Applying scientific procedures to organisms has been a controversial topic in modern societies. We are still waiting to hear the end of it soon due to continued advancement in medical inventions. Narrowing down to genetic editing, the topic divides scientific organizations and society right down the middle. Modern advances in this practice have introduced CRISPR technology, which is quite efficient in cutting DNA without supplementing the technology with enzymes. From an impartial perspective, genetic editing promises a solution to some of the terminal diseases experienced in society today and increased crop production, which would ensure food security. However, the ethical ramifications and the safety of the practices on human health oppose the application of genetic editing. Intrinsically, applying genetic editing technologies such as CRISPR in the medical field would be vital for improving the quality of life and addressing urgent concerns in medical care.
Background information.
Genetic editing has been making progress in the medical field with modifications to the systems, thanks to new research making vital improvements. Genetic editing has been integral to treating terminal illnesses, especially those with hereditary characteristics. In recent studies, hereditary diseases such as HIV, which can be passed on from parent to offspring, have also been addressed with the discovery of CRISPR in genetic editing. The biomedical community is excited and alarmed by CRISPR’s potential to modify various genome types with unprecedented simplicity (Brokowski and Adli 88). After Francisco Mojica discovered Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) and their role in the immune system of bacteria, the same has been replicated in mammals, targeting embryos to reduce the prevalence of certain diseases such as cancer and HIV in newborns.
Mojina discovered the repeating genetic sequences in bacteria, remnants of genetic code from past exposure to invaders. This protects the bacteria from macrophages since the immune memory enhances its ability to fight invaders and prevent diseases. Similarly, the same can be applied to humans, and it is a better intervention as its targets can be modified with customized RNA to lead them to the target DNA strands and where the DNA cutting should occur. CRISPR does not need complementary cleavage enzymes attached alongside it to facilitate the DNA-cutting process, which makes it an ideal addition to the genetic editing realm. Still, at its initial stages, scientists globally agree that the potential of CRISPR is mind-blowing as it could alter the approach to disease treatment. According to Alonso & Savulescu (260), CRISPR technology targets enhancing human nature and can also be viewed as a medical tool. Chemotherapy may be shunned for cancers with a robust hereditary linkage in favor of CRISPR-related treatment methods.
Definition
CRISPR is a bacterial autoimmune process in bacteria where the organisms react to bacteriophages. The mechanism has been adopted as part of genome engineering, where CRISPR is programmed to target a specific stretch in a gene and correct certain traits with medical relevance. The location accuracy of the program provides new avenues for disease treatment, such as cancer and other viral-related infections in humans. Besides, the site-specific genetic messages can be applied as a diagnostic tool for various infections since they can identify the genetic causes of different infections and apply corrective measures towards the same. Initially, CRISPR was discovered in archaea before recent studies discovered the same procedure in bacteria. The structural appearance of CRISPR is repeated genetic codes, which are occasionally interrupted by “spacer sequences,” which are interpreted as the remains of the genetic code from a past infection.
To implement the criterion, the “spacer sequences” are copied into an RNA whose role is to guide it to a corresponding DNA sequence to effect the desired change. Once it binds to the target, CRISPR produces an enzyme (CAS-9) that attaches to the target sequence and cuts it off. This shuts the targeted gene sequence off; hence, the traits to be expressed are no longer a threat to the system’s functionality. Thus, the development of the traits is suppressed by the gene targeting this specific site. Alternatively, scientists would allow the gene expression for study purposes in some ways where the gene sequence is left to express itself in some test organisms to contribute to additional research in the area.
Benefits of CRISPR
There are numerous benefits to the practice from a medical perspective. CRISPR improves the treatment process, and the outcomes of CRISPR improve the quality of life of the patients. In an experiment done on CRISPR, the procedure was done to suppress the expression of HIV in an embryo. In 2018, children in China were born with natural immunity to HIV thanks to genetic editing by CRISPR. Tackling disease expression at an embryonic stage was an ideal intervention and could be the future for most disease treatments. Therefore, CRISPR could be adopted to ensure quality care in modern healthcare. Because CRISPR facilitates disease tracking from an embryonic stage to the later stages of life, it could improve the quality of life at different stages. This opens new avenues of disease management that have never been explored in a healthcare setting.
