UWRT 1104
Let’s imagine a world where scientists have the ability to eliminate a medical condition
that could alter the course of your life before you are even born. Let’s then imagine a world
where you could be hand designed to be genetically superior: more beautiful, strong, intelligent,
and talented. Although this has not yet been tested in human trials nor has it been made legal or
been approved by the government, we are quickly approaching a world where genetically
modified embryos will be very real and accessible to the public. This idea of this, yes, sounds
amazing. But how far is too far? Just because we are scientifically able, should we proceed with
this research and essentially play God? Should we decide the fate on an individual's life before
they are even born? My topic of inquiry throughout the semester thus far has led me to analyze
the aspects of this concept and discover what scientists and technology make us capable of in the
twenty first century. This scientific breakthrough is heavily debated and extremely controversial
when discussed by scientists, medical professionals and the public. Because of complex
controversies and ethical debates, research and trials have been heavily monitored and restricted.
Fear that this type of scientific breakthrough will come with repercussions and possibly lead to
designer babies keep scientists from being able to research this freely. My inquiry has lead me to
understand the process, research conducted, and debate surrounding this topic.
The process of altering embryonic genetic material seems like a fairly complex process. I
have learned that with aid from a single piece of scientific equipment, it can be done quickly and
efficiently. Specifically, the technology involved in making this possible is called the CRISPR.
The CRISPR is a “gene editing tool comprised of two molecules that can zero in on individual
genes and make very precise changes to the DNA,” according to Rob Stein from NPR. With the
aid of this tool, it has been proven by scientists that genetic material can be taken from two
mothers and a father and combine the genetic material from all parents. This can eliminate
diseases that might have been inherited by the embryo. Although this has not been made legal or
available to the public, according to BBC News, Professor Doug Turnbull, professor at
Newcastle University and Dr. Mary Herbert, scientific director at Newcastle Fertility Center
have been granted permission to work on developing embryos from two mothers and one father.
Something similar was successfully done in New Jersey not too long ago. Taking genetic
material from two mothers and one father can be valuable when trying to prevent a genetic
disease from being passed down from parent to fetus. In the particular experiment that Professor
Turnbull and Dr. Mary Herbert were conducting, the mitochondrial DNA of the mother was
malfunctioning. If this disease was passed down to the fetus, it could have severe consequences
or could even be fatal. In attempts to come up with a solution to prevent the fetus from inheriting
the malfunctioning mitochondrial DNA, a third party was brought into the equation. These
professors had the idea to take the mitochondrial DNA from a healthy mother, and insert it into
the embryo conceived from the mother and father. Up until now, there has been no cure for
mitochondrial DNA damage. Now, with the aid of the CRISPR, these professors and a New
Jersey doctor have successfully discovered how to replace the mitochondrial DNA that is
malfunctioning with DNA from a second mother. When performing experimentation with this
type of technology, precision is key. First, viable embryos must be donated to scientists who
have been granted permission by research funders and the government officials who regulate this
type of experimentation. The embryo must be carefully thawed and prepare for testing. The
CRISPR is then injected into the thawed embryo and can target specific areas of the DNA and
alter its genetic makeup. After the DNA has been altered, it is then left to develop. Research has
shown that the embryo will still develop normally, despite the modifications that were made.
With this procedure, heavily monitored research has been successful not only in keeping
embryos viable after they have been altered, but also in eliminating diseases, disorders and in
because of all the controversy surrounding this topic, once the embryos develop to a certain stage
of development, the embryo is terminated. Only minimal research has been done so far due to
heavy restrictions by the government, but so far the results have been positive if executed
correctly. When editing genes that cause diseases, it is easy to target the one specific
malfunctioning gene. However, altering physical characteristics like height or eye color is much
more complex. To go back to the case of having two mothers and one father, the fetus will still
resemble the mother and father of the child. The mitochondrial element that was donated by the
second mother to eliminate the mitochondrial disease will not play a role in the phenotype of that
child. The scenario is due to the fact that no single gene is responsible for producing phenotypic
traits. Many different genes work together to produce physical traits like eye color, hair color,
height and many other traits. It is nearly impossible to identify all of the specific genes that work
together to produce a certain hair color, eye color, height etc. in an individual. This is why only
replacing a single element like mitochondrial DNA will have no effect on how the fetus looks.
