Up until recent years, illnesses such as cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer’s, leukemia, and many more diseases have been classified as incurable. These lifelong ailments have brought despair and hopelessness onto the lives of many people. However, with the recent break in scientific technology and the gene editing tool Crispr-Cas9, these once untreatable illnesses could be as easy to cure as the common cold. With such a sudden advance in technology, many scientists debate whether or not to put a halt to the research of gene editing, so they can reevaluate the moral and ethical aspects of the subject. Even though many scientists have ambivalent feelings towards the topic of gene editing and question its integrity, there is no doubt that gene editing technology has saved the lives of many and has the potential to save even more in the future. Although gene editing is a new technology and many question it's morality, gene editing technology such as Crispr-Cas9 has the ability to save many people and therefore research should be continued under strict restrictions and limits to the experiments
Unlike older breeds of technology that are extremely expensive and take longer periods of time, gene editing technology such as Crispr-Cas9 is not only time efficient, but it also won’t break the bank. The reason Crispr-Cas9 can be so time and cost efficient at the same time is because of the cut, copy, and paste method that this technology utilizes. In a report from Circulation Research in 2017, Scientists Thomas Doetschman and Teodora Georgieva claim that “The attraction of CRISPR/Cas9-based gene editing is its ease of preparation, efficiency, and widespread application. The effort and time required to generate a gene-edited mouse is far less than with gene targeting through ESC.” (ASA Journals) Through targeting the embryonic stem cell (ESC) instead of generating a gene edited individual, Crispr-Cas9 is able to quickly cut out the unneeded portion of the gene, copy the selected and healthy portion, and paste it into the diseased area. Instead of going through high risk procedures that still have a possibility of failing, scientists should allow the research and technology of gene editing, such as Crispr-Cas9 and its proficient method of treatment, to continue and advance forward therefore making a better opportunity for people to get rid of their ailments.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The Credibility of the gene editing technology - that easily combats malicious diseases - is proven by a myriad of evidence, the outstanding results of Crispr-Cas,and the diseases that it has cured. One of the first uses of Crispr-Cas9 in an actual setting - that drew quite a lot of buzz when the technology first started out – was the use of it on two baby girls who had Leukemia. “Two children treated with gene-edited cells to kill their cancers are both doing well more than a year later. The baby girls were both given the experimental treatment only as a last resort, but clinical trials of the therapy are now getting underway in children and adults in the UK.” (New Scientist) As a last resort, the parents of baby Layla used the experimental treatment Crispr-Cas9 and are now able to see their beautiful daughter healthy every day. If the parents were afraid to take a step forward and use the new gene editing technology, they would not have been able to see their daughter live. Although many people would like to argue with the moral views of the topic, any person who is faced with a loved one in danger would use any method possible to save them, just like the parents of Layla. If the research of Crispr-Cas9 is continued there is no telling how many more lives that could be saved, just like baby Layla, with this groundbreaking new technology. Baby Layla however is not the only example of a successful treatment using Crispr-Cas9. In a New York Times article written by Pam Belluck, she emphasizes the future gene editing has if further research continues. “Potentially, it could apply to any of more than 10,000 conditions caused by specific inherited mutations.” (Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation) With more than 10,000 possible cures, gene editing could revolutionize the treatment of modern illnesses and even the distribution of pharmaceuticals.
Although some scientists may object to the idea of continuing the research of gene editing and further advancing technology such as Crispr-Cas9, putting limitations on the experiments involving Crispr-Cas9 and gene-editing, such as restricting human experimentation, will allow for a safer environment that both sides, objection to gene editing and for gene editing, can both find middle ground on. Limitations on the research involving gene editing will allow those who are debating on the moral ethics of the subject to see the countless amount of good deeds that gene editing can procure while also keeping a close eye on the experiments to ensure issues involving scientific integrity occur. In February of 2017, in a report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine stated that “a committee of scientists, doctors, lawyers, and ethicists from ten countries agreed that germline genome editing in humans may be permissible in the future, under a set of stringent conditions outlined in a report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine.” (American Chemical Society) According to this putting a strict set of detailed limitations, guiding scientist on what and what not to do regarding gene-editing will restrict certain methodologies, but not prohibit the growth and advancements of the gene editing technology.
With such an advanced technology, it is very likely for there to be an objection among scientists to discuss the direction and the path of this new breakthrough. Many people fear the science fictional creation of “designer babies” with genetically enhanced abilities that will create a genetic classism and divide in the human race. Although there is a fine line between preventing a disease and enhancing a human being, many still argue that gene editing is morally unacceptable and can be considered as “playing god”. In an article opposing gene-editing by The Guardian, a British newspaper company, states that “Gene therapy used once to be denounced as “playing God.” That is no reason to abandon it. But if humans are to play God, they need to behave in a morally better way than unaided nature does” (The Guardian view on editing human DNA) This article condemns the use of gene-editing, claiming that changes in the embryonic stem cells made by human is akin to tampering with the laws of nature.
Despite the claim that humans are messing with the laws of nature, it is impossible to overlook the countless diseases that gene editing could possibly cure. In an excerpt from the online magazine Wired, which is a platform that focuses on how emerging technologies affect culture, the economy, and politics, in June of 2017 discussed the controversy behind the evolving technology that is gene editing. ““So be afraid, be hopeful, and above all be educated. Let's not fall back into cable news parapets, and let's not let this conversation get chewed up by the 140-character outrage industrial complex.” (Conde Nast) The misunderstanding that people have over “designer babies” or genetically enhanced super humans are likely caused by a fear that stems from being uneducated or misguided on the topic of gene editing. It can be especially hard to understand the benefits of gene editing when the masses are panicking over a genetically modified human with blue eyes and big muscles, but it is important to remember that this same “morally wrong” technology could cure diseases such as muscle dystrophy.
The medical world as we know it could soon be revolutionized by the technology that is Crispr-Cas9 and gene editing. Diseases that scientists have been researching cures for have finally found a solution. Although the future of gene editing is not certain, with strict limitations and guidelines the safety and moral integrity of the experiments can still be preserved while advancing forward. Many people remain unsure about their stance on gene editing, but with the proper education through the right sources will enlighten many on the benefits of gene editing. It is important to ask one’s self “Is there a possible benefit for those around me through gene-editing?”.
Stuck on your essay?
