Arviso-Yazza 1

Myryka Arviso-Yazza

Erin Rogers

Writing 2010

25 April 2017

A World Without Disease

When it comes to genetic engineering, one of the most debated topics is whether or

not to genetically modify human babies. This can be done through manipulation of female

or male gametes or genetic modification of an embryo. With all of the potential risks, many

scientists would agree that there is an urgency to establish ethical guidelines when applying

this technology. In 2015, after the first human embryo was genetically modified in China,

scientists implemented a voluntary moratorium that halted the application of

CRISPR-CAS9, a technology that revolutionized genetic engineering by making it more

precise and time efficient. Genetic modification of the human germline is currently banned

in the United States under the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2016. This ban has come

into place with regards to the long term effects that it could have on generations of people,

due to the manipulation of germ cells which would be passed down to offspring.

Considering the possible associated risks and the lack of acquired knowledge,

concerns are justifiable, however an outright ban is unnecessary and does more harm than

good. Placing a ban on genetic engineering human embryos halts scientific innovations that

could eradicate diseases and allows for the continued suffering of diseased individuals. A

ban would only make gene editing more dangerous as it would prevent accountability to

ethical guidelines. It doesnt take into account the immense benefits germline editing can
 Arviso-Yazza 2

have on humanity, which greatly outweigh the associated risks. And while lack of consent

may be of concern, it should not be a contributing factor to the ban.

Genetic engineering has vast potential to improve the quality of life for all of

humanity by completely eradicating inherited diseases and to not take advantage of this

would be immoral. One of the ambitions that has always been sought out by the human

race is finding the ultimate cure to disease, and here it is. Although the method is far from

perfect, genetic engineering could be the solution we have been searching for. In the words

of Steven Salzberg, a professor of Biomedical Engineering, Computer Science, and

Biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University, genome editing is here, and it has tremendous

potential to cure diseases and reduce human suffering (Salzberg). Many others share this

optimistic view on genetic engineering; Roman Anton, a researcher at Nrtingen-Geislingen

University of Economics and Environment stated: editing can be used to correct both

germline and somatic mutations. Not only the embryo but also the human adult could be

edited somatically to cure a disease (Anton). This technology is incredibly powerful and to

ignore it would be to ignore the answer to one of the biggest problems facing the human

race.

The longer that this technology remains out of reach, more people will continue

suffer. For instance consider mitochondrial diseases, which are caused by genetic mutations

in mitochondrial DNA. According the the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, 1,000

to 4,000 children in the United states are born with a mitochondrial disease each year and

that isnt even including all of the individuals who are misdiagnosed each year (United

Mitochondrial Disease Foundation). According to an article published by Harvard law and

 Arviso-Yazza 3

bioethics professor Glenn Cohen and Brown University biologist Eli Adashi, this

congressionally legislated ban... affect[s] ongoing efforts of the FDA [Food and Drug

Administration] to review the prevention of mitochondrial DNA diseases through germline

modification (Cohen and Adashi). Gene editing would allow scientists to fix mutations in

mitochondrial DNA and ultimately prevent these mutations from being inherited. The ban

on germline modification is preventing scientific advancements that could put an end to

mitochondrial disease and is allowing thousands of people to continue suffering. People are

dying and will continue to die because the technology that could save them is being put out

of reach. To halt advancements in genetic editing is the same as denying these individuals

the cure to their suffering, and this is immoral. It is the obligation of the United States to

ensure the health of its citizens and the way to do this is to allow research on genetic

modification of human embryos.

Legalization of the practice would also allow for accountability to ethical guidelines

and public transparency. Once a technology is discovered, there is no going back,

exploration is bound to happen even if it goes against restrictions set in place. Scientist such

as Edward Lanphier who is the president of Sangamo BioSciences in Richmond, California

have expressed their concerns for the developing technology pertaining to genetic

engineering:

CRISPR/Cas9 is known for its ease of use and Lanphier fears that more scientists

will now start to work towards improving on Huang's [the lead scientist responsible

for the first genetically engineered human embryo] paper. The ubiquitous access to

and simplicity of creating CRISPRs," he says, "creates opportunities for scientists in

 Arviso-Yazza 4

any part of the world to do any kind of experiments they want. (Cyranoski and

Reardon).

Once a technology is invented, no matter how controversial, there will always be someone

trying to exploit it. Even against huge ethical concern, scientist in China still went through

with experimentation on human embryos and there were at least four other groups in

China that began to pursue genetic modification of human embryos, even after the backlash

towards the experiments conducted at Sun Yat-sen University (Cyranoski and Reardon).

Along with this, according to Antonio Regalado, a writer for MIT Technology Review, a

least one U.S. genetics center is also using CRISPR in abnormal embryos rejected by IVF

clinics (Regalado). This experimentation is being done in secrecy, which is quite terrifying

because there is a complete lack of transparency and no accountability to ethical guidelines.

However, if limitations were lifted on gene editing, then at least such research would be

held accountable and be open to public dispute. In an article written for Scientific American

titled Why Embryos Should Not Be Off-Limits, it is states that: in the U.S., we wish basic

work on the germ line could be carried out with federal funding because it would provide

more resources and greater transparency (Why Embryos Should Not Be Off-Limits). With

public funding, scientists could research the technology more and would be able to work

towards the eventual goal of genetically engineering the first baby under the safest

conditions possible. If research in this area was federally funded, then there would be an

opportunity for public discourse and legitimate ethical standards put in place. Prohibition

on scientific advancement will never work, it has only lead to experiments done in secrecy
 Arviso-Yazza 5

which is both unethical and dangerous. This research is going to be conducted either way

and legalization of the practice is the only way to ensure that it conducted responsibly.

