Critical Thinking Paper Human Germline Genetic Modification

Siena Butters
Cap 9
Blue Group
3/21/16

Due to recent developments in technology, doctors have been able to remove unwanted
genes in human embryos and replace them in the DNA sequence. A childs genetic makeup may
not only contain hereditary factors, but they may also be selected. If parents want their children
to be tall and have blue eyes, they will be able to have this with only a transaction of money.
These genetically modified babies are often referred to as designer babies, and present many
ethical problems as well as dangers. In some countries such as China, this genetic modification is
already beginning to take place. The United States Federal Government must enforce a ban on
the use of invasive human germline genetic modification techniques such as Clustered
Regularly-Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, or CRISPR, on human embryos, and
encourage other countries to do the same, because when misused it can lead to damaging the
gene pool and a loss of individuality, it can cause gaps in society as the procedure is only
attainable for the rich, and the procedure has risks and can cause termination of pregnancies.
After In-Vitro Fertilization, which is extraction of eggs and fertilization in the lab, was
first successfully used in 1978, scientists began to explore new possibilities with extracting
embryos. Many new developments came up over the years in genetic testing, such as
determining gender and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (Sherbahn). The Human Genome
Project, which began in 1990 and concluded in 2003, was one of the most important
developments in the field of genetics. Its purpose was to map out the human genes, and it
resulted in the discovery of over 1,800 disease genes. As a result of the Human Genome Project,
pre-natal genome screening came into place, which allows a fetus genes to be examined for
possible diseases or abnormalities (The Human Genome Project). This practice is
controversial, as some believe that knowledge of a babys abnormalities could lead to an increase
in pregnancy terminations. On August 13th, 1996, a girl named Jessica was born after her parents

sperm and egg were in vitro fertilized, producing many embryos, and they then selected an
embryo that would produce a girl (The FHE Team). Technology similar to this allows diseased
genes in embryos to be eliminated, as well as any other genetic traits to be inserted into the DNA
sequence. CRISPR is now able to edit genetic traits with more ease than ever before, acting as a
scalpel to delete and insert genes, using the DNA-cutting enzyme of Cas-9 (Corbyn). With China
already using it to alter human embryos, the U.S. needs to place a ban soon, because once
humans have access to tools such as CRISPR there is no going back, and the gene-pool of future
generations will be permanently damaged.
Genetic editing and designer babies could lead to a vanity-centric society, forever
changing the gene pool and eliminating diversity and individual expression. An open letter
organized by the Center for Genetics and Society states that the implementation of heritable
human genetic modification...could irrevocably alter the nature of the human species and
society. The tool of CRISPR allows edited genes to be heritable, and passed on to further
generations. If parents are given free-reign with their childs genes, children will look more
similar with one another, to fit the same standard of beauty. They will no longer look like their
parents, and the entire familys genetic lineage will be altered to whatever the parents pick their
childs genes to be. Undesirable traits, such as shortness and heaviness, will be greatly
diminished, and competition will arise to have the child with the best genetics, causing people
who posses these undesirable traits to be discriminated against and feel alienated.
This vanity-based society will create an imbalance in the worlds population. There is a
danger of having significantly more males than females, as males are valued more in many
cultures, as well as having significantly more fair-skinned people than dark skinned. A survey
taken in New York found that only 10 percent of a group who went for genetic counseling

...expressed interest in screening for tall stature (The Need to Regulate 'Designer Babies).
When people are able to pick traits that will make them superior, this will lead to an increase in
prejudice against those who do not possess more desirable traits, and a society that is based off of
physical appearance. A vanity-based society is extremely dangerous, because it can jeopardize
the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings and renew eugenics (Amelan). It
threatens to damage the population by decreasing individuality and increasing discrimination.
The CRISPR technology would only be affordable for the wealthy, and this would create
a division between the genes of the wealthy and the poor. In-Vitro Fertilization is already an
expensive process, and the process of gene editing would have a higher cost. Because traits
edited by CRISPR are passed down through generations, a separation would quickly grow
between the poor and the rich, with the wealthy being born with superior genes. Nina LissSchultz writes that CRISPR will exacerbate trends toward great inequality and further divide
the two social classes. A survey taken states that of a group, only 13 percent said they would be
willing to test for superior intelligence (The Need to Regulate 'Designer Babies). The
wealthy would be intellectually more advanced, and physically distinguished from the poor with
better looks, creating a physical separation between the two groups. They would also have fewer
disabilities and diseases. Professor Silver of Princeton predicts that genetically modified babies
will result in a separation of two classes based off of genetic makeup, with those without
modified genes being at the bottom of the social hierarchy. He states that [In a few hundred
years] the GenRich who account for 10 percent of the American population [will] all carry
synthetic genes (Skerrett). If CRISPR becomes an option for parents, the rich would have
better genes than the poor, as well as more opportunities based off of physical attractiveness
and intellectual prowess, causing inequality. As the rich will be able to have more dominance in

