Recent developments in genetic engineering have caused the public to be worried about what the future might hold for our species. Since the advent of genetically modified foods, the public has questioned the unknown effects of modified plants on human health and even the human genome; whether humans should have the power to “edit” organisms, and the overall impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the environment even though scientists promised that GMOs could revolutionize the world of agriculture and create better and more sustainable food sources. After nearly two decades, researchers have shown that GMOs pose little to no risk to humans or harm to the environment. As a result, as of 2010, 26 countries had allowed the importation and cultivation of genetically modified crops (Foht 4). The uses of GMOs have expanded as more countries learn of their benefits and low potential risks. However, many countries remain skeptical about GMOs and have enacted strict regulations to ban GMOs. Recently, a new genetic engineering technology that can edit the human genome (CRISPR/Cas9) has been introduced and has raised similar concerns among the public. There have been heated discussions as to whether CRISPR/Cas9 should be used on humans. The current view of the public is that the research concerning CRISPR/Cas9 should not be used because of its ethical implications and its future impact on the environment (Lowthorp 488). Similar to GMOs, as the public learns the benefits of this new technology, and after improvements have been made to minimize the risk, CRISPR/Cas9 will be accepted and used in humans.
The full effects of GMOs are still unknown to the scientific community, but the lack of scientific certainty did not prevent GMOs from being presented to the public. Even though the full effects of CRISPR/Cas9 are ambiguous, it is likely that the public will accept the use of this technology on humans. Although, it is also important to consider how CRISPR/Cas9 could be used and its impact on humans.
Public Reaction to Genetically Modified Organisms
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have arguably allowed scientist to create healthier and more innovative foods to decrease the modern problem of world malnutrition. According to Mary Gearing, “Rice is a staple food for nearly half of the world’s population, including 90% of Asia, rice has a very low nutrient content” (Gearing 1). As a result, a large portion of the world’s population is not meeting daily nutritional needs. To resolve the issue, scientists turned to genetic modification and created golden rice, which is more abundant in nutrients such as vitamin A and others. Golden rice was distributed across underdeveloped nations and has helped people with vitamin deficiencies. This mutation can also be applied to other organisms in an attempt to end global malnutrition. Most studies in the US has shown that modified foods pose little to no health threats or cause any unintended mutations. However, some studies indicate genetically modified food are associated with serious health risks such as infertility and diseases. Although, the Food Drug Administration has assured that GMOs are not substantially different from natural foods (Smith 1). GMOs are also used for medical purposes. For instance, Hank Campbell explains that genetically modified bacteria create insulin in mere hours that can be used for medical needs (Campbell 1). Before GMOs, insulin was collected from cows or cadavers and it was challenging to find enough. Due to its scarcity, diabetes condemned many people to die. Although the risk from GMOs is pictured as relatively low, many countries still choose to ban GMO products.
Most European countries have decided to ban the cultivation of GMOs and set strict regulations to prevent their distribution to consumers (Nelson 1372). To identify the reasons why European nations are more prudent into the aspect of adopting GMOs, Carl H. Nelson conducted a study and found that GMOs are less accepted in Europe than in the US because in Europe, the media portrays a negative image of GMOs and associates its use with diseases. The public believes that GMOs can lead to cancer and sees it as contaminated. Also, there are more reported food threats, so the food administration pays more attention to food products. The impacts of GMOs are not fully understood so the food administration tries to avoid any new product that might harm the population. Nelson states that people are risk aversive, and the risk of loss has a more significant psychological effect than winning (Nelson 1374-75). So, the current ban on GMOs is due to the uncertainty of the effects of GMOs on human health. According to T.L. Napier, “Media sources are often used as a main method of communication to transfer this information. Media sources can be incredibly effective at reaching massive amounts of people who may not otherwise seek out scientific information, but the accuracy of the final message may be less than desired”( Napier et al. 1). Most studies in the US points out that the lack of information or misinformation is one of the reasons that GMOs are banned in most countries in Europe.
Another concern is GMOs’ impact on the environment as people fear that GMOs can lead to further mutation of other plants and cause an irreversible change in the ecosystem. However, there has been little evidence that GMOs negatively affect the environment (Napier 2). Instead, they produce pesticide resistant plants and reduce overall waste which bodes well for the environment (Napier 1). On the contrary, Megan L. Norris explains that these mutations might be too advantageous for organisms which can lead to a decrease in biodiversity. These engineered organisms would reproduce better and decrease the diversity of the wild species (Norris 1). As a result, low biodiversity decreases the species survival rate to a changing environment. Also, Kristina Hubbard raises concern when only four companies own more than 60% of the global market. These companies have a patent on their grains and farmers are banned from using the grains more than once, so they have to continue buying each time they need to plant (Hubbard 1). These companies have total control of the market and can overcharge the price which makes GMOs harder to grow for farmers.