Moreover, CRISPR is used to develop animal and cell models in global laboratories. These models have been used as diagnostic tools for different infections in the medical field. Further, the models are used in genetic editing studies, which help develop solutions for different health problems. Through the genes expressed and the different trials the models are exposed to, it is easy to identify abnormalities in gene expression. The study of cancer cells at the molecular level is astounding, and it provides new insight into understanding the disease and how CRISPR can change the course of cancer treatment.
Additionally, CRISPR is proving to be more efficient in the genetic engineering field as it is easily outstanding in genetic editing. The procedure does not require alignment with other cleaving enzymes to cut DNA and suppress gene expression during replication. This reduces the procedure’s cost and time to research medical issues and develop the ideal cure. Besides, CRISPR is superior to other gene editing tools since it allows targeting multiple genes and facilitates DNA cutting at multiple sites of production.
The Problem and Risks
The increased risk of off-target DNA due to CRISPR technology has not been quantified because it is yet to be comprehensively understood. Therefore, individuals exposed to gene editing technology face a high risk of developing complications related to off-target action by CRISPR technologies. Besides, the medical advancement in the world today has not developed drugs in case one is exposed to off-target genetic action. Although the process is hailed for its site-specific gene action, there is still room for error in every technological process. Understanding how much risk this would cause to the patient and developing post-exposure prophylaxis drugs for the treatment of the same should be the health sector’s priority before the procedure can be practiced on different patients.
Furthermore, the CRISPR procedure also risks rogue rearrangement during genetic editing. This is facilitated by the concepts of modern elements, which have been used to explain the origin of viruses and some cancers in the human cell. Through retrotransposition, gene sequences are positioned in new locations and create new characteristics for the individual. Therefore, the CRISPR procedure is a modification of retrotransposition. Just like errors in arrangement result in cancer, the CRISPR procedure can also result in defects in cell morphology. In this case, the ramifications still need to be better understood. Therefore, this unquantified risk exposure to patients is too much of a burden for healthcare.
Why CRISPR Should Continue to be Applied in the Society
The insights gained into cell mechanics through CRISPR address numerous contemporary problems in a healthcare setting. Problems such as sickle cell anemia, which continues to affect millions of individuals worldwide, are common health problems today. The struggle against the disease affects several individuals in different lifestyle settings. There is only one treatment option with high risks for individuals with sickle cell anemia. Bone marrow transfer is the only medical procedure that can address the problem, but the procedure faces an increased risk of complicating the patient’s lifestyle. The bone marrow transplant depends on compatibility between the donor and recipient cells. If the cells are incompatible, the donor cells will likely attack the host cells and cause host immunity complications. Hence, CRISPR is the ideal treatment option for such infections, posing lower risks. The same concept is used to exonerate a doctor in Mexico who implemented a mitochondrial replacement; when questioned, “he simply responded: ‘To save lives is the ethical thing to do”( Alonso and Savulescu 564). Hence, the concept of healthcare is to improve living conditions and reduce mortality, ensuring quality care.
Nevertheless, CRISPR has been applied across different immune systems to fight cancer and tumors. The article by Gale emphasizes that CRISPR “shows promise as a novel treatment for cancer, where cloned antibodies can be paired with other chemotherapies to more effectively attack cancerous tumors.” (Gale 2). The gene editing procedure has been successfully applied to treat tumors at the University of Pennsylvania. Further research has been directed toward finding the cure for cancer in healthcare. Previously, cancer treatment was achieved through CAR-T cell therapy, where the T-cells were edited to add a warhead on the surface to target specific cancer cells. However, this criterion was partially ineffective due to the short life spans of the immune cells and reported inaccuracy when capturing the target cells. Therefore, CRISPR comes in as the proper intervention, such that with the insertion of triple gene-edited cells, the life span of the cells was increased to around nine months, and there were few reported side effects from the experiment conducted on the cells. Notably, with technological advancements, there is the hope of bettering the situation to new levels, which would help make CRISPR the appropriate treatment.
