As shown in the video you watched, recent experiments claim that two babies have been born that were genetically engineered to resist HIV infection. Should this or any similar genetic modifications (which can be passed from generation to generation unlike standard gene therapy) be allowed for humans? Explain.
I do not believe genetic modifications should be allowed. A human is developed based on their genetic make up and based on my religious beliefs, the Lord has made them that way for a reason. Before the human is even born, they are being modified without the decision to have that modification. In the case of the twins, they obviously did not want to have HIV however that does not mean they wanted the proteins to be injected into their embryos. People are not meant to be perfect so doing things such as the HIV injection, will begin to make perfect individuals that continue on from generation to generation.
I do not necessarily believe that this type of “gene editing” should be allowed. Especially before birth, I believe that this treats humans as mere objects, and not humans who come with mistakes and flaws. With gene modification, it is basically allowing you to choose exactly how you would like your child to be, which I believe is morally wrong. Finally, CRISPR is not reversible, and it can sometimes lead to random error so it is not always 100% reliable.
I feel like the genetic modifications should not be allowed in humans. Every human is born with their specific set of genes and to alter them before a person is ever born is wrong. They didn’t even get a say into weather or not they would even want this since they were embryos. There is always the risk of something else happening in the body causing more of a risk to the persons health.
Personally, I like the idea of genetic modifications but not to be cheesy, the hearts of the scientists and parents have to be in the right place. I say this because say a child has a higher probability of obtaining a rare genetic disorder that their parents may give them, who’s to say we cannot be able to prevent it and have the child live a normal life. If we have the ability to prevent it, why not do it? Yes, some can argue that it is tampering with nature and religious affiliations but why should the child have to suffer if it is preventable with genetic modification.
Now take this with a grain of salt, this idea of preventing genetic disorders is well thought out but with having the ability to prevent a child from having a disorder, who’s to say the parents and scientists can modify the phenotypes the child has, essentially building your own child. I am not a fan of that aspect of it but I’m sure that will be possible if the ability to shut down bad genes is possible.
My personal opinion is that genetic modifications should be implemented, but before allowing them, strict regulations must be put in place. I think that to ignore the wonderful good these modifications could do for families would be naive; however, it is important that we do not allow modifications to be taken to a dangerous extent. I believe that genetic modifications should be used only to treat deadly congenital diseases, such as HIV. Why should a child have to suffer if there is way we can save its life? Pro-life religious beliefs seem to only apply to a fetus — do we not care about the progression of the child’s life once it is born? As a Christian myself, wholeheartedly believe that everyone is made to be as God wants them. However, I also choose to believe that God has guided the world to be able to come up with technologies that can save the lives of his earthly children. Would we withhold a life-saving cancer treatment that changes someone’s genetics? My guess is that we would not. This issue is no different — if we can save a life, we should.
I believe this genetic modification seems unethical before their birth. I do think that this is a great discovery for genetics due to it solving the problem at its root. If people can live a normal life, then they should. It is never easy to be made fun at school or work or people constantly or mistakenly picking at one’s life. It is an unusual and mainly hard life when a person has to live the rest of their life with a disease. Therefore, afterbirth or with the choice of parents genetic modification should be allowed with proper and safe measures, of course.
I do not think this or any other genetic modification should be allowed. The big thing here is if we start doing it for HIV and start changing every baby’s genome to be resistant to it, then what stops us from doing it with other things. There are other illnesses that people come into contact with a lot more frequently than HIV so it would make sense to make a genome that is resistant or prevents those infections too. After a certain point, I believe it will become too hard for what to change and what not to change in a genome and were to stop. It can become a way for people to make children to their exact liking kinda like modifying a car. In the end, I don’t believe genetic modification should take place because it can lead us to a place in society and medicine that I do not think is beneficial to us.