Public Reaction to CRISPR/Cas9 (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)
CRISPR/Cas9 faces similar challenges to GMOs in the court of public opinion and has thus far failed to gain the public’s trust. CRISPR/Cas9 can make edits to human DNA and make precise changes to the whole human genome. This revelation strikes fear in the heart of the public because the implications are not yet understood and because it violates specific ethical beliefs. There have been many debates on how the technology should be controlled, but we have not reached a consensus on its appropriate use. According to Nelson, people in the US seem to be more in favor of genetic mutation when it is carried out in plants rather than animals (Nelson 1376). We can safely assume that most humans value animals more than plants. So, it might take more time for CRISPR/Cas9 to be adopted and regularly used on humans. Another reason the public may choose to avoid CRISPR/Cas9 is that it has a more immediate impact on the human race and some think it could lead to our extinction if its use were not regulated correctly or if an irreversible error were to occur. Similar to GMOs, CRISPR/Cas9 shows excellent promise in tackling pertinent problems such as genetic diseases that ravage the world. While CRISPR/Cas9 poses a more direct risk to humans than GMOs, it is also pictured as a panacea that will make any diseases disappear and can lead to the advancement of the human race. Although, it would be catastrophic if used to create potent viruses, and it could lead to the return of eugenics and could coincidentally doom future generations to a dystopian society.
Medical Applications
CRISPR shows promise to provide treatment for many genetic and non-genetic diseases. According to Jeremy Sugarman, “Germline editing might be the only means of treating genetic diseases, which are otherwise fatal in utero” (Sugarman 1). These fatal genes can be excised and be replaced with “normal” genes. This current technology seems to be the most effective in removing genes that can predispose people to cancer. Parents with genetic diseases would not have to worry about passing their diseases to their children. In 2015, a group of Chinese scientists published the use of CRISPR in a human zygote in an attempt to eradicate the HBB (Human B-globin) gene from the germline (Kevin 1). The HBB gene is responsible for B-globin which is found in red blood cells. The scientists mutated that gene to increase immunity to sickle cell disease. More recently, in 2019, He Jiankui used CRISPR/Cas9 on a pair of twins to make it harder for HIV to invade and infect their white blood cells (Molteni 1). The news caused a heated debate in the scientific community concerning the appropriate use of this new technology. As a result, the National Committee of Science and the National Academy of Medicine hosted a meeting to discuss the advancement of CRISPR/cas9 (Kevin 2). According to a report conducted by NAS/NAM, the majority of the public agrees with the use of genome editing in both somatic and germline cells for therapeutic purposes but not for enhancement applications; although there are unclear distinctions between therapeutic uses and enhancement, which should be defined by local communities (Kevin 4). A recently published article by John Ueland claims that the mutation in the gene CCR5 that Jiankui caused in the twins also affects intelligence (Ueland 1). Similar mutations have been done in rats, and there seems to be an increase in intelligence when these mutations are conducted at CCR5-gene. So, the function and interaction of certain genes remain unpredictable. Carolyn Brokowski argues that germline editing may lead to the return of eugenics, the belief that the human population should be improved by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable traits (Browkowski 1). As a consequence, there will be traits that seem more “fit” which can lead to social inequality.
Another issue that arises is the cost of this new technology which may result in social inequality. Legally, the government is not able to fund research done on embryos. So, studies in the US are currently privately funded which will result in only a few companies having access to the new technology; they will be able to set any price point for their products. It is likely that the cost will be high which might lead to inequality of access in which only the privileged will be able to change their genes or in which doing so would cause financial strain for the working class. As a result, the rich will be able to afford “better” traits, which would create a new divide between the two classes. As a result of such a hierarchical setup, some characteristics might be regarded as inferior, leading to the return of eugenics. The cost of the technology is unlikely to stop scientists from innovating even if the technology is only available to the higher class. Still, it seems likely that the public will embrace this technology if it proves to be effective in treating genetic diseases.
Military Applications
The potential application of CRISPR/Cas9 for military uses has raised attention among countries. According to Marsha Greene, the military is interested in the technology to enhance soldiers. CRISPR technology can be used to boost intelligence and muscle mass, and to increase immunity to specific biological warfare agents, which would result in more successful missions. Greene further points out that this implies that soldiers would feel compelled to engage in germline editing if their survival rate were to be increased (Greene et al. 2). Soldiers would also be pressured by their peers because other soldiers want soldiers who are capable of protecting their backs and CRISPR/Cas9 could create huge advantages. There is a substantial military advantage for countries who adopt CRISPR/Cas9, and countries may be quick to embrace this new technology if it can give them an edge over their enemies. If countries decided to allow genetic enhancement only to military personnel, enhanced people interact with ordinary citizens and would most likely pass on their mutations to the next generation. The only way to prevent this would be to isolate soldiers from civilians, and that would curtail their freedom. So, it would prove nearly impossible to regulate the gene mutations created by CRISPR/Cas9 in one population.
