Introduction
The rapid changes and technological developments recorded in the field of science have presented greater ethical concerns that human beings should take seriously than ever before. Some few proponents of germline genetic research and enhancement have indicated that the initiative is capable of delivering individuals who can excel in the global society and even have immunity against some of the dangerous diseases affecting humanity today, such as HIV/AIDS. While this field is still in its infancy, its social, ethical, and moral implications remain controversial. The discussion presented below gives a detailed analysis of the subject of genetically modified babies and the ethical values associated with the entire scientific process.
First Genetic Modified Twins
The Chinese government has been keen to support adequate financial support to different scientific and technological institutions to advance the field of biomedical research. In November 2018, Jian-Kui HE revealed to the world that he had succeeded in producing “the world’s first germline gene-edited babies and that these babies are immune to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)” (Li et al. 32). Many people received this information with great shock since it revolved around a major area that was governed by legal and ethical principles. The move was capable of defeating or undermining the moral objectives of human technology and biomedical research.
The report also triggered numerous discussions and analyzes regarding the social, political, and economic issues revolving around gene-editing practices. In China, the government indicated that such a practice or experimentation was against the local and international norms relating to human and clinical research activities.
Scientific Technique
Jian-Kui He’s story began when he started a biological project aimed at meeting the needs of persons who had fertility issues. He provided in vitro fertilization to such individuals to ensure that their babies did not have HIV/ADS even if one of the parents had the deadly disease. He considered the power of CRISPR gene editing to modify their DNAs. This is a bio-molecular technique that focuses on the CRISPR-Ca9 to edit the genome of a living organization. Such a technology entails the delivery of Cas9 nuclease combined with a guide RNA (gRNA) to the targeted genome. This method makes it easier for scientists to add or remove genes in vivo (Li et al. 33).
Jian-Kui HE edited the CCR5 gene of the acquired in an attempt to provide HIV resistance to the embryos. Such a process made it possible for Chinese scientists to deliver gene-edited twins for the first time in the world. The two of these girls were given the names Nana and Lulu respectively (Li et al. 33). The seriousness and nature of this story resulted in widespread disparagement in the fields of medicine, science, and technology.
People’s Views and Opinions
At first, many people in China were pleased with the breakthrough since they viewed it as a powerful practice for promoting gene editing and making it a powerful tool for preventing a wide range of diseases affecting mankind. However, things began to change when many bioethicists, scholars, scientists, and researchers started to challenge the legitimacy and appropriateness of He’s actions. Members of the public were against this scientific pursuit since it was unethical and a major threat to human posterity (Gyngell et al. 501). Li et al. indicate that such malpractices affected the Chinese medical research and scientific reputation in a negative manner (36).
Different societies and organizations involved in medical studies indicated that such a technology was unreliable and capable of presenting numerous risks. The decision to permit gene editing on human subjects could result in uncontrollable goals and make it possible for more biomedical researchers to undertake additional unethical researches.
Many leaders and editors in charge of different journals and publications were opposed to such a clinical operation for pursuing reproductive aims. The importance of promoting self-discipline and restraint within the field of genome editing became more pronounced than ever before (Macpherson et al. 5). These responses and views indicate that the creation of such genetic-modified twins was something wrong and in contravention of the established ethical and moral guidelines in the fields of biotechnology and science.
Advantages and Disadvantages: Designer Babies
The technology described above made it easier for He to help many individuals who had fertility challenges or were affected by the HIV/AIDS disease. The unethical act was to apply the process to produce twins who could resist the disease. However, some unique benefits or advantages make this kind of technology reliable and relevant in the field of scientific inquiry. Firstly, this genome editing process is efficient, simple, and capable of delivering results within a short period for people who are unable to have children. Secondly, its applicability to embryos makes it possible for scientists to reduce the time taken to target the specified genes (Mulvihill et al. 21).
This means that more people can get a new opportunity to have babies capable of meeting their demands or expectations in terms of appearance or resistance to various diseases. If such a process is permitted, more people will be willing to get designer babies of their own.
Despite the outstanding benefits and potential of genome editing, some issues have emerged that make it questionable and inappropriate. For instance, the case of He presents a major ethical dilemma whereby human beings can pursue this scientific model to modify God’s creation. The naturalness of all people is something that needs to be safeguarded against all technological goals and pursuits. Beamer goes further to indicate that the practice is capable of triggering unintended consequences (734). For example, the decision to fight a specific disease can affect the integrity of the genome and make it vulnerable to more genes.
Some individuals can record various complications, such as premature birth and miscarriages. Finally, the use of this technology amounts to a questionable process that is capable of affecting genetic diversity and altering the planet. The produced designer babies might eventually become a real threat to the true nature of human beings as the original inhabitants of this planet. This means that all scientists and professionals involved in the field should remain ethical and pursue what is right or capable of fulfilling mankind’s aims while at the same time protecting the integrity of the natural world.
Personal Thoughts
The whole concept behind gene editing is agreeable and capable of addressing most of the problems affecting human beings, such as terminal diseases, plant pests, and non-resistant crops. Those who are involved in this field should engage in continuous research to develop superior guidelines and procedures for delivering high-quality results. However, the practice needs to have a limit since the absence of strict laws, regulations, and policies will encourage some people to use it for personal gains (Li et al. 36). Constant supervision and monitoring of all ongoing researches revolving around the use of gene editing will ensure that all future scientists do not follow in He’s footsteps.
This analysis means that I am opposed to the whole practice of gene editing to produce designer babies. Such a process is unethical and threatens the true foundation and integrity of humanity. Those who allow the technological pursuit will create new opportunities for scientists to conduct additional experiments that might eventually have negative consequences on the future of all human beings. The produced babies will also lack parents and even be unable to receive the required moral support and guidance. Technology also threatens the social fabric and nature of every society (Li et al. 36).
The produced persons might become irresponsible after coming into terms with the realities of their true existence. The result is that society can become a different or alien place for all human beings and even be unable to achieve their aims.
Conclusion
Human enhancement remains a powerful force that compels people to undertake numerous research studies. However, this form of practice has resulted in unbelievable germline studies and experimentations that present a major ethical dilemma. While there are specific advantages associated with He’s original research aimed at benefiting couples who could not have children, new laws and policies must be introduced to prohibit any study aimed at enhancing or altering the human genome. Such a move will make it possible for the global community to navigate every emerging ethical uncertainty or question and ensure that scientists pursue this form of technology for beneficial gains only.
Works Cited
Beamer, Laura C. “Ethics and Genetics: Examining a Crossroads in Nursing through a Case Study.” Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, vol. 21, no. 6 (2017): 730-737.
Gyngell, Christopher, et al. “The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing.” Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 34, no. 4 (2017): 498-513.
Li, Jing-ru, et al. “Experiments that Led to the First Gene-Edited Babies: The Ethical Failings and the Urgent Need for Better Governance.” Journal of Zhejiang University Science B, vol. 20, no. 1 (2019): 32-38.
Macpherson, Ignacio, et al. “Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement.” Frontiers in Genetics, vol. 10, no. 767 (2019): 1-12.
Mulvihill, John J., et al. “Ethical Issues of CRISPR Technology and Gene Editing through the Lens of Solidarity.” British Medical Bulletin, vol. 122, no. 1 (2017): 17-29.