Should we allow gene editing to advance despite the threat of techno-eugenics? by Gaudia Aghanenu
What is techno-eugenics and why should you care?
Techno-eugenics- also known as new eugenics- is the use of gene technology to enhance human characteristics. It is different from eugenics, which is a set of ideas aiming to improve the genetic purity or quality of a human population through methods such as forced sterilisation, segregation, and genocide. Stemming from Darwin’s theory of evolution, eugenics became incredibly popular throughout Europe and the United States of America from the late 19th century. Two of the most notable examples of eugenics from the 20th century are racial policies set out by Nazi Germany, such as forbidden marriages between Jews and Germans in the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, and Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924 which prohibited interracial marriage until it was overturned in the Loving vs Virginia case in 1967. Following the monstrosities of WW2, European citizens and scientists began to develop a strong anti-eugenics sentiment. That is not to say the ideology surrounding eugenics ever completely died out, but it gradually became less popular in certain parts of the world. However, as medical genetics has significantly advanced in recent decades, particularly after the Human Genome Project, which successfully mapped and sequenced all the genes that make up a human organism in 2003, the controversy surrounding techno-eugenics has become more prominent. The Human Genome Project has made several revolutionary impacts, one of which is providing evidence on genetic variations that increase the likelihood of developing certain conditions, thus giving people the means to prevent or treat them, or even choose the forms of genes passed down to their offspring. In extreme cases, and on a wide scale, the use of technology with a focus on improving the genetic makeup of humankind may be classed as techno-eugenics.
A Brief Introduction to Genetics
Genetics is officially defined as ‘the study of heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics’. Modern genetics is a fairly new science, tracing back to an Augustinian friar, teacher and scientist named Gregor Mendel in the mid-19th century. It was his botany skills that allowed him to successfully experiment on peas, crossbreeding them to observe the traits they passed down to their offspring. Mendel now holds the title of ‘father of genetics’ because long before scientists understood the behaviour of chromosomes and the role of genes, he discovered invaluable information about how traits are passed down through generations. Now, why is this significant? Without the development of genetics, it would be almost impossible for scientists and doctors to understand inherited conditions and species’ evolution. It can inform us of why humans look and work the way we do. And without this, gene editing couldn’t have become so prominent so quickly.
Positive Impacts of Gene Editing
Gene editing has been and will undoubtedly continue to be revolutionary. Since CRISPR-cas9 was discovered as a DNA editing tool (sometimes referred to as ‘genetic scissors’) in 2012 by Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna, its accessibility and affordability have made it convenient to be utilised to treat sickle cell anaemia and some types of blood cancers. Scientists’ ability to correct genetic mutations and treat diseases has and will continue to alleviate the mental and physical pain of several people all around the world. Living proof of this is an American woman named Victoria Gray whose sickle cell disease was treated in 2021 using CRISPR-cas9 genome editing. Furthermore, illness and disease will always plague humankind, so arguably, it would not be wise to immediately end the pursuit of gene editing development in the fear that it will one day go too far. Additionally, though there is much potential to do harm with gene editing, the current focus is not on making humans taller, faster, or smarter, but rather the combatting of genetic diseases in adult patients. Who is to say laws and regulations could not be made to ensure gene editing is largely carried out in ethical ways?
Ethical & Political Issues Surrounding Gene Editing
While gene editing may have several benefits, it is equally important to address the negative aspects, both current and potential. Firstly, any errors made in gene editing could be passed down to future generations and cause fatal side effects. In November 2018, a Chinese biophysicist named He Jiankui completed a bold gene-editing project which resulted in the birth of two baby girls with genetically engineered mutations. He claimed the baby girls, known as Lulu and Nana, would be immune to HIV. His project was ultimately condemned as unethical, but it proves how far people are willing to go with the use of gene editing technology and how this field can spark international controversy. The question remains: were his actions totally outrageous or just premature? In a survey conducted by Pew Research Centre in 2021, 30% of Americans thought that gene editing for babies to reduce the risk of disease was a ‘bad idea’ for society, 30% thought it was a ‘good idea’, and 39% were unsure. He Jiankui received a prison sentence of three years from the Chinese government, and some critics have even compared him to Dr. Frankenstein, despite his firm belief that his work has produced more good than harm. However, speaking to the South China Morning Post, He Jiankui claimed to feel both a ‘high expectation’ and ‘huge unease’ with regards to the futures of Lulu and Nana. Two major concerns among geneticists are that the editing of embryos occurs with a lack of consent from the subjects and bears several risks, most notably off-target mutagenesis- unintended mutations at genomic sites which may have very harmful effects on their cells. Additionally, long-term effects are difficult to predict or mitigate.
