moreover,
the widespread use of genome editing could result in social inequality, as the limited number of
people who can afford it would have access to the technology. Ethical concerns also arise,
highlighting the need for responsible use and regulation of genome editing technology. Genetic
editing, in the long and short term, is not effective or beneficial, despite how positively it is
shown in media. In addition, given how widely used genome editing is becoming, is it not
Works Cited
Botting, Eileen Hunt. “Analysis | A Chinese Scientist Says He Edited Babies' Genes. What Are
the Rights of the Genetically Modified Child?” The Washington Post, WP Company, 7
chinese-scientist-says-hes-edited-babies-genes-what-are-the-rights-of-the-genetically-
modified-child/
Stein, Rob. “New U.S. Experiments Aim to Create Gene-Edited Human Embryos.” NPR, NPR, 1
Feb. 2019,
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/02/01/689623550/new-u-s-experiments-
m-to-create-gene-edited-human-embryos
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-
concerns
“World's First 'Three-Parent' Babies Could Be Born in the UK.” The Guardian, Guardian News
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/17/three-parent-babies-uk-mitochondrial-
transfer-dna-ivf.
Zúñiga-Fajuri, Alejandra. “Born to Donate: Proposals for ‘Savior Sibling’ Regulation in Latin