Also, as Arthur Caplan carefully points out, it is not unreasonable that, in the wrong hands, CRISPR could be used to make dangerous pathogens even more potent (Caplan 2). The technology can be used to create viruses that are ‘silent,’ that is, that can only be discovered after irreparable damage is done to the body. There is the possibility that the biochemical organism created can lead to the extinction of the human race. So, it is reasonable to understand the public’s reluctance to allow the use of CRISPR/Cas9 on humans. At the same time, countries will be reluctant to surrender this new technology for fear of other countries adopting it before them.
Editing the Future
The emergence of this new technology has left many people doubtful, and many fearful of its outcome (Lowthorp 484). While Adam Cribbs see CRISPR/Cas9 as a way to prevent or treat diseases and disability, some people see CRISPR as a beast to be feared (Cribbs 3). John Mulvihill agrees with the concern about the unknown consequences of the edited genome and its impact on future generations (Mulvihill 23). Brendan Foht supported Mulvihill and stated that germline editing takes away consent from future generations and could be catastrophic (Foht 13). He highlights his concern by contrasting our current generation and future generations if germline editing were to be introduced. Foht gives an example of a boy in this era who chooses to be a musician instead of playing sports, against his parents’ wishes. Although his parents might influence him to play sports, the decision ultimately falls to him. However, if his parents were to engineer him to have an enhanced physique for sports, he may choose to be a musician, but he is not only disappointing his parents but the design of his nature which has been selected by his parents (Foht 13).
Scientists have analyzed CRISPR/Cas9 to explore the risk and the benefits in its application toward humans. The main arguments focus on the uncertainty of the outcomes and advantages of its use. The general public is against the use of CRISPR/Cas9 for humans except for therapeutic purposes. Critics argue that “It is not ethical for human beings to manipulate the basic genetic structure and that “natural” evolution is superior to human-engineered plants and animals” (Nelson 1374). Our current knowledge of the functions of certain genes in relation to the environment is limiting. Biologist Leslie Orgel coined the phrase in his analysis of evolution according to Darwin, “evolution is cleverer than you are” (Krishan 1). Many fear that humans will disrupt human evolution and destroying what evolution has perfected for millions of years.
Whether or not nature is perfect in its design, we should not be quick to correct our “imperfections.” Besides, making changes to our genotype does not completely affect our phenotype because other factors such as the environment play a role in determining our characteristics. The genes that code for intelligence and other traits are not yet clear to the scientific community. He Jiankui may have thought that the mutation he conducted on the twins would only affect their susceptibility to HIV, but it also affected their intelligence. It took two decades for GMOs to be introduced in the US so it might take longer for CRISPR/Cas9 to be seen as “safe” enough to be used in humans. But rather than banning CRISPR/Cas9 solely from fear of the unknown, we should analyze it further, discuss its appropriate uses, and create guidelines according to current moral standards.
Technology is primarily affected by the public’s moral values and by demand. Even though the full effects of GMOs are unknown, there is a trend in the number of countries using GMOs as they learn more about its potential benefits. The application of the CRISPR/Cas9 might be delayed, but it will be adopted by the public after much evidence. Even if attempts were made to stop the research, it is probably impossible to stop all research being done with CRISPR/Cas9 everywhere. Currently, it is considered illegal, but the law did not keep Chinese scientist He Jiankui from inducing mutations into the twins. If only one country were to adopt this technology, other countries would have to be a ban ingress for anyone who had had their genetic makeup modified. But, it is not possible to distinguish between those who have had their genome mutated and those who have not.
Although the application of this new technology can not be fully controlled, there should be laws to regulate how the technology should be used and research into how to reverse the mutation if an unintended problem were to arise. If a critical mistake was introduced into the population, we need to provide future generations the tool to correct our mistakes or the whole human race may be at risk of extinction. The application of CRISPR/Cas9 raises more ethical issues than GMOs, but it can help deliberate the human race from diseases and other current problems. Instead of enacting bans, the global community should educate ourselves on the subject of genetic modification and contribute to the large discussion on how these technologies should be regulated.
An interesting question beyond the scope of this essay is how races will be defined once CRISPR/Cas9 is introduced in humans because parents will be able to alter their children’s race at will. Will the concept of race lose its meaning or will we construct new classifications as what is “pure” or “natural” and classify GMOs and modified humans as “tainted”?
