Back to Blog

The Ethics of Gene Editing: A Moral and Scientific Dilemma

Sajil Memon

Sajil Memon |

Blog
The Ethics of Gene Editing: A Moral and Scientific Dilemma *Fuente: Pexels*

Gene editing, particularly with technologies like CRISPR-Cas9, offers unprecedented potential to modify DNA with high precision, opening doors for treating genetic diseases and potentially enhancing human traits. However, this powerful technology also presents a complex array of ethical considerations that require careful deliberation.

A fundamental distinction in the ethical debate is between somatic gene editing and germline gene editing:

  • Somatic Gene Editing involves modifying genes in somatic cells (non-reproductive cells) of an individual. Changes made are limited to the treated individual and are not passed on to future generations. This approach is generally considered less ethically problematic, especially when used to treat severe diseases, as the risk-benefit balance can be assessed for the patient.
  • Germline Gene Editing involves altering the genes in reproductive cells (sperm, eggs) or early embryos. These changes are heritable, meaning they will be passed down to all future generations. This raises significantly more profound ethical concerns due to the permanent and intergenerational nature of the modifications.

Key ethical considerations surrounding gene editing include:

  1. Safety and Efficacy

    • Off-target effects: Gene editing can sometimes make unintended changes to the genome at sites other than the intended target. These “off-target” edits can lead to unpredictable and potentially harmful consequences, including new diseases or fatal conditions.
    • Mosaicism: In germline editing, not all cells in an embryo might be successfully edited, leading to a mix of edited and unedited cells. The effects of mosaicism are unpredictable and could result in the genetic disease still occurring or causing entirely different problems.
    • Long-term consequences: The long-term effects of germline edits on individuals and their descendants are largely unknown and difficult to predict, necessitating extensive study over many generations.

  2. Informed Consent

    • Obtaining truly informed consent for germline editing is challenging, as the individuals most affected by the edits (embryos and future generations) cannot provide consent. This raises questions about who has the authority to make such profound decisions on behalf of future persons.

  3. Justice and Equity

    • There is a significant concern that gene editing technologies, being expensive, will only be accessible to the wealthy, exacerbating existing social inequalities and creating a “genetic divide”. This could lead to a society where the privileged can “buy better genes” for their children, reinforcing social stratification.

  4. Enhancement vs. Therapy (The “Slippery Slope”)

    • A major ethical dilemma is distinguishing between using gene editing to treat or prevent serious diseases (therapy) and using it to enhance desirable traits like intelligence, athletic ability, or appearance (enhancement).
    • Critics worry about a “slippery slope,” where therapeutic uses could gradually lead to non-therapeutic enhancements, blurring the lines and potentially altering what it means to be human. Defining what constitutes a “disease” versus a “trait” can also be subjective (e.g., deafness).

Sources