Following the birth of the world's first gene-edited babies, scientists had quite different reactions to the news. Some have expressed concerns about the implications of manipulating human genes and the potential impact on future generations. These concerns have led to fears about the possibility of re-engineering the human race, as reported by The Times. On the flip side, some researchers are pretty excited about the potential of Crispr technology, which allows for easier DNA editing than was previously possible. They believe that this technology could revolutionize the prevention and treatment of diseases, including cancer, as mentioned in the same paper.
1. Pro: may prevent disease
"Since many diseases are caused by a single genetic mutation, some people argue why we shouldn't edit the DNA of an embryo or the sperm and egg to remove the mutation entirely. "In effect, this would remove a fault from humanity forever," said Science editor Tom Whipple in The Times. John Harris, a bioethicist at the University of Manchester, told the MIT Technology Review: "The human genome is not perfect. It's ethically imperative to positively support this technology."
2. Pro: encourages regulationThose in favour
This argue that these scientific advances can be regulated to avert potential doomsday scenarios. “I still think you can try to regulate the technology,” Arthur Caplan, founding head of the Division of Bioethics at New York University, told USA Today. “It would be nice if we had an international group; set out some rules. It would be great if the scientific community - with religious and ethics and legal leaders - would set up some rules for how to operate. It would be nice if journal editors would say, ‘We’re not publishing anything unless these rules are followed
3. Pro: babies could help humanity
In a recent survey conducted in the US, it was found that 83% of people felt that using genetic modification to enhance a baby's intelligence would be "going too far" in terms of medical advancements. This survey was reported by MIT Technology Review, a publication of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. On the other hand, supporters of genetic engineering argue that considering a higher IQ is important. Nick Bostrom, a philosopher from Oxford known for his work on the potential risks of artificial intelligence, mentioned in a paper from 2013 that even a small group of "super-enhanced" individuals could greatly impact the world through their creativity, discoveries, and innovations that everyone could benefit from.
1. Con: open to misuse
There's a chance that individuals will employ gene-editing technology for "enhancements" rather than solely for treating illnesses, as mentioned by American TV host John Oliver on his show Last Week Tonight in 2018. He raised valid points about the increasing moral dilemmas we may face as people gain more control over designing their children, including the complex question of determining what qualifies as a genetic issue requiring "fixing."
2. Con: Consideration for Gene editing
many unknownsDoctors emphasize that while we have the ability to modify genes, the consequences of such alterations are not entirely predictable. According to The Times, most diseases are not the result of a single gene, but rather a combination of many. Therefore, making changes to numerous genes could potentially lead to a variety of unforeseen effects.
While many scientists and medical ethicists envision a future where gene editing can significantly improve the lives of individuals affected by life-altering conditions, there is hesitancy about the idea of editing the genome of a human embryo. Phys.org highlights concerns about the hereditary implications of gene changes, as these modifications could be inherited by future generations of humans.
3. Con: only for the rich
The Independent brings up an interesting point about the ethical considerations surrounding gene editing and the practical issue of funding. The article mentions that many patients currently face disparities in accessing fertility treatment due to varying NHS funding based on location. It also suggests that gene editing may initially only be accessible to the wealthiest individuals. Profeethicaleung, the panel chair, emphasizes the importance of addressing funding inequalities to prevent further social injustice, taking a caring and thoughtful approach to the issue.
Here we talked about pro's and cons of designer baby. Hope you liked it!! Comment down what would you like to know more about designer babies! Until then happy week!!! >>>🤍
Kommentarer