Gene editing is defined as any genomic engineering process by whichDNA is inserted, removed or replaced by nuclease enzymes
Beyond the definition of “book”, these types of practices lead to a series of ethical considerations that must of course be taken into account. In 2015, the first attempt at genetic modification of a human embryo was given the green light, followed by experimentation that sought to improve the resistance of these unborn infants to HIV.
Following this, in April 2016, Nature News magazine reported that Professor Fredrik Lanner’s research team at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm had received the necessary ethical approval to begin research that included editing human embryos, a practice strictly prohibited until just a few years ago.
The barrier has been crossed: The experimental field is no longer limited to laboratory animals or the treatment of chronic patients, but that human beings are potentially capable of modifying people’s attributes even before they are born. Of course, with these findings, wondering whether gene editing is dangerous is extremely common in the general population.
Before diving into the ethics of these practices, it is necessary that we understand, even briefly, how they work. Genome editing is currently based on four different techniques:
What is CRISPR-Cas9?
This technique requires its own mention, since it has popularized “gene targeting” in the world of science. While the modification and use of zinc fingers costs an average of 30,000 euros per experiment, with CRISPR-Cas9 you only need a couple of weeks of work and a budget of 30 euros If only for economic reasons, this methodology has opened countless doors in the world of genetic engineering.
To understand this technique we must understand the two components of its name. Let’s go there:
In general, we could say that the CRISPR-Cas9 system is responsible for destroy the regions of genetic material of the virus that has infected the bacteria, inactivating its pathogenic capacity. Beyond that, this sequence allows the integration and modification of viral DNA regions in the bacteria itself. In this way, if the virus infects the microorganism again, it will “know” its nature much better and act more efficiently against it.
To keep things simple, we will say that this methodology allows DNA to be modified at the cellular level, since cuts and modification do not only apply to viral components. The RNA encoded in the CRISPR DNA region acts as a “guide dog”, guiding the Cas9 enzyme to the exact place in the cell’s DNA where cutting and pasting of genetic sequences is to be made. Although it requires a significant exercise in abstraction, this technique is still a most fascinating microscopic mechanism.
The lower costs and ease of use of this technique have represented a new stage for genomic engineering, which, without exaggeration, represents a new window for the concept of human life and evolution as we know them. But is genetic engineering dangerous?
In the world of ethics, not every end justifies the means.
The dogma that “science is unstoppable” It is an imperative by which research has been guided throughout the last century, and it has a double and interesting reading: first, scientists are not willing to stop. Naturally, the more you know, the more you want to know, since each discovery results in the raising of a series of questions that must be answered.
Secondly, this statement assumes that “everything that can be done, must be done.” This is a technological imperative, since it is the obligation of any professional to expand the bases of human knowledge, as long as the new information promotes the well-being and wisdom of the population. Beyond an opinion, an interpretation of the principle of responsibility proposed by the German philosopher Hans Jonas must be taken into account:
“Act in such a way that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of authentically human life on Earth.”
So, anything goes as long as the human species and its permanence on the planet is not compromised at a general level?
Finally, It is necessary to note that all these techniques are ethically neutral: Morality applies to the use to which they are put, and they should not be judged based on their initial premise.
Germline gene editing
Of course, genetic editing in the germline is the area of research that has sparked the most controversy in recent times. We are talking about the modification of life during its first stages: fetal development
For example, in 2015 a group of researchers from Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) genetically edited embryos in order to eliminate the gene that causes beta-thalassemia, a very serious disease that affects the blood.
Although the research did not go very far due to the poor results, the purpose remained clear: to cross the barrier of “natural” biological mechanisms to prevent the occurrence of diseases in newborns.
The two most posed risks regarding these techniques are eugenics (the possibility of selecting human beings with certain characteristics) and the uncertainty that this practice brings (due to the lack of knowledge of how it can affect future generations or the potential danger of putting these tools in the wrong hands).
Besides, Scientists who detract from this type of practice are based on four essential pillars:
Of course, disagreeing with these points is difficult. In the scientific community these practices are not completely condemned, but instead they speak of caution and to build bridges when necessary. In the verbatim words of scientific papers regarding the topic:
“If a case were to arise that clearly demonstrated the therapeutic benefit of germline modification, we would advocate for an open dialogue about the best way to proceed.”
For this reason, certain scientists propose the prohibition of this type of scientific approaches in all countries that do not have strict regulations while the social, ethical and environmental implications of these practices are not fully elucidated. Meanwhile, education and dissemination of the population about this new era of knowledge would also be promoted, so that people not related to the subject can understand and reflect on the benefits and repercussions they bring.
Conclusions and personal opinion
As strange as it may seem in a purely informative space, for the reason of the writer, exposing these types of ethical considerations and not giving a personal opinion is like throwing a stone and hiding one’s hand.
First of all, it is necessary to recognize that “the natural alteration of things” is something that human beings have been doing for centuries Not everything is based on the basal genetics of the individual, since, for example, natural selection is a mechanism that no longer applies to our species. We survived despite our pathologies, some of them chronic ones that in nature would have automatically erased us. This results in biased gene conversion, as it does not respond to adaptive evolution.
Furthermore, we have been modifying the species in our environment for centuries through genetic selection (not transgenesis) to obtain maximum benefit from the land and environment that surrounds us. It is no coincidence that various scientific communities propose that this geological era be renamed the Anthropocene. Not only have we modified ourselves as a species by varying natural genetic selection, but the environment has also been completely transformed based on our benefits.
It is because of that The “naturalness” of the human being is an empty and meaningless concept Still, this should not mean that “from now on everything goes.” Science is knowledge, and knowledge is responsibility. Any scientific practice must seek general well-being in one way or another, but also, as scientists, we have the obligation to transmit our intentions and results to the population in a reliable and friendly manner. This, in many cases, involves adapting to the pace of social change and the demands of the general population.
From here on, each person sets the limit. Is it necessary to stop taking into account general opinion if what is sought is a common good? To what extent should the scientific community wait to implement certain methodologies? Can knowledge be obtained without risk? So is gene editing dangerous? The debate is open.
Capella, V.B. (2016). The gene editing revolution through CRISPR-CAS 9 and the ethical and regulatory challenges it entails. Bioethics Notebooks, 27(2), 223-239.
by Miguel Beriain, I., & Armaza, EA (2018). An ethical analysis of new gene editing technologies: CRISPR-Cas9 under debate. In Annals of the Francisco Suárez Chair (Vol. 52, pp. 179-200).
Lacadena, JR (2017). Genome editing: science and ethics. Ibero-American Journal of Bioethics, (3), 1-16.