the nation, the poor will not be able to afford the enhancements, so their children will remain on
the bottom of the social scale as others rise up (Catalano). Genetic editing techniques can give
the rich a significant advantage, diminishing poor peoples rights and role in society.
Techniques such as CRISPR are not yet safe, and have many risks that can potentially
lead to miscarriage, maternal injury, and stillbirth, and could even result in undetected illnesses
that could affect the child later in life (Center for Genetics and Society). CRISPR technology
snips away pieces of the DNA sequence with a technique comparable to using nano-scissors.
This technique has room for error, and the tool could possibly cut out other genes outside of its
target, which could change their function (Skerrett). When the tool is supposed to have finished
its job, the component that cuts out genes may remain, and start cutting out other unintended
genes later on (Liss-Schultz). This could bring about one disease while attempting to prevent
another. Another risk of CRISPR occurs when change is made accurately in some of the
embryonic cells but not in all of them, which leads to further developmental problems in the
childs future. Considering using a technology with so many risks is detrimental, and a ban
would prevent many errors that would be harmful to people as a result of the development of
CRISPR.
Traits such as height, metabolism, intelligence, and susceptibility to disease are complex
multi-gene situations in which the environment plays critical roles (Skerrett). The procedure to
change these characteristics is more complicated than a single genetic change, and may result in
unintended effects, as the procedure is not foolproof and human error is a given. In an
experiment in China, CRISPR was used to replace a gene for a blood disorder with a healthy
gene in 86 human embryos. Of these, 71 grew to eight-celled embryos...the team tested 54 of
these for genetic modifications and found that just 28 of the embryos had been cut at the required

spot on the genome (Ghose). The experiment also resulted in some errors in cutting unintended
spots in the genetic sequence. If used, errors in CRISPR would result in a higher number of
discarded embryos, as well as people growing up with undetected side effects of the procedure.
Another major risk is present because genes often have more than one effect. Because of this, the
manipulation of one gene could result in the manipulation of a completely different trait. At
Princeton University, scientists performed an experiment on mice in order to increase their
intelligence, but they found that when they increased their intelligence, they also increased their
susceptibility to pain (Agar). Scientists are not yet fully knowledgeable about the effects of
genetic editing on fetuses later in life, and trying to improve a babys genes could possibly end
up doing more harm than good.
There are other, more non-invasive practices that are sufficient for preventing diseases in
babies and there is no point in using the risky practice of genetic modification when there are
safer alternatives. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a non-invasive procedure that
allows parent to see the genetic makeup of their child and scan for diseases. Eric Lander of the
Broad Institute argues that it would be cheaper and safer to perform in vitro fertilization
followed by pre-implantation genetic analysis of the embryos, and then to transfer only embryos
without the problematic gene (Skerrett). PGD has enabled thousands of parents to avoid
passing on serious genetic diseases to their offspring, and does not have the risks that geneediting procedures such as CRISPR do (The Need to Regulate Designer Babies). Prenatal
Screening Techniques also do not pose the risks of creating a non-diverse, vanity-based society,
or inequality between social classes, and therefore should be used instead of genetic-editing
techniques.

Creating designer babies with new genetic editing technology is not a viable option for
the future, and will result in inequality and loss of individuality. Although some believe that if
CRISPR were completely safe and used only for curing diseases, it would be beneficial to
society, this notion is not realistic. The process of making CRISPR safe will result in unnecessary
accidents and damage to embryos, and lines will become blurred between medical purposes and
enhancement purposes, harming future generations socially and genetically. CRISPR does help
cure and prevent diseases, but it is not worth the risks, and there are better alternatives. The
United States government needs to place a ban on gene-editing technology such as CRISPR to
ensure that people do not use it for unethical reasons.

