With the advent of disruptive technologies like gene, RNA, and cell treatments that allow researchers to address illnesses in innovative ways, medicine is at a turning point. It is poised for significant change (Busch 140). CRISPR gene editing contributes a critical role in escalating these changes by enabling the correction of DNA errors without any challenges. The rate at which this issue progresses has attracted various dialogues concerning potential societal, safety, and ethical issues. Ultimately there are opposing debates surrounding CRISPR gene editing, with some arguments supporting the problems while others are going contrary.
The quick uptake and eventual supplanting of prior gene-editing methods by CRISPR technology are due in part to its comparative cost, efficiency, scalability, accuracy, and programmability. These are the supportive arguments surrounding the issue of CRISPR gene editing technology(Busch 141). Despite its potential display, there are still arguments that tend to take CRISPR technology negatively. Majorly, the opposing dialogues try to talk of the danger of the CRISPR is unpredictable for the future, it is believed to compromise patient’s safety, and its ethical concerns are significantly questionable. This analysis will focus on unique arguments towards CRISPR gene editing that would improve people’s understanding of biology and create awareness of the issue’s risks.
According to Alex Mit, the ability to stop deadly genetic illnesses like Huntington’s or cystic fibrosis illness is among the most attractive benefits of utilizing CRISPR to modify human embryos. Mutations in a single gene bring these on. Thus the kid would be born healthy if that gene could be fixed (Miguel 113). However, the Chinese researcher argued contrary to Alex’s argument and claimed that they examined the CRISPR by testing whether it could modify a human embryo only to realize the source was not viable, which meant that it could not survive up to the delivery period. Still, it could only forecast the results of the pregnancy. Also, the parents with children with inherited diseases had a positive attitude towards CRISPR and were always excited that their children would recover through this technology. Contrary to this gay, Sara argued that her son died of the genetic disease immediately after he was born; therefore, it’s true that this technology is more effective than the doctors could have used to save her son.
In addition, reports from Ed Yong Atlantic reported in favor of CRISPR. They suggested that gene editing might also be used to alter genes that reduce the likelihood of getting or developing illnesses like HIV/AIDS, in addition to disorders with straight ford effects (Clapp et al. 62). On the other hand, the same Ed Yong Atlantic made a negative observation where they observed that the same editing technology that reduced the likelihood of HIV aids also increased the chances of the West Nile virus patients to die. Also, experts from Vitro-fertilization argue that the safety of gene editing is guaranteed.
Richard Hamermesh gives a technological advantage for gene editing when he says that gene editing has been very transformative in technical relations to medicine. He provides an example of an incidence where the possibility of deleting genes resulting in certain diseases would be possible to relieve some from such conditions. This would apply to an individual with a single disease mutation. However, the business school of précises medicine accelerates denounces this, arguing that the editing of a human embryo or gene editing is a process that involves ethical practice and, therefore, it may call for a lot of time trying to figure out what is right or wrong and finally the pursued decision may turn out unethical.
In the context of the law community against in favor of gene editing, they articulate that The scientific community regulates itself via peer review, public criticism, promotions, university connections, and financing, as opposed to the government, which utilizes the law. Dr. He gave an example of someone who (supposedly) violated scientific norms and Chinese law (Siebert et al. 620). That doesn’t imply you should stop legal researchers from doing their study. In this context, the scientific community tries to mean that genet editing is a research forum; therefore, it should be allowed to motivate the researcher. On the other hand, Cohen suggests that Problematic discussions of public policy or ethics are disconnected from the state of the science. In this, he means that no matter how the aspect tries to motivate the researchers, it is worth national consensus discussion to approve its worthiness to the people it may affect.
From a scientific view perspective, professor Egan argues in the context of whether the gene editing technology will have negative or positive effects on the Child’s future. If the results seem optimistic, then the risk-benefit is worth considering. Therefore according to him, considering the couple benefits associated with gene editing over its disadvantages, it is worth taking the risk-benefit responsibly (Peng 2820). However, Catherine Rachofsky, a gynecologist, goes contrary to this by articulating that her researches on the medical experiences of women in hospitals undergo a lot of constraints upon embryo editing. Additionally, according to some Americans, gene editing technology was a crucial intervention for people living with HIV, given that America is Avery stigmatizing country for people living with HIV. Thus many Americans with HIV could welcome the intervention primarily to secure them from such situations. On the other hand, Sheila Jeanne argues contrary to this by saying that this notion is only customized in America and that those who accepted the intervention were HIV-infected individuals who desperately accepted it. According to her, the issue is viewed differently in other countries. Thus America should focus on including other notions from the families, such as whether the parents would be happy to have designer children.
Moreover, the global observatory articulate gene editing program will set a very significant forum from which students may learn and have a chance to interact with people from all over the world through international laboratory tests in pursuance of the program test. However, Sheila Jeanne still denounces this by advocating that teaching students programs that will keep changing would be unnecessary. She gives examples of similar programs which ended up failing artificial intelligence programs.
In conclusion, both opposing points have compelling points regarding their perception of CRISPR gene editing. The supporting group is trying to portray the advantages such as technological and scientific benefits associated with the programs and the advantage of disease protection such as HIV/AIDs. On the other hand, the opposing side offers their opposition significantly, their argument is primarily based on precautionary notions, and they display the unethical part of the program and the threats of the disease that may come along with the dene editing program. A declaration issued at the Wingspread Conference in 1998 states that when an activity raises dangers of damage to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be applied even if some cause and effect links are not proven scientifically.
Busch, Gesa, et al. “Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose.” Agriculture and Human Values 39.1 (2022): 151-164.
Clapp, Jennifer, and Sarah-Louise Ruder. “Precision technologies for agriculture: Digital farming, gene-edited crops, and the politics of sustainability.” Global Environmental Politics 20.3 (2020): 49-69.
Miguel Beriain, Iñigo. “Should human germline editing be allowed? Some suggestions based on the existing regulatory framework.” Bioethics 33.1 (2019): 105-111.
Peng, Hanyang, et al. “A genome-editing nanomachine constructed with a clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats system and activated by near-infrared illumination.” ACS Nano 14.3 (2020): 2817-2826.
Siebert, Robin, Christian Herzig, and Marc Birringer. “Strategic framing of genome editing in agriculture: an analysis of the debate in Germany in the run-up to the European Court of Justice ruling.” Agriculture and Human Values 39.2 (2022): 617-632.