Furthermore, what if gene editing is wrongly used by certain groups of people or governments to enhance or limit a particular race, or intentionally wipe out a natural characteristic or disability? It stirs the possibility of ‘designer babies’. For example, if people wanted to edit out the genes that cause the condition of dyslexia, people like Thomas Edison- inventor of the incandescent light bulb and motion-picture camera- and Albert Einstein- whose theories contributed to the development of satellite navigation and lasers- may not have possessed such intelligence and creativity associated with many dyslexic people, thus the world we live in would be a very different place. Additionally, if advanced gene editing technology fell into the hands of a future authoritarian government, there is a possibility of forced use of gene editing on a population, which could cause chaos and international conflict. Lastly, it is incredibly likely that gene therapy will only be affordable by a small minority for the foreseeable future, as it currently costs an average of $1.5 million per dose. This could promote social injustice on an international scale.
Conclusion
The ideology of techno-eugenics and the science of gene editing are inevitably intertwined. As the technology and knowledge develop, opportunities to enhance human characteristics and stretch human capacities will grow. So, should we allow gene editing to advance despite the threat of techno-eugenics? This question begs far more than a yes or no answer. At the end of the day, it is difficult to label the technology as the problem in and of itself. Like many things, it can be used appropriately or abused. Arguably, the future of gene editing should not be condemned but rather embraced, understood, and regulated. However, the question of who regulates ethical laws surrounding gene editing is a large one. What if it is dictated by governments with an ulterior motive, or scientists under certain pressures, or the general public who may not be aware of the long-term consequences and side-effects?
In April 2019, Haoyi Wang and Hui Yang published an article entitled ‘Gene-edited babies: What went wrong and what could go wrong’, the conclusion of which included: ‘We strongly urge … a comprehensive discussion as soon as possible to develop the criteria and standards for genome editing… clear and strict laws need to be passed, implemented, and enforced at an international level…These improved technologies may provide solutions for genetic diseases—but only when consensus has been met and a regulatory framework has been put in place for treating specific medical implications.’
References
Al Jazeera English (2021) CRISPR: What is the future of gene editing? Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVIVSpUgR44
(Accessed: September 2023)
anne frank house The Nuremberg Race Laws Available at: https://www.annefrank.org/en/timeline/55/the-nuremberg-race-laws/ (Accessed: September 2023)
BitesizeBio (2020) A Brief History of CRISPR-Cas 9 Genome-Editing Tools Available at:https://bitesizebio.com/47927/history-crispr
(Accessed: September 2023)
Bradley. S, The Week UK Pros and cons of gene-editing babies Available at:
https://theweek.com/news/science-health/959606/pros-and-cons-of-gene-editing-babies
(Accessed: September 2023)
Curerus (2022) Ethical Perspectives of Therapeutic Human Genome Editing From Multiple and Diverse Viewpoints: A Scoping Review Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9793437/#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20therapeutic%20somatic%20gene%20editing,and%20therefore%20requires%20further%20discussion. (Accessed: September 2023)
Genomics Education Programme (2022) Mendel: influence and inheritance Available at: https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/mendel-influence-and-inheritance/#:~:text=Known%20for%20his%20pea%20plant,of%20DNA%2C%20chromosomes%20or%20genes.
(Accessed: September 2023)
National Library of Medicine (2022) What are the ethical issues surrounding gene therapy? Available at: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/ethics/ (Accessed: September 2023)
Olby, Robert. (2023) Gregor Mendel. Encyclopedia Britannica Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gregor-Mendel (Accessed: September 2023)
Rainie.L, Funk.C, Anderson. M, Tyson. A, Americans are closely divided over editing a baby’s genes to reduce serious health risk
(Accessed: September 2023)
Snook.C The Racial Integrity Act, 1924: An Attack on Indigenous Identity Available at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/racial-integrity-act.htm#:~:text=One%20such%20policy%20was%20the,physician%20named%20Walter%20Ashby%20Plecker. (Accessed: September 2023)
Stein.R (2021) First sickle cell patient treated with CRISPR gene-editing still thriving Available at: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/31/1067400512/first-sickle-cell-patient-treated-with-crispr-gene-editing-still-thriving (Accessed: September 2023)
THALES (2023) 3 EVERYDAY INVENTIONS EINSTEIN MADE POSSIBLE
(Accessed: September 2023)
Vice News/ HBO (2017) We Talk to Interracial Couples 50 Years After Loving v. Virginia Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RseBL4eC0ok (Accessed: September 2023)
Wang H, Yang H (2019) Gene-edited babies: What went wrong and what could go wrong. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6490877/
(Accessed: September 2023)
Wiktionary (2023) Techno-eugenics Available at: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/techno-eugenics (Accessed: September 2023)
Wilson P. Eugenics Available at: https://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics/Popular-support-for-eugenics (Accessed: September 2023)
