The possibility of employing revolutionary new gene editing technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9 to modify the DNA of wild animals and plants has raised serious ethical questions about the interference with nature. CRISPR technology allows for the accurate editing of organisms’ genomes by deleting certain parts of DNA and then inserting synthetic gene sequences. Such a capability could be used for wild populations, and some of the reasons for that seem noble, such as eliminating disease-transmitting insects or saving endangered species (Wise & Borry, 2022). These technology applications are directed towards eliminating malaria-carrying mosquitoes like Anopheles gambiae using “gene drives” and increasing adaptation of the threatened species, such as the American pika, to climate change through genetic enhancement. While the purpose of applying these technologies to wildlife may seem to be alleviating human suffering from insect-borne illnesses and conserving biodiversity, it raises challenging ethical questions concerning environmental ethics and unintended consequences.This essay will argue that, although both objectives seem noble, there are solid ethical reasons to be cautious and not to use genetic modification of wild species with technologies such as CRISPR in all cases, except in a few instances where the benefits outweigh the risks.
The first purpose of CRISPR proposed is to eradicate species like mosquitos which transmit diseases that take a lot of human lives, for example, malaria. In 2019, malaria claimed more than 400,000 lives, with most of the casualties being children under five years old in sub-Saharan Africa (Wise & Borry, 2022). Malaria eradication by the Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes that transmit it will be achieved by wiping out this species of mosquitos, thus preventing the suffering of many humans. However, the deliberate extinction of a species sets a disturbing trend for environmental management. Extinction is permanent, and we can’t predict all the outcomes. Mosquitoes are food for many organisms and pollinate plants, and if they are gone, there may be an ecological niche for even worse pests (Wise & Borry, 2022). Besides the fact that they help us mitigate human disease burdens, species have the values they deserve as they are not related to human interests. Purposefully removing a species from the face of the Earth is not the right way to preserve life and, eventually, the whole ecosystem.
The second proposed CRISPR application is increasing the survival chances of species threatened by climate change, like the American pika in the Western USA. This goal identifies our moral responsibility since human activity is the leading cause of climate change, which is one of the biggest threats to the existence of many species. Nevertheless, fixing one environmental issue with the other harm with more interventionist is not a solution. Genetically modified organisms released into the wild population could cause an unwanted trait to spread very fast. The most dangerous technique is gene drive, which aims to achieve fast genetic changes across the population by ensuring the edited genes are inherited (Palmer, 2016). In an attempt to fix what we don’t understand, we could accidentally collapse food webs or destabilize ecological communities terribly. However, preserving biodiversity is not enough, and the ability of species to adapt to natural selection pressure is a sign of a healthy ecosystem that can withstand environmental changes. Dominance by genetic manipulation should not be promoted, but species survival can be ensured by mitigating climate change and preserving natural habitats.
The most crucial argument for using gene editing technology against malaria-carrying mosquitoes is that it saves millions of people from suffering and pain caused by infectious diseases (Wise & Borry, 2022). In 2019, malaria was responsible for the death of more than 400,000 people, even though the prevention of this disease did much work. Yellow fever, dengue, Zika, and other mosquito-borne diseases are also massive health and economic problems worldwide, especially for poor countries in the tropics (Wise & Borry, 2022). Eliminating the main disease vectors would free millions from debilitating illnesses, saving many lives and creating an environment for greater prosperity without being hampered by illness. If transgenic mosquitos will prevent humans from suffering, the species’ intrinsic value becomes less urgent. Besides, refusing to apply means to prevent such mass suffering also seems deeply unethical. While ecosystem stability provides one value, being free from the pain and suffering that comes with species extinction is a more robust moral duty for human life.
