The Pros And Cons Of Genetic Engineering

In the near future, future generations of humans could be edited to have desirable traits and qualities. Commercially editing humans for desirable traits is unethical and dehumanises humans. By commercially editing humans for non-medical reasons, reduces humans to a product, effectively diminishing human value. In addition to decreasing human value, gene editing of a human occurs when the subject is an embryo, not allowing the unborn individual to make a choice. The possible reality of commercially designing humans to give them desirable traits is completely unethical, as it reduces humans to a product and diminishes their value as a human.

In the coming years, genetic engineering and editing advancements will help make many advancements

Eugenics (yo͞oˈjeniks) is the belief of perfecting the genetic quality of humans. If gene editing technologies become sophisticated enough, the possibility of negative eugenics. In this scenario in which negative eugenics is apart of the future of mankind, the unedited humans would be considered inferior beings. One of the first applications of modern eugenics was first practiced in the USA. In the USA, tens of thousands of compulsory sterilizations took place to the people that were considered “genetically inferior”. The American eugenics movement later inspired the Nazi eugenics program’s goal of creating a master race. If advancements in CRISPR allowed people to create these “designer babies” a similar nightmare eugenics scenario would be possible. Robert Pollack of Columbia University writes “Rational eugenics is still eugenics. The best in the world will not remove the pain from those born into a world of germ-line modification but who had not been given a costly investment in their gametes. They will emerge with the complexity of a genome different from what this technology will be able to define as “normal.” I do not think anything short of a complete and total ban on human germline modification will do, to prevent this powerful force for rational medicine—one patient at a time—from becoming the

In the hypothetical scenario of a person who was driven to create a designer baby, the edit would have to be in the early stages of the embryo. Therefore, since the embryo is not capable of complex thought, the designer baby would not be able to give consent. The National Institute of Health (NIH) states “These include the serious and unquantifiable safety issues, ethical issues presented by altering the germline in a way that affects the next generation without their consent, and a current lack of compelling medical applications justifying the use of CRISPR/Cas9 in embryos.” In this quote, the NIH explains how gene editing will affect future generations without their consent. In short, the editing of the human embryo prior to birth would not allow the human being edited to give their consent to be