This subject is very difficult to answer, just like so many subjects in science these days. With the increase in technological advances, we are able to do so much more now than what we were able to do years ago. Some people think that this is unfair or unnatural or should not be allowed. While I can definitely see their point of view and also the spiritual side that God created everyone intentionally. I also believe that this could potentially be very beneficial for not only the affected babies, but future generations and the economy. Like Ty said, I believe that if this is going to happen there should be strict rules, the moment parents start designing their kids eye color or features is the moment it gets out of hand. But for babies who could be born with HIV or other potentially life altering diseases, this could be so beneficial. This will not only help those people later on in life, but also the offspring they may choose to have. This could benefit us economically because these individuals will hopefully not need as many resources or medical treatments as they may have needed before. To me it seems logical to at least explore the option of genetic modification to some extent, but it should be very limited and controlled appropriately.
I think that these gene modifications that treat specific genetic diseases should be allowed. No, I don’t think that you should be able to change the genes in the baby, making it so they look a certain way. However, if you have the knowledge that your child is going to be born with something that is potentially life-threatening, and there is a way to make it so that they can live a more normal life, then I think that should be allowed. There should be tight regulations to make sure that this type of gene modification can only be used if there are no other options and only to make it so that the child doesn’t have to suffer from a genetic disease that ruins their quality of life. Nobody should be forced to do it if it goes against their religious beliefs, but those who are not associated with those beliefs should definitely have this option to consider. Again, gene modification shouldn’t be used in a vain attempt to create the perfect child, but I do think that using it to fix genetic ailments like sickle cell anemia could greatly improve one’s quality of life.
I honestly don’t agree with genetic modifications especially of babies. I do believe there can be preventative measures but to change or tinker with the “make” of a human’s original genome has possible consequences. Such as diseases and viruses and manipulating those to attack each other I see no problem with that in any way. I personally think it should just be taken with caution. If it can improve someone’s health/quality of life I am all for it when it starts to involve altering someone’s “make” I think that’s an issue.
I think that genetic modifications such as this one or similar should be allowed for humans. Using treatments such as genetically engineering an embryo’s genes to make it resist HIV infection would help us eradicate the HIV virus in the future. If less babies are being born with the virus, that leads to a lower chance of the virus being spread between people, which means that overall the number of cases of HIV will decrease and eventually be minimal. Also, if you had a child that lets say was blind due to a specific gene being activated; wouldn’t you want to give your child the chance to see? A genetic modification to the gene that is activated could make it so that child wasn’t blind. Genetic modifications could help people live a more satisfied and happy life overall.
I do not believe in genetically modifying humans this goes against what I believe and live by. I am a Christian and I believe that God made us the way he wanted us. So to go in and change genes in babies is changing exactly what God made and that would be wrong. We all have our ups and downs and none of us are perfect and that’s ok. There is also a lot that can go wrong when doing this. But I do think saving someone’s life later in life from doing similar processes is ok because if we can save a life from a disease then let’s do it. But to alter the human DNA is not something that should happen to make us “Perfect”.
I believe that genetic modifications should be allowed to an extent. If it comes to a life or death disease that could be modified then I believe so but that should be the only reason. There are many more risks and when looking at different at the different diseases that could be modified could lead to more problems later on from the modifications. If it can stop deadly diseases then I believe its okay but if it is a livable disease that only has some restrictions to daily living then It should be restricted.
I believe that genetic modification should be allowed. There should be restrictions on the type of gene that would be modified because there would be individuals who would want to create a perfect baby/child. If gene modification is allowed the process could become more efficient and increase the success rate.
I believe genetic modification to the baby should be allowed only to the extent of preventing disease. If this is done, we can only be certain this is what the individual would have wanted. (Desirable genetic traits are universally in favor of health, but we can’t make decisions on how he or she will look. That’s not our choice and we cannot know what they would want).
It shouldn’t be used to improve what already will likely be a healthy baby. It shouldn’t be used to try and create the ‘perfect baby’. It should be used to help those who already seem to be at a genetic disadvantage as pertains to health.