With this knowledge, it can be concluded that designing babies would be far more complex and
may not be possible with only the use of the CRISPR. In order to go down the path of designer
babies, much more complex research needs to be conducted on how to isolate genes that
one step closer to developing a procedure capable of producing designer embryos. This leads us
into discussing if it is appropriate to do research on gene editing that could lead us to being able
The technology and knowledge needed to genetically enhance embryos is available. With
proper funding and permission from the government, scientists have the potential to eliminate
diseases like blindness, epilepsy, sickle cell anemia and many other diseases that are passed
down to children from the parent, or genetically enhance certain features or phenotypes. This is
where debate regarding ethical aspects of this argument come in. Those that argue that genetic
manipulation is necessary to offer a better life for those that are affected by genetically inherited
diseases say that it would be unethical to have access to these types of life saving possibilities
and not take advantage of them by making it available to the public. A specific example
expressed by an article that is pro genetic manipulation from the NCBI website explains that the
CRISPR can give us the ability to alter a genetic sequence in utero and fix the sequence to
eliminate the possibility of death in a fetus. Without this procedure, fetuses with a
malfunctioning element of DNA will die in utero. Scientist Fredrik Lanner, a developmental
biologist who supports the movement of genetically modified embryos argues that research on
this type of science will be a “game changer.” In an article done on NPR, Lanner also reveals that
“if they can understand how these early cells are regulated in the actual embryo, this knowledge
will helps us in the future treat patients with diabetes, or Parkinson’s, or different types of
blindness and other disease.” Along with Lanner, many other scientists have expressed that not
allowing this type of research would be counterproductive. Research of this sort would benefit
society and even improve the quality of life for thousands of people. Despite all of the lives that
could be saved and diseases that could be eliminated, this research continues to be restricted and
prohibited until further ethical discussion and debate by the public, government officials and
members of the scientific community have been conducted. On the other hand, many will argue
that it is unethical to alter genetic material and express concerns about the possible dangers that
In contrast to the arguments made by those who are pro genetic manipulation, many
people argue that messing with the genetic material of an embryo could lead to detrimental
consequences and that the concept of this contradicts many peoples moral and ethical beliefs.
Scientists fear that this type of new research on genetic manipulation could possible create new
diseases and genetic mutations if a mistake is made during the process. Like I mentioned before,
this is a process that must be executed very precisely. Because of the tedious and careful way
that this procedure must be execute, it leaves much room for errors to occur. Marcy Darnovsky,
who speaks and writes on human biotechnology, tells NPR that “when you’re editing the genes
of human embryos, that means you’re changing the gene of every cell in the bodies of every
offspring, every future generation of that human being.” She goes on to express that “these are
permanent and probably irreversible changes that we just don’t know what they would mean.”
One error in this process could introduce a new strand of genetic mutations that could potentially
become even more life threatening than the ones previously eliminated. Once this mutation has
been introduced, it will be irreversible. In addition to the biological concerns, concern has been
expressed regarding how these new procedures would affect social classes. With the potential of
advanced research leading to the alteration of genetic features like height, beauty, intelligence,
and talents, there is fear that the social gap would widen even further, creating a resentment
between classes. It is possible and predicted that this resentment and genetic enhancement could
lead to conflict and rebellion between the genetically superior, and genetically inferior. The
upper class already has access to more resources; better medical resources, better schools to
enhance education. Overall, the upper class has access to more advanced resources that set them
far apart from other social groups. If they also have access to this advanced genetic manipulation
technology, it will set them even farther apart, causing more tension between classes. In addition
to this fear of a widened social gap, it is also possible that this would cause a new social class all
together. This social class would be referred to as the genetically superior. It is argued that since
this procedure will be expensive and in high demand, the wealthy would have the most direct
access to it. This would propel them further than other classes, essentially creating a superior
race. Those that could not afford it would continue to pass along their genetic disease to their
offspring. Over time, it is predicted that the lower class will be bred out, leaving only genetically
superior humans. To counter argue this concern, a professor from the article “Designer Babies”
states that like many other medical procedures, this process of genetic manipulation would soon
become less expensive and affordable for most people. It has also been argued that through
natural reproduction, the superior genes that do not contain genetically inherited diseases would
be weeded out, therefore eliminating certain disease altogether. This would be tremendously
beneficial to society and improve the quality of life for many. However, those who are not for
genetic manipulation argue that weeding out certain diseases would increase the lifespan of the