The present extinction of biodiversity also makes more aggressive interventions necessary. The habitat destruction and climate change, which are driven predominantly by human activity, put at risk over one million wild species that are likely to go extinct in the following decades, including 20% of all species on earth, which makes ethical arguments that we, therefore, have a responsibility to protect the species within ecosystems we have destroyed (Palmer, 2016). The principles of humility and the independence of nature suggest that we should intervene no further; however, acting as the cause of mass extinction is also an ethical violation of our responsibility to limit the environmental harm from human activity. In order to interfere with the natural evolution of endangered species to save them from the effects of climate change is morally questionable, but so too is to stand by and watch the accelerating loss of biodiversity. In the face of habitat destruction, climate change, and pollution, where habitat destruction, climate change, and pollution destroy nearly one-quarter of species, from the point of view of environmental ethics that focuses on ecosystem stability, active conservation efforts become compelling, whatever the risks. However, options such as habitat maintenance should be attempted before genetic techniques that are considered high-risk are used.
Several ethical issues appear against the application of gene editing aimed at disease-carrying species or those threatened by climate change. First, valuing wild species only as a tool to be modified or eradicated violates the inherent worth of nature. Species have evolved into the intricate networks they are today through complex interactions over millions of years to fit in the niches of successful and stable ecosystems (Palmer, 2016). By design, populations are destroyed, and healthy communities are established by natural selection. Even though climate change threatens many species, humans’ continuing domination of nature aggravates the past damage and does not correctly reflect the value of biodiversity. Every species has its inherent and aesthetic value that is unlike any human interest, and changes for which we aggressively use technological manipulation, whatever the intention, are disrespectful (Rolston, 1985). Hence, eradicating species for malaria control or climate rescue is an unacceptable instrumental dominion of the complex ecosystems that we have an imperfect understanding of.
Second, the extinction of a species is irreversible because we cannot anticipate the consequences of destroying a complex organism like mosquitos from an ecosystem. The potential risks include other pests or even slight disruptions that could lead to a chain reaction and the collapse of the food chain. While assessing extinction risks is complex, the precautionary principal advocates avoiding human-induced environmental changes, even with uncertain consequences (Rolston, 1985). Because of trophic cascades, which are challenging to model, we should be cautious not to change ecosystems so that we inadvertently create unforeseeable risks. Thus, ecological eradication is profoundly ethically problematic from an environmental ethics viewpoint focused on ecosystem stability, considering the unpredictability of extinction consequences.
Furthermore, the risks associated with gene drives go beyond the elimination of the target species such as malaria mosquitos. They aim to spread edited genes by 100% inheritance instead of 50% (Rolston, 1985). However, the transgenic organisms may mate with wild ones, and the synthetic genes may quickly spread over the ecosystems, given their special dominance (Palmer, 2016). Daisy chain gene drives may limit spread but it is very hard to isolate ecologically. Livelihoods being interconnected means genetic changes usually go through the food webs in unpredictable ways. The release of gene-drive organisms may lead to unplanned genes that contaminate wild species and spread uncontrollably with the potential for adverse ecosystem effects that are hard to predict. Thus, applying gene editing for the noble aim of conservation can disturb the balance of the complex system of thriving ecological communities.
Finally, having considered both sides of reasoning I content that although the human health and conservation benefits of synthetic gene editing are undeniable, there are strong ethical arguments for not using it in the wild populations due to the risks of disrupting thriving ecosystems that were developed over many generations of natural selection. A fundamental conflict lies in whether human suffering is prevented by eliminating species or whether the inherent value of animal life is respected within stable ecosystems. In the same way, restoring biodiversity lost from anthropogenic climate change has to balance the demand to protect nature from the damage caused by humanity and further dominate the complex environmental systems that we do not fully understand. Therefore, I conclude that extreme caution is indispensable for genetic interventions on wildlife since unintended consequences are not easy to predict. While synthetic gene technologies like CRISPR should be used in wild populations only after careful evaluation of environmental risks and only in cases where the benefits outweigh the potential of disrupting intrinsically valuable evolved ecosystems, they may be used in wild populations. The ethical values of ecological humility and non-interference, not mastery, should be the guiding principles in assessing the genetic modification of wildlife.
References
Palmer, C. (2016). Saving species but losing wildness: Should we genetically adapt wild animal species to help them respond to climate change. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 40(1), 234-251.
Rolston, H. (1985). Duties to endangered species. BioScience, 35(11), 718-726.
Wise, I. J., & Borry, P. (2022). An ethical overview of the CRISPR-based elimination of Anopheles gambiae to combat malaria. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 19(3), 371-380.
write