Acknowledgments
I want to acknowledge Dan Affsprung for his contribution to finding the direction of this research paper. He clarified my initial questions and helped me organize my ideas. Also, I want to thank Professor Monroe for her help in synthesizing a clearer thesis and her comments that helped me to improve the overall structure of the document. Lastly, I want to thank Pedro for conducting an in-depth analysis of the essay and for his suggestions that helped me create a more concise piece.
References:
Brokowski, Carolyn, and Mazhar Adli. “CRISPR Ethics: Moral Considerations for Applications of a Powerful Tool.” Journal of Molecular Biology431, no. 1 (January 2019): 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2018.05.044.
Caplan, A. L., B. Parent, M. Shen, and C. Plunkett. “No Time to Waste–the Ethical Challenges Created by CRISPR: CRISPR/Cas, Being an Efficient, Simple, and Cheap Technology to Edit the Genome of Any Organism, Raises Many Ethical and Regulatory Issues beyond the Use to Manipulate Human Germ Line Cells.” EMBO Reports16, no. 11 (November 1, 2015): 1421–26.https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201541337.
Finneran, Kevin. “Responding to CRISPR/Cas9.” Issues in Science and Technology(blog), June 28, 2016. https://issues.org/responding-to-crisprcas9/.
Foht, Brendan P. “Gene Editing: New Technology, Old Moral Questions.” The New Atlantis. Accessed February 4, 2019. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/gene-editing-new-technology-old-moral-questions.
Greene, Marsha, and Zubin Master. “Ethical Issues of Using CRISPR Technologies for Research on Military Enhancement.” Journal of Bioethical Inquiry15, no. 3 (September 2018): 327–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-9865-6.
Krishan, Kewal, Tanuj Kanchan, and Bahadur Singh. “Human Genome Editing and Ethical Considerations.” Science and Engineering Ethics22, no. 2 (April 2016): 597–99.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9675-8.
Lowthorp, Leah. “#CRISPRfacts, Gene Editing, and Joking in the Twittersphere.” The Journal of American Folklore131, no. 522 (2018): 482–92. https://doi.org/10.5406/jamerfolk.131.522.0482.
Molteni, Meghan. “Scientist Who Crispr’d Babies Bucked His Own Ethics Policy | WIRED.” Accessed February 4, 2019. https://www.wired.com/story/he-jiankui-crispr-babies-bucked-own-ethics-policy/.
Mulvihill, John J., Benjamin Capps, Yann Joly, Tamra Lysaght, Hub A. E. Zwart, and Ruth Chadwick. “Ethical Issues of CRISPR Technology and Gene Editing through the Lens of Solidarity.” British Medical Bulletin122, no. 1 (June 2017): 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldx002.
Sugarman, Jeremy. “Ethics and Germline Gene Editing.” EMBO Reports16, no. 8 (August 2015): 879–80. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201540879.
Cribbs, Adam P., and Sumeth M. W. Perera. “Science and Bioethics of CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing: An Analysis Towards Separating Facts and Fiction.” The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine90, no. 4 (December 19, 2017): 625–34.
“40 Years Ago, GMO Insulin Was Controversial Also.” American Council on Science and Health, August 29, 2017. https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/08/29/40-years-ago-gmo-insulin-was-controversial-also-11757.
NELSON, CARL H. “Risk Perception, Behavior, and Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Organisms: Toward Understanding American and European Public Reaction.” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 44, no. 8, Apr. 2001, pp. 1371–1388, doi:10.1177/00027640121956737.
“China’s CRISPR Twins Might Have Had Their Brains Inadvertently Enhanced – MIT Technology Review.” Accessed February 25, 2019. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612997/the-crispr-twins-had-their-brains-altered/.
“Good as Gold: Can Golden Rice and Other Biofortified Crops Prevent Malnutrition?” Science in the News(blog), August 10, 2015. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/good-as-gold-can-golden-rice-and-other-biofortified-crops-prevent-malnutrition/.
Napier, T. L., M. Tucker, C. Henry, and S. R. Whaley. “Consumer Attitudes Toward GMOs: The Ohio Experience.” Journal of Food Science69, no. 3 (April 1, 2004): CRH69–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb13344.x.
“The Sobering Details Behind the Latest Seed Monopoly Chart.” Civil Eats, January 11, 2019. https://civileats.com/2019/01/11/the-sobering-details-behind-the-latest-seed-monopoly-chart/.
“Where Are GMOs Grown and Banned?” GMO FAQ(blog), February 7, 2016. https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/where-are-gmos-grown-and-banned/.
“Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public’s Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them.” Science in the News(blog), August 10, 2015. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/will-gmos-hurt-my-body/.
“Challenging Evolution: How GMOs Can Influence Genetic Diversity.” Science in the News(blog), August 10, 2015.