Ethics Of Gene Editing Technology In Brave New World

Ethics of Gene Editing Technology

From the atomic bomb to in vitro fertilization (IVF), new scientific discoveries and inventions have called for global discussions of the ethical implications of their use. The increasing improvements that make genetic engineering technology more sophisticated have especially sparked debates around the world. Genetic engineering, the process of modifying genetic material to create a desired effect, has many positive and negative potential uses. In Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, the dystopian society uses a method called Bokanovsky’s process in which a single fertilized egg is split into many embryos to create large numbers of identical twins. The embryos are put in certain environments and treated with substances

This type of gene editing has been tested for over twenty years, so it is well-researched and highly regulated. Somatic gene editing is used to treat or cure genetic diseases by making changes in the DNA of the targeted cells. This means changes are only made to the patient’s DNA because sperm or egg cells are not edited. To use somatic gene editing, some of the patient's stem cells are removed, CRISPR (or another gene editing technology) is used to correct the mutation, the corrected cells are infused back into the patient, and the corrected cells start replicating (Bergman). One study, conducted by Sikandar Hayat Khan, compared different gene editing technologies, which showed that the most efficient and practical gene editing technology is CRISPR/Cas9. Older gene editing methods, like ZFNs and TALENS, are more difficult to use (Khan). The discovery of CRISPR/Cas9 technology has helped make gene editing much easier. There are two ways to somatically edit cells: ex vivo and in vivo. With ex vivo, cells are edited outside of the patient and then reintroduced. In contrast, editing technology is sent directly into tissues in the body for in vivo. Currently ex vivo is better understood, but it is a complicated and expensive procedure. The in vivo approach is very promising because it can reach certain cells, like eye cells and liver cells, that

Germline editing works by changing the genome of the embryo during its earliest stages, meaning all cells (including egg and sperm cells) are affected. This could affect the patient's future children, and the consequences are difficult to predict (Bergman). Germline editing is less researched than somatic editing. Even in animal studies using CRISPR, there is much confusion about the quality of the data and how to interpret the results. This means it is very important to figure out the off-target effects of replacing or removing a gene before moving to clinical trials in humans (Bergman). The first step to making this safer should be germline editing in a dish to understand how to reduce risks such as targeting the wrong gene, off-target impacts (which create new problems), and mosaicism (when all copies of the gene were not changed) (Bergman). Given how much is unknown about germline gene editing, it was a shock to the world when a news leak in 2018 revealed Dr. Jiankui He, from the Southern University of Science and Technology, used gene editing to disable CCR5 (a gene involved with the HIV infection) in early embryos. The embryos were then implanted, and twin girls were born. Dr. He’s experiment was criticized for the lack of transparency (National Academies). While most scientists do not support the experiment done by Dr. He, many do support