Ethical Issues in Human Genetic Modification: A Bioengineering Perspective

Michel Ghose^*
*Correspondence: Michel Ghose, Department of Bioengineering, Higher National School of Biotechnology, New Town, Algeria, Email:

Introduction

The rapid advancements in genetic modification technologies, particularly with the advent of CRISPR-Cas9, have sparked significant debate over the ethical implications of altering the human genome. These powerful tools, capable of making precise edits to DNA, have the potential to revolutionize medicine by offering treatments for genetic disorders, enhancing human health and even eradicating hereditary diseases. However, they also raise complex ethical, social and philosophical questions that challenge our understanding of human identity, equity and the natural course of human evolution. The ability to directly modify human genes opens up the possibility of not only treating diseases but also potentially enhancing human capabilities, such as intelligence, physical appearance and longevity. These prospects, while promising, bring about concerns regarding the potential for misuse, unequal access and the creation of social divides based on genetic modifications. Furthermore, the concept of germline editing modifying the DNA that can be passed on to future generations raises the most profound ethical dilemmas, as it could have lasting consequences on the human gene pool. In this context, bioengineering faces the critical task of balancing the potential benefits of genetic modifications with the risks and ethical concerns they present. This discussion requires careful consideration of the moral boundaries of genetic manipulation, the responsibilities of scientists and policymakers and the societal impacts of creating genetically modified humans. This article explores the ethical issues surrounding human genetic modification from a bioengineering perspective, highlighting the challenges of ensuring safe, equitable and responsible applications of these transformative technologies [1].

Description

The recent advancements in genetic modification technologies, particularly with CRISPR-Cas9, have sparked an era of innovation in the field of bioengineering. These breakthroughs, which enable precise edits to the DNA of living organisms, hold vast potential to revolutionize medicine, agriculture and biotechnology. However, as with any groundbreaking technology, they bring forth a range of ethical issues, particularly when applied to human genetic modification. While the ability to alter the human genome could lead to significant medical advancements, such as curing genetic diseases or enhancing human traits, it also raises profound ethical questions about the extent to which we should interfere with human biology. At the core of this ethical debate lies the concept of human genetic modification, specifically the ability to modify the DNA of humans to correct genetic disorders or even enhance physical, cognitive, or emotional traits. Historically, genetic modification in humans was limited to the treatment of genetic disorders using methods like gene therapy, which involved inserting corrected genes into patients’ cells. These approaches were largely confined to treating specific conditions, such as cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy, without fundamentally altering the human genome.

However, the advent of CRISPR-Cas9 has introduced a new level of precision and efficiency, allowing for direct alterations to the DNA of human cells. This level of control opens the door to more ambitious goals, such as preventing hereditary diseases, altering physical characteristics like eye colour or height, or even enhancing human intelligence or longevity. The possibility of modifying the human genome to enhance traits or eliminate diseases is undoubtedly appealing, especially when it promises to eliminate suffering and improve the quality of life for future generations. For example, the ability to correct genetic mutations that cause debilitating conditions such as sickle cell anemia, Huntington’s disease, or Tay-Sachs disease would have profound implications for the lives of those affected and their families. Gene-editing techniques, such as CRISPR-Cas9, could offer the chance to permanently eradicate these disorders by directly correcting the mutations responsible for them. In theory, this could reduce or even eliminate the need for lifelong treatments, improve life expectancy and free individuals from the debilitating effects of these conditions. In cases where there is no cure for a particular disease, such as certain forms of inherited cancer, gene editing could potentially offer a path to prevention, allowing individuals to avoid the onset of such diseases altogether [2].

Despite these potential benefits, the idea of altering the human genome raises significant ethical concerns that cannot be overlooked. One of the most significant issues is the question of safety. While CRISPR-Cas9 offers remarkable precision in editing genes, it is not without risks. One of the primary concerns is the possibility of off-target effects, where unintended sections of the genome are altered, leading to unpredictable and potentially harmful consequences. These unintended changes could result in the activation of cancer-causing genes, the disruption of essential biological functions, or other unintended health complications. While much progress has been made in minimizing off-target effects, they remain a real concern, particularly when considering the use of gene-editing technologies in humans. Given the complexity of the human genome and the limited understanding of its full range of interactions, any genetic modification carries the risk of unforeseen consequences. Another key ethical concern surrounding human genetic modification is the issue of equity and access. The ability to edit the human genome raises the possibility of creating disparities in society, particularly when it comes to access to genetic enhancement or disease prevention. If these technologies become available, there is a real concern that only the wealthiest individuals or nations would have access to them, leading to a widening gap between those who can afford genetic enhancements and those who cannot. This could lead to a new form of genetic inequality, where individuals with access to genetic modification are able to gain significant advantages in terms of health, intelligence, physical appearance, or even social status. As a result, genetic modification could exacerbate existing societal inequalities, creating divisions between those with modified genes and those without [3].