The biggest argument going against genetic engineering human embryos is all of the

risks that are imposed on the embryo if it is implanted into a uterus to develop into a baby.

While risks are incredibly important to consider, they should not be the main reason people

do not take advantage of technology because risks have been present for every single

medical advancement ever made. For example, look at the development of vaccines which

have been attributed to preventing diseases and saving millions of lives. Before the

invention of modern vaccines, existed the practice of inoculation. Individuals were exposed

to materials taken from a patient who was infected with the smallpox virus and received the

virus themselves in hopes of becoming immune. According to Stefan Riedeil,inoculation

was not without its attendant risks. There were concerns that recipients might develop

disseminated smallpox and spread it to others. Transmission of other diseases, such as

syphilis, via the bloodborne route was also of concern (Riedel). The risks associated with

inoculation were huge, but the continued application of the technology, regardless of its

hazares had great benefits. This lead to years of scientific advancements and the

development of vaccines, responsible for the eradication of smallpox and other diseases.

Scientific development is worth the risk, especially if it has the potential to save millions of

lives. Vaccines have been a huge medical success and genetic engineering could be another

huge success, if only people were willing to take the risk.

 Arviso-Yazza 6

It all comes down to a risk-benefit analysis and when comparing the possible risks

and benefits associated with germline editing, genetic modification of human embryos

should be allowed. In Germline Manipulation and our Future World, John Harris, the

Director of the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation at the University of Manchester

argues that the benefits of germline modification outweigh the potential risks:

If the appropriate gold standard test for permissible risk of harm to future

generations is sexual reproduction, other germline changing techniques (other than

sexual reproduction, that is) would need to demonstrate severe foreseeable dangers

to fail. MRT will prevent serious mitochondrial disease and the suffering it causes for

women with mitochondrial disease, their own children, and countless future

generations. This looks like a reasonable cost benefit strategy to attempt. (Harris).

According to Harris, even just sexual reproduction poses a huge risk on conceived

individuals. Uncertainty is simply unavoidable when it comes to the creation of human

beings. Regarding associated risks, there really is no difference between natural conception

and genetic modification of humans and thus genetically engineering human embryos

should be permissible. The presence of risks have never stopped the advancement of the

human race and should by no means begin to do so now.

Another contributor to the argument for the ban is that the risks are imposed

without the consent of the individual they are inflicted on. Another valid concern, but still

not a reason that should prevent a future of genetically modified human embryos. A

statement made by Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health,

explaining as to why NHI will not provide funding for genetic engineering human embryos
 Arviso-Yazza 7

discusses the serious and unquantifiable safety issues, ethical issues presented by altering

the germline in a way that affects the next generation without their consent (Collins). The

idea that Collins presents suggests that because there is lack of consent from individuals

who will be affected by germline genetic modification, it is an unethical practice. However,

this just simply doesnt make sense, as stated by Harris : it is irrelevant for the reason

that there are no relevant people in existence capable of either giving or withholding

consent to these sorts of changes in their own germline (Harris). People just arent capable

of giving consent if they do not exist, it is that simple. Future generations may be affect

without them ever having a say, but this is applicable for virtually everything. The future

cannot have a say on itself, it just isnt possible. There is no moral failing when it comes to

individual consent to genetic engineering because the developing embryo is incapable of

giving consent. Instead, consent must come from the parents, and only after public

discussion has occurred.

Genetic modification of human embryos has endless potential that should not be

ignored. A ban on such a technology would prevent advancement toward the cure to

disease and ensures the continued suffering of countless individuals. It would also be

counteractive to safety concerns because experiments would occur in secrecy, without

regard to ethical guidelines and public discourse. Germline editing possesses countless

possible benefits that greatly outweigh the risks and should be taken advantage of, not

denied.
 Arviso-Yazza 8

Works Cited

Anton, Roman. "On Recent Advances in Human Engineering." Politics & the Life Sciences,

vol. 35, no. 2, Fall 2016, pp. 54-68. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1017/pls.2016.17.

Cohen, Glenn., and Adashi, Eli. "The FDA Is Prohibited from Going Germline." Science, vol.

353, no. 6299, 05 Aug. 2016, pp. 545-546. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1126/science.aag2960.

Cyranoski, David., and Reardon, Sara. Chinese scientists genetically modify human

embryos. nature, Macmillan Publishers Limited, 22 Apr. 2015,

http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos

Frequently Asked Questions. UMDF, United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, 2016,

https://www.umdf.org/faq-page-1.

Harris, John. "Germline Manipulation and Our Future Worlds." American Journal of

Bioethics, vol. 15, no. 12, Dec. 2015, pp. 30-34. EBSCOhost,
 Arviso-Yazza 9

Regalado, Antonio . Chinese Team Reports Gene-Editing Human Embryos. M

IT

Technology Review, MIT Technology Review, 22 Apr. 2015,

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/536971/chinese-team-reports-gene-editing-huma

n-embryos/.

Riedel, Stefan. Edward Jenner and the history of smallpox and vaccination. NCBI,

Baylor University Medical Center, 18 Jan. 2005,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC.

Salzberg, Steven. "Ready or Not, Human Bioenhancement Is Coming." Genewatch, vol. 28,

no.

3, Oct-Dec 2015, pp. 10-11. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=116224091&site=ehost-live.

"Why Embryos Should Not Be Off-Limits." Scientific American, vol. 313, no. 1, July 2015, p.

10.

EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=103166938&site=eho

st-live.