My fear is that a reliance on genetic modification could result in more unhealthy pregnancies due to a false sense of security. Genetic modification should not be used as a supplement to a healthy pregnancy.
I believe that CRISPR should only be used on humans to fix genetic diseases. To fix this, a gene drive might be needed to ensure that the faulty gene that causes the disease is not passed on to the next generation. Other than curing diseases, CRISPR should not be used on humans as ethical lines can be crossed with the miss-use of this technology.
It really is a tough situation. Of course you would want to help prevent children from contracting HIV at birth. But since is is an edit that will be passed onto future generations, it may very well cross an already blurry line. I have no objections to the single-patient medical procedures to fight cancer and such. Once hereditary traits and similar genetic material is at play it can quickly turn into an horrid problem. “Designer babies” seem fine until you realize how that technology can be abused. There is no way to draw a clear ‘ethical’ line except perhaps between this and in cases of curing a disease. If we let doctors use it to help babies with HIV, they could argue that they should be allowed to alter, similarly, hair and eye color. It feels like Pandora’s box which, if opened, will unleash a rampant outrage along religious, political, and plain ethical reasoning. If we could find a way to outline and agree on exactly what is “okay” and green light only those procedures, then I will happily jump on board!
Genetic modifications need to be permitted for humans in order to combat disease. The perfect example of what CRISPR usage could do is eliminate some genetic disease like cystic fibrosis (CF). According to Emily’s Entourage, an organization dedicated to drug-development and research for the CF, 1 in 31 Americans carry the trait to pass on CF. Cystic Fibrosis is caused by a nonsense mutation, and some believe that CRISPR usage could pave the way to eradicating the CF gene all together by modifying genomes. The current projected life expectancy for CF is 41 years of age, and there are almost 2,000 mutations of CF; how amazing would it be to see the disease numbers decline through the use of CRISPR? There is some controversy behind the usage of CRISPR as not all are sure of its efficiency and how it could impact future generations. However, it seems that the pros outweigh the cons, and research must be permitted.
-Alice
I think that gene engineering could definitely become something that is taken advantage of. I can definitely understand where this type of genetic engineering can be useful, but I am not sure if it is ethical. I think that it could definitely get to the point where people are making “designer babies” and are able to pay to have babies that are genetically superior to others, which could become something very dangerous in society.
I think that genetic modifications should be allowed in the future, although I am not so sure about it at this point in time. It does seem risky to put all of our faith in a piece of science that has not thoroughly been studied long enough to ensure near 100% accuracy. Nothing is perfect, although we are speaking about a child’s life. I firmly do not believe that genetic modification should be used to make humans with more desirable or favorable characteristics. Although I do support the idea of being able to help families in need of a way to create healthier futures for their offspring. As I said, we are talking about a child’s life and this is not something to gamble over. In the circumstances of diseases that have not had enough CRISPR experimentation and trials to show success, such as the ones mentioned in the article that retain 50% accuracy, should not be eligible to receive gene modification. Although, if there is experimental evidence on similar species that show high success rates, I think people should have the opportunity to do so if they wish. I do not think it is for society to make the choice about whether or not this should be done or whether or not people should be able to have access to this. I think there should be a base guide to show what CRISPR success rates should be required for it to be used on humans, and that parents who wish do this for their child be informed about the major risks that can occur(other mutations, incorrect portions of DNA being cut, that it doesn’t always work) if they decide to have the procedure done so that there is a basis for success and knowledge with each procedure for varying diseases, just as would be done in a surgical setting.
Genetic engineering is something that can do many things for the future. Looking at it in a medical perspective, it can help or even cure many diseases. If this can be used to prevent a baby get HIV, any parent would take that chance. It would be beneficial to have genetic modification procedures allowed. However this is an ethical issue. Being able to genetically engineer can lead to many problems. Many people can abuse this kind of power. So if this was allowed, there needs to be some limitations to it.