Works Cited
Agar, Nicholas. "Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations." Actionbioscience. American Institute
of Biological Sciences, Apr. 2006. Web. 19 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/agar.html>.
Amelan, Roni. "UNESCO Panel of Experts Calls for Ban on Editing of Human DNA to Avoid
Unethical Tampering with Hereditary Traits." UNESCO. UNESCO. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
<http://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-panel-experts-calls-ban-editing-human-dna-avoidunethical-tampering-hereditary-traits>.
Catalano, Michael. "The Prospect of Designer Babies: Is It Inevitable?" The People, Ideas, and
Things Journal. PIT Journal, 2012. Web. 19 Mar. 2016.
<http://pitjournal.unc.edu/article/prospect-designer-babies-it-inevitable>.
Center for Genetics and Society. "Open Letter on Reproductive Human Germline Modification."
Letter. Nov. 2015. TS. <http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=8999>.
Corbyn, Zoe. "Crispr: Is It a Good Idea to Upgrade Our DNA?" The Guardian. Guardian News
and Media, 10 May 2015. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/10/crispr-genome-editing-dna-upgradetechnology-genetic-disease>.
The FHE Team. "Designer Babies." The Future of Human Evolution. Center for Evolutionary
Technologies. Web. 19 Mar. 2016. <http://futurehumanevolution.com/designer-babies>.
Ghose, Tia. "Human Embryo Editing Is Incredibly Risky, Experts Say." Live Science. 23 Apr.
2015. Web. 22 Apr. 2016. <http://www.livescience.com/50596-what-are-genome-editingrisks.html>.

"Human Genome Project." National Institute of Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Web. 18 Mar. 2016. <https://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?
csid=45>.
Liss-Schultz, Nina. "We Are This Close to 'Designer Babies.'" Center for Genetics and Society.
Center for Genetics and Society, 8 Feb. 2016. Web. 19 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=9174>.
The Need to Regulate 'Designer Babies.'" Scientific American. A Division of Nature America, 1
May 2009. Web. 20 Mar. 2016. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/regulatedesigner-babies/>.
Sherbahn, Richard. "PGD and IVF - Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis & In Vitro Fertilization,
Pros and Cons about PGD and PGS." Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago. Advanced
Fertility Center of Chicago. Web. 19 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.advancedfertility.com/preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis.htm>.
Skerrett, Patrick. "Experts Debate: Are We Playing with Fire When We Edit Human Genes?"
Stat. 17 Nov. 2015. Web. 18 Mar. 2016. <http://www.statnews.com/2015/11/17/geneediting-embryo-crispr/>.

Annotated Bibliography
Agar, Nicholas. "Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations." Actionbioscience. American Institute
of Biological Sciences, Apr. 2006. Web. 19 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/agar.html>. This website covers many
different subtopics on the subject of genetic modification in babies. It has information on
the ethical questions related to the procedure, as well as its impact on future generations.
It introduces safety concerns, as well as pros and cons. It also provides information on the
history of genetic modification and the science behind it.
Amelan, Roni. "UNESCO Panel of Experts Calls for Ban on Editing of Human DNA to Avoid
Unethical Tampering with Hereditary Traits." UNESCO. UNESCO. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
<http://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-panel-experts-calls-ban-editing-human-dna-avoidunethical-tampering-hereditary-traits>. This source contains information on international
standings about human germline genetic modification. It contains quotes from a
UNESCO meeting about the subject, which prove that genetic editing is unethical. It also
discusses recent developments leading up to the invention of CRISPR.
Catalano, Michael. "The Prospect of Designer Babies: Is It Inevitable?" The People, Ideas, and
Things Journal. PIT Journal, 2012. Web. 19 Mar. 2016.
<http://pitjournal.unc.edu/article/prospect-designer-babies-it-inevitable>. This source
covers past studies discoveries in genetic engineering, the procedure and implications of
current and future genetic editing technology, and information on the debate concerning
designer babies. It includes possible benefits, consequences, and scholarly opinions on
the topic. It also includes a survey on public opinion about genetic editing.

