Genetic Engineering; Where do we draw the line?
- Ellen Soares
- Mar 2, 2021
- 2 min read
Genetic Engineering is classified as the conscious modification of any part of DNA or RNA and is currently becoming more and more accessible to scientists, this is due to the CRISPR genetic engineering method, which is significantly cheaper than previous alternatives.
CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats) is a gene-editing system capable of removing and replacing parts of the genetic code. It uses the Cas9 enzyme to break up the DNA sequence and is used by bacteria to help fight bacteria-targeting viruses called bacteriophages by recognizing the Cas9 gene on the bacteriophages. The Cas9 enzyme is an endonuclease enzyme that breaks phosphodiester bonds within the DNA molecules and is what allows the CRISPR system to function as a gene-editing tool.
The process of using CRISPR in genetic engineering requires loading the system with RNA which could be synthetically produced by scientists and then specifically targeted genes can be modified in accordance with the demand. This modified RNA can then be used to produce proteins with this mutation and can help scientists find disease-causing mutations like those causing cancer.
CRISPR is currently being used to find COVID-19 therapies, genetically modifying crops to yield more or require fewer chemicals as well as its proposed use in humans to eradicate "cancer genes". These are all very promising uses of genetic engineering, however, these too have their limitations. For example, the CRISPR COVID-19 therapies currently lack delivery mechanisms for them to be effective within the lungs where the virus is most disruptive, the genetically modified crops can increase environmental issues and could lead to the potential contamination of nearby species (plants or animals), and there are currently multiple interrelated genes associating themselves with causing cancers.
It would be naïve to ignore the overlying ethical issues of genetic engineering, especially considering how it is becoming more widely available to scientists after it has cut costs. Many critics of genetic engineering and CRISPR alike raise valid concerns as to the public use of such genetic engineering technologies, where it could be used to change genetic abnormalities or phenotypes (observable characteristics determined by the genetic code) in children.
Changing genetic abnormalities is closely related to Eugenics, where historically Eurocentric features have been prioritized by many as a result of colonialism. Allowing for the public use of CRISPR would ultimately allow those who can afford to, to push their subconscious biases, and would ultimately lead to even greater divisions between the wealthy and the average person as well as greater racial divides. Further, the use of genetic engineering to remove genetic abnormalities that may cause disabilities could even lead to the lack of social responsibility to provide accessibility for those most affected by their disabilities. Overall, these would encourage society to make backward progress in the matter of equality and would alienate those not conforming to standards created during the colonial era. It is at this point where we should ask ourselves, how do we decide where to draw the line and prevent this backward progress?
Currently, CRISPR is only available for professional use and some countries have gone as far as banning its use for non-research purposes altogether to prevent the compulsion to adhere to arbitrary standards of what is acceptable in society and further the implementation of eugenics within their nations.
Comments