/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7724917/Artboard_1.jpg)
How it works is this: think of cas9 as a pair of molecular scissors that cut the DNA, and think of CRISPR as the guiding tool that takes the scissors to the exact position on the target gene to be cut. Once the gene is cut out CRISPR can then insert the desired gene. Although the science is far from perfect, so that no unwanted side effects can occur, like causing cancer while you're trying to cure HIV, later the science is expected to get better and could maybe cure some important diseases in the future.
The big problem with CRISPR/cas9 is an ethical/moral/social one, I think. Right now people are looking at it to cure disease, but there is already some talk about using it to choose certain desirable traits that people want in their children, in the future. There could be a day when a dominant "race" within the human race arises from this technology, and it will be based on who has the money to pay for it. People could be choosing to edit genes to create babies that are more attractive, taller, smarter, more athletic, and have other special gifts like musical talent. People who have these traits might want to mate with others whose traits have been "idealized," leading to a whole class of people at the "top" with these enhanced features. This is basically using gene editing in the lab to take eugenics to a whole new level. This technology poses a lot of ethical and moral questions. Is this really the kind of society we would want to live in?
Sources:
1. http://www.pharmatimes.com/web_exclusives/the_controversy_over_gene-editing_1274582
2. http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/UKVKRC977488142/OVIC?u=los42754&sid=OVIC&xid=b65b142f
3. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/future-of-food/food-technology-gene-editing/
4.https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1725-0
1. http://www.pharmatimes.com/web_exclusives/the_controversy_over_gene-editing_1274582
2. http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/UKVKRC977488142/OVIC?u=los42754&sid=OVIC&xid=b65b142f
3. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/future-of-food/food-technology-gene-editing/
4.https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1725-0
I think the idea of CRISPR might come dangerously close to eugenics. There’s certainly something worrying about giving people the ability to choose “better” human traits for their children. It’s often said that CRISPR could help reduce genetic diseases, but with business and profit fueling our country, it’s easy to see how controlling other characteristics could quickly become part of our society. Who will control the limits of this technology? If CRISPR becomes publicly used, will those with genetic diseases or certain characteristics be pressured into controlling the genetics of their children? Favoring certain traits over others is far too familiar to some of the darkest points in our country’s history.
ReplyDeletehttps://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6237/871.1
CRISPR is amazing innovative technology, that is only beginning to explore what can come from gene manipulation. We are able to literally cut into DNA and replace it with different nucleotides which will edit the genes. However, as helpful as it may seem by curing genetic diseases, I don't know if they should be able to be edited out. As much as I empathize with what people are going through, I think that beginning to edit out genetic diseases, will create this never ending list of things to edit out. I think that once we start, we will never stop and it will get to the point where we are controlling traits like eye color, and athletic ability, which isn't natural. I think that people get caught up in their imagination, and if they have this ability to control, and come up with this 'perfect' person, people will leap at the chances to do so. And this could end up creating lots of chaos. One of the reasons we are here today is to reproduce, and it just seems wrong to mess with this biological feature which has been working perfectly well for centuries. And try and change it when we have no idea what the outcome could possibly be. I think in this scenario it is better to be safe than sorry with CRISPR, and err on the side of caution.
ReplyDelete