Ultimately the procedure can be customized to meet societal expectations in different ways. The research on CRISPR is done within ethical confines, and different experts are made aware of the societal and ethical confines before engaging in research. Bu (115) argues that the policies governing ethical principles might be outdated, preventing the effectiveness of the law in protecting human subjects as they do not capture gene editing. The development complicated ethical policing in relation to human gene editing as there are no current laws to criminate the practice. As much as the pursuit of scientific knowledge drives research, individuals are guided on what to expect. Besides, the treatment is understandably reserved as a last resort since there is no comprehensive knowledge about the safety of the procedures. Ideally, the genetic editing procedure complements most treatment methodologies and maintains the integrity of different treatment methods by replacing imperfect or error-proof treatment parts.
Counter arguments.
Although gene editing improves the quality of life and increases the chance of fighting some long-term infections, there are still opposing sides to the phenomenon. Focusing on the CRISPR procedure has attracted criticism, and most of its adverse effects have been outlined. The public raises ethical concerns about the practice whenever the question of its practicability in the system is raised. Alonso and Savulescu (571) state that gene editing breaches personal rights in cases where the experiment goes wrong. The aspect of risking a person’s life for the sake of science does not sit well with some individuals. Individuals believe that genetic editing is likened to playing God and that altering the natural forms of genes is unethical. Since the spiritual realm intersects with the social realm, the situation does not sit well with the majority of the population in society. It fractures the beliefs of most individuals, and most are unwilling to undergo the process and change their genetic makeup. Most regard the concept of long life as an illusion, and diseases are part of natural evolution. Correcting these defects to create a disease-free world is therefore rendered unethical.
Furthermore, CRISPR and other genetic editing methods are regarded as sources of classism and tools of inequality in society. The processes are expensive, and an ordinary person may struggle to raise money for these expensive processes. Most of the processes are currently above $ 1 million; hence, their affordability is limited to a segment of the population (Hodges and Conlon 98). Therefore, it drives the notion that healthcare is for the rich and those who can afford it. Reducing the cost of the processes might be a solution, but presently it presumably is still a concern for a section of the population.
Additionally, the health risks associated with CRISPR are not clearly defined, which could be attributed to the scant research on the topic. The procedure may be a solution to a present disease, but it gives room for more complications in an individual’s health. The need to develop more research into this area is the ideal solution to the problem, as scientists have yet to understand CRISPR’s side effects. The prevalence of cancer in patients who have undergone gene editing is expected to be high, making it hard to trust these procedures as alternative disease treatment methods. Understanding these side effects would be central to ensuring the development of quality care in matters relating to gene editing.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Retrospectively, gene editing has been crucial in the transformation of healthcare. Through processes such as genetic realignment, the individual’s susceptibility to congenital infections is controlled. Therefore, in an ideal setting, the CRISPR procedure can change the future of medicine. Still, they must meet society’s ethical expectations to reach these levels, and the benefits must outweigh the ramifications. Thus, CRISPR should be applied in cases where terminal diseases have taken their toll and the treatment alternatives are exhausted. Keeping the procedure as a part of the social health framework would give treatment hope for some terminal cases. Since health care aims to reduce mortality and improve quality of life, CRISPR should not be abolished but somehow improved to different heights. It should incorporate other treatment measures and be ideal for both opposing factions of the debate.
Work Cited
Alonso, Marcos, and Julian Savulescu. “He Jiankui’ s gene‐editing experiment and the non‐identity problem.” Bioethics 35.6 2021: 563–573.
Brokowski, Carolyn, and Mazhar Adli. “CRISPR ethics: moral considerations for applications of a powerful tool.” Journal of molecular biology 431.1 (2019): 88-101.
Bu, Qingxiu. “Reassess the law and ethics of heritable genome editing interventions: Lessons for China and the world.” Issues L. & Med. 34 2019: 115.
Genetic Engineering.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2019. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints
Hodges, Craig A., and Ronald A. Conlon. “Delivering on the promise of gene editing for cystic fibrosis.” Genes & diseases 6.2 2019: 97–108.
write