Claire Fan - Week 11: Playing God
 |
| How far is too far? Pictured: "The Creation of Adam" by Michelangelo |
Designer babies.
Or, the genetic “editing” of a fetus’ genetic makeup in the womb. The first instance of this was seen in 2018 with the announcement from scientist He Jiankui that he had successfully created the first genetically modified babies; twins Lulu and Nana were modified to possess resistance to HIV. However, the ramifications of He’s experiment extend far beyond concern for the siblings’ wellbeing.
Following the He Jiankui affair, China passed laws strictly forbidding and restricting embryo modification and cloning. Other countries have similar laws, with many banning or placing heavy restrictions on germline editing.
He’s actions raised important questions that have been the topic of mass controversy in the scientific community and beyond: How far is too far? What should the boundaries on this kind of “science” be? This kind of technology clearly has the power to save lives, so how do we determine relative legality? Is transhumanism really the next big step for us? Where does humanity go from here?
In 2025, scientists in Japan announced that they had used CRISPR (He Jiankui used this technology with Lulu and Nana as well) to remove the extra chromosome 21 in lab-grown human cells. In other words, a cure for Down syndrome is well underway.
On one hand, gene editing has as much potential for good as the invention of antibiotics. However, there is also a pointed difference in what we could do and what we should. If we were to start, where would we stop? At risk of falling into a slippery slope fallacy, I’ll endeavor to minimize catastrophizing. But it’s not hard to imagine one thing leading to another—a disease eliminated here, an enhancement there…
We humans are always improving, always innovating, always inventing. What’s most exciting about us is also the most terrifying. What do we do with this infinite potential? Maybe the answer involves a bit about what we shouldn’t do.
As of 2021, twins Lulu and Nana are reported to be healthy.
Hi Claire! I found your blog topic incredibly interesting, as usual, and one that I have never seen covered. Your blog topic reminded me of a cyberpunk movie I watched a few years back, where if a pair of individuals had the money to fund the pay for their desired traits, they could genetically modify any and every aspect of their future child. Race, height, hair color, and eye color were just the tip of the iceberg. They could modify intelligence, empathy, apathy, critical thinking skills, strength, speed, and flexibility. Those who could not afford this genetic modification, or refused to participate in it, were slowly outcompeted by genetically modified children and their families in every aspect of survival. As the decades passed, the genetic modification got out of hand, and the wealth gap between the rich and the poor was not determined by clothes or houses, but was now determined by genetics. It sent the movie's setting into complete chaos and eventually caused a revolution. The leaders of the revolution were all killed, and so were all their followers. Until an influential politician's daughter suggested killing the entire lower class. She had been genetically modified to have a set of physical traits to make her seem more desirable to a fellow politician's son for marriage, an unnoticed byproduct of her genetic modification was apathy and psychopathy, which is why she suggested genocide. The elite class of citizens was inspired by her idea and proceeded to kill everyone who could not afford genetic modification, which led to the movie ending with millions of people dying. Naturally, this is an overexaggerated version of what might occur should genetic modification spiral out of control, but given today's state of the world, what is stopping it from happening eventually?
ReplyDeleteHi Claire! I thoroughly enjoyed reading this blog, and I think you brought up a lot of important, pressing questions about the ethics surrounding the modification of embryos. I first learned about this concept in my sixth grade science class, only in the context of trying to extract “desirable traits” in animals instead of humans. Even back then, my little twelve-year-old self was kind of put off by the whole idea, because there are just too many negative consequences that could come out of such a development.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading your blog, I was reminded of the saying that I had based my last blog off of: “With great power comes great responsibility.” Personally. I just don’t believe that we as humans have the ability to manage that power and live up to that responsibility, because we often find it difficult to overcome an innate tendency towards acting in a self-serving manner. Also, I think that if we begin to embrace this genetic power, we won’t be able to determine where to stop, and we will also have trouble deciding who should be the recipients of such power, and who should be left without treatment. If we had the resources to provide for everyone, that might eliminate or at the very least diminish this issue, but it is a bit quixotic to imagine such a reality.
With that in mind, in He’s experiment with HIV, how does one come to the difficult conclusion that one person should be genetically modified? And then, even more difficult, how does one decide what genetic traits are acceptable to alter, and which should be left alone? I am also a strong believer in the idea that everything happens for a reason, and genetic modification feels a bit like messing with outcomes that have already been predestined. Thank you for sharing such an interesting blog!