average human to 150-200 years. This would have negative effects on the earth and environment
that we live in. We do not yet know how this type of alteration will affect the resources available
to us, and if it would cause damage to the earth and decrease quality of life. The duration of life
ranges from sixty to ninety years of age and is only increasing with advancing medical
availability and knowledge. Another concern that has been expressed that closely relates to a
widened social gap, is the potential for these genetically manipulated embryos to turn into
consumer goods. If an embryo is manipulated to be genetically enhanced, the “good” traits will
be highly sought after. This would give parents a sense of dominance and pressure over their
child. How the child will be affected for the rest of its life is hard to gage without
experimentation. Many behavioral scientists think that children will turn into more of a “trophy”
or a consumer item for the parent to show off and more pressure will be put on the child to
succeed and perform extravagantly in certain aspects of their lives that will bring in money and
fame for the parent. In contrast to this argument, some say that a parent with a child that is
genetically modified will be incapable of loving their child in the same way if it was conceived
and born naturally from the two parents. Others argue that the parent will love the child the same
either way. Every parent has a different style in loving and raising their family and having one
that is genetically modified will not change how the parent will raise them or love them. It can
easily be seen that without trial and error, we cannot know for sure how this type of technology
will affect society or the way that a child is raised. As I continued to ask questions, another
element of research that I found that supports this movement is various case studies that have
heavily restricted. For example, in China, a research group “published an article that describe the
and Medicine at John Hopkins University. This research was done in non-viable embryos that
were not far enough developed to form life. Even though the embryos were not developed into
babies, genetic manipulation was still done and published. Despite the fact that the embryos were
terminated and not used in in vitro fertilization, an uproar was expressed by the public due to the
freedom the Chinese scientists were given to conduct such research. Discussion on whether or
not this should be legal will require many public debates, legal research and ethical expression
from the scientific community before this will be made legal and available to the public. Another
element that makes this a difficult issue to tackle is that it is not a “uniform, global approach to
ensuring the novel clinical approaches using reproductive technologies are scientifically,
medically and ethically sound” (sugarman). With that being said, some scientists who do not
agree with the restriction on research regarding this topic are taking their studies elsewhere.
Places like Mexico and the Ukraine, recently “announced human experiments with mitochondrial
manipulation, (Darnovsky and Hosman) is not restricted. His research involved conception of a
child using the CRISPR to modify its genetic material. The baby was “born on April 6,”
according to Darnovsky and Hosman. Situations like this cause issues and discussions regarding
consequences and legal actions that must be made to protect a procedure like this to take over
and be integrated into the scientific community and practiced on human subjects before we know
different elements of this debate. It is evident that there is much complex debate around this
topic, and a lot of brilliant research being conducted. Through the process of inquiry, I have
learned that although this technology that we have access to is brilliant and could be potentially
revolutionary to the field of science and medicine, there are many elements that need to be
considered. Is it fair to restrict research that could save thousands of people affected by
genetically inherited diseases? Many argue that we do not have the right as humans to tamper
with this type of genetic manipulation. It is expressed that playing with this sort of research
should not be taken lightly and the consequences should be largely considered. We do not yet
know how sever the repercussions of this could be and scientists and society must take all angles
of the argument into consideration before laws and be past and regulated. I have found that those
who are pro genetic manipulation say that it would be unethical to have the ability to cure
someone of a fatal disease and not proceed to help them. This technology could save thousands
of lives and offer a cure to many genetic diseases. How can people decide to take that gift of a
normal life away from others if a cure is reachable? Others say that it is unethical to tamper with
this type of research due to the dangers that it could cause for society. Another interesting aspect
of this topic that is widely discussed is how it will affect social classes, parent-child
relationships, and the biological elements of a human’s life. I think it is evident that at this time,
thorough ethical boards need to be assembled that bring together medical professionals and
public opinions to ensure that all aspects of this new technology are analyzed. Only after all
discussion and ethical debates are considered will society be able decide whether research on
Darnovsky, Marcy, and Elliot Hosman. “The Social and Political Dangers of Germline
www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=582.
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2001051800&type=hitl
Stein, Rob. “Breaking Taboo, Swedish Scientist Seeks To Edit DNA Of Healthy Human
www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/22/494591738/breaking-taboo-swedish-scien
Sugarman, Jeremy. “Ethics and Germline Gene Editing.” EMBO Reports, 16 August, 2015,