Center for Genetics and Society. "Open Letter on Reproductive Human Germline Modification."
Letter. Nov. 2015. TS. This open letter calling for a ban on Human Germline modification
includes information supporting many of my arguments. It presents many of the risks that
Human Germline modification will present and how it will negatively affect the world in
the future, with health and social aspects.
Corbyn, Zoe. "Crispr: Is It a Good Idea to Upgrade Our DNA?" The Guardian. Guardian News
and Media, 10 May 2015. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/10/crispr-genome-editing-dna-upgradetechnology-genetic-disease>. This source explores CRISPR as well as other germ-line
editing techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of each technique, and if they are viable
options for our future. It explains the controversy over CRISPR, and includes expert's
opinions on the topic. It also talk about hypothetical ways to make CRISPR more
effective, as well as explaining its risks.
Cussins, Jessica. "Should We Open the Door to Genetically Modified Babies?" CNBC. CNBC
L.L.C., 11 Aug. 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2016. <http://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/11/should-weopen-the-door-to-genetically-modified-babiescommentary.html>. This article is about the
possibility of opening the door to genetically modified babies, and the effects that this
would result in. It explores the international reaction to genetically modified babies, and
explains where countries currently stand on the position and in their research on the
subject. It also explores the different types of genetic modifications that are being used or
have the potential to be used on babies.
The FHE Team. "Designer Babies." The Future of Human Evolution. Center for Evolutionary
Technologies. Web. 19 Mar. 2016. <http://futurehumanevolution.com/designer-babies>.

This source explores genetic testing and editing on babies. It includes information on past
instances of gene-selection being used on babies in the United States. It also discusses the
ethics of "designer babies" by sharing multiple sides on the matter and public opinion, as
well as discussing its future societal impact.
Ghose, Tia. "Human Embryo Editing Is Incredibly Risky, Experts Say." Live Science. 23 Apr.
2015. Web. 22 Apr. 2016. <http://www.livescience.com/50596-what-are-genome-editingrisks.html>. This source is useful because it provides evidence on why CRISPR is not
ready for use, and gives examples detailing the risks. It offers statistical information on
error in experience with genetic-editing techniques, which supports my argument that
CRISPR has room for mistakes.
"Human Genome Project." National Institute of Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Web. 18 Mar. 2016. <https://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?
csid=45>. This source is from the National Institute of Health, and it is about the Human
Genome Project and developments in the field of genetics over the years. It contains
information about the history of the project, how it has affected current discoveries and
technology, and plans for the future.
Liss-Schultz, Nina. "We Are This Close to 'Designer Babies.'" Center for Genetics and Society.
Center for Genetics and Society, 8 Feb. 2016. Web. 19 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=9174>. This source is the website for
the Center for Genetics and Society, which is a credible organization that advocates
against genetic-editing in babies. It includes information on gene-editing using CRISPR,
and scientific information. It also includes arguments on why people are against the use
of this technology.

"The Need to Regulate 'Designer Babies.'" Scientific American. A Division of Nature America, 1
May 2009. Web. 20 Mar. 2016. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/regulatedesigner-babies/>. This source includes information on past attempts to solve the problem
of genetic diseases, such as Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis. Additionally, it has
information on different types of reproductive technology and their specific uses. It also
talks about the likelihood of designer babies and the want that many people in society
posses for desirable traits.
Sherbahn, Richard. "PGD and IVF - Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis & In Vitro Fertilization,
Pros and Cons about PGD and PGS." Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago. Advanced
Fertility Center of Chicago. Web. 19 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.advancedfertility.com/preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis.htm>. This source
is a fertility center that contains in depth information on technology related to genetic
procedures used on fetuses. This source contains information on the history and current
uses of Pre-Implantation Genetic Testing. It includes benefits, as well as concerns that
will support my arguments.
Shurkin, Joel, N. "Prenatal Whole-Gene Sequencing Raises Ethical Questions." Inside Science.
27 Aug. 2012. Web. 19 Mar. 2016. <https://www.insidescience.org/content/prenatalwhole-gene-sequencing-raises-ethical-questions/774>. This source talks about ethical
questions related to genome sequencing, which is the issue of my essay. It contains
evidence to support one of my arguments about chances of pregnancy terminations. It
also includes excerpts or quotes from experts on the subject, to reveal professional
opinions.

Skerrett, Patrick. "Experts Debate: Are We Playing with Fire When We Edit Human Genes?"
Stat. 17 Nov. 2015. Web. 18 Mar. 2016. <http://www.statnews.com/2015/11/17/geneediting-embryo-crispr/>. This article takes the opinions of experts and scientists into the
debate on genetic editing, specifically with CRISPR Cas-9. It includes quotes from each
source that answer some of the ethical questions on the subject, as well as providing
information on how CRISPR works, as well as its risks.
"What Is CRISPR-Cas9?" Your Genome. 2 Feb. 2002. Web. 19 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-crispr-cas9>. This source contains factual
information about CRISPR, its components, its applications, and how it works. It talks
about its developmental history and its possible future uses. It also contains detailed
descriptions of possible ways that the CRIPSR technique could go wrong and cause
mutations.