This brings us to the broader question of the social and moral implications of human genetic modification. There are concerns that genetic enhancement could be used to create a new form of eugenics, where individuals are selected based on certain traits or characteristics, leading to a homogenization of humanity. The possibility of using genetic editing to create “designer babies,” where parents could choose specific traits for their children, raises the issue of whether we should be altering the course of human evolution in such a deliberate and controlled manner. While it is tempting to imagine a world where we can eliminate genetic diseases and enhance human capabilities, there is also a risk of undermining the diversity of the human experience. If we begin to selectively edit the human genome, we may inadvertently reinforce narrow standards of beauty, intelligence and other characteristics, potentially leading to societal pressures to conform to these standards. Moreover, the concept of germline editing the modification of the DNA of human embryos or germline cells raises unique ethical challenges. When genes are edited in germline cells, the changes are passed on to future generations, making the effects of the modifications permanent and inheritable. While this could be seen as an opportunity to eradicate genetic disorders from the human gene pool, it also raises the possibility of unintended consequences that may be difficult to predict or control. For example, if genetic modifications are introduced into the human germline, these changes could spread throughout the population, with unknown consequences for future generations. Additionally, there is the concern that germline editing could be used to enhance non-medical traits, such as intelligence, physical appearance, or athleticism, leading to questions about the ethics of designing future generations in this way. In essence, germline editing presents the possibility of reshaping human nature itself, creating a society where human beings are not born with an inherent set of traits but rather are shaped and customized based on societal preferences or parental desires [4].

There are also philosophical concerns surrounding the potential for genetic modification to undermine the concept of human autonomy. By intervening in the natural process of reproduction and altering the genetic makeup of future generations, we may be diminishing the role of free will in shaping human lives. If genetic enhancement becomes commonplace, individuals may feel pressure to modify their children to meet societal expectations or to give them an edge in life, reducing the value of natural human variation and choice. This could lead to a society where genetic traits are valued over personal qualities, such as character or creativity, which are not so easily defined or measured. The ethical considerations surrounding human genetic modification are further complicated by the broader context of how such technologies might be applied. For example, gene editing might be used not just to correct genetic disorders but also to address more complex issues, such as aging, mental health, or cognitive performance. While the idea of using genetic modification to slow aging or enhance mental capacities is appealing, it raises questions about the nature of these enhancements. Who decides what constitutes an “enhanced” human and what traits should be considered desirable? The potential for genetic modification to be used for non-medical purposes, such as enhancing intelligence or physical traits, may open the door to genetic discrimination and societal pressures to conform to certain ideals of perfection. In response to these concerns, many bioethicists argue for the need for rigorous ethical guidelines and regulations to govern the use of genetic modification technologies.

The focus should be on ensuring that these technologies are used in ways that promote human well-being, respect individual autonomy and safeguard against the potential for exploitation or harm. This includes a careful consideration of when and how genetic modifications should be allowed, as well as ongoing monitoring of the long-term effects of these technologies. Additionally, it is crucial that discussions surrounding human genetic modification involve a broad spectrum of voices, including ethicists, scientists, policymakers and the general public, to ensure that the decisions made reflect the values of society as a whole. Despite the ethical challenges, the potential benefits of human genetic modification cannot be ignored. The ability to prevent or cure genetic diseases, enhance human capabilities and improve quality of life holds tremendous promise. However, the ethical issues surrounding human genetic modification must be carefully considered and addressed to ensure that these technologies are used in a responsible and just manner. As the field of bioengineering continues to evolve, it is essential that we approach human genetic modification with caution, compassion and a deep sense of moral responsibility. Ultimately, the choices we make today will shape the future of humanity and determine how we navigate the complexities of genetic technology in the years to come [5].

Conclusion

In conclusion, the potential of human genetic modification holds immense promise, offering groundbreaking opportunities to eliminate genetic diseases, enhance human health and shape the future of our species. Technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 have ushered in a new era of precision gene editing, bringing us closer than ever to understanding and modifying the genetic code that underpins human life. However, as these technologies advance, they bring with them complex ethical, social and philosophical challenges that demand careful consideration and reflection. As we navigate this uncharted territory, it is crucial to approach human genetic modification with a framework that balances scientific progress with ethical responsibility. This requires not only stringent safety regulations but also inclusive dialogue across various disciplines, from bioethics to law, from policymakers to the general public. The regulation of such powerful technologies must be informed by a shared commitment to promoting human well-being, autonomy and fairness, ensuring that genetic modification is used for the benefit of all and not just a privileged few.

Acknowledgment

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Stadtmauer, Edward A., Joseph A. Fraietta, Megan M. Davis and Adam D. Cohen, et al. "CRISPR-engineered T cells in patients with refractory cancer."Sci367 (2020): eaba7365.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Gier, Rodrigo A., Krista A. Budinich, Niklaus H. Evitt and Zhendong Cao, et al. "High-performance CRISPR-Cas12a genome editing for combinatorial genetic screening."Nat Commun 11 (2020): 3455.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Fernandez-Lazaro, Cesar I., Juan M. García-González, David P. Adams and Diego Fernandez-Lazaro, et al. "Adherence to treatment and related factors among patients with chronic conditions in primary care: A cross-sectional study."BMC Fam Pract20 (2019): 1-12.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Zhang, Feng, Le Cong, Simona Lodato and Sriram Kosuri, et al. "Efficient construction of sequence-specific TAL effectors for modulating mammalian transcription."Nat Biotechnol 29 (2011): 149-153.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Young, Colin M., Casey Quinn and Mark R. Trusheim. "Durable cell and gene therapy potential patient and financial impact: US projections of product approvals, patients treated and product revenues."Drug Discov Today27 (2022): 17-30.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at