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 such as the one used to treat the woman with the vision problems ) be allowed for humans?
I feel like this topic could get very controversial very quick. When working with babies and changing their genome, its almost like you are trying to genetically engineer the perfect baby. But, where does it stop? Are we going to find the way to genetically change the DNA of the baby so they never get cancer or never have any diseases? Where does the line get drawn?
In the case in the video, I understand why the gene therapy was done. With the father having HIV, it would cause potential problems in the babies. HIV can be very detrimental to babies, causing a variety of health conditions. By doing gene therapy, they helped to protect the babies from a debilitating disease. I believe this a beneficial use of biotechnology and gene therapy.
Personally, I think that stopping genes from being passed on from generation to generation stops the whole process of natural selection and survival of the fittest. I would opt to not use genetic engineering to create favorable traits.
Human genetic engineering should definitely be legal for developing resistance to certain diseases or eradicating certain diseases. I feel that genetic engineering to change qualities such as height or intelligence is not a question of if but when. This becomes an ethical issue for a number of reasons, chief of which is an unequal edge granted to the baby with a “perfect” genome. However, once the technology becomes free and accessible to all, there doesn’t seem to be a sound moral barricade to limiting its use.
After viewing the Crispr video and the video regarding the genetic modification of babies, I think this new realm of genetic modification has both pros and cons. Since this type of gene therapy can impact future generations, we could potentially eradicate some life threatening viruses by implementing this type of therapy (such as HIV discussed in the video). However, there is a very fine line to walk when it comes to doing this procedure. Some people would make the argument that completing gene therapy for visual impairments is necessary because it causes a detriment to a person’s livelihood. How can one type of genetic modification based on quality of life be justified over another for the same purpose? I believe in letting nature take its course and not relying too heavily on biotechnology to manufacture the “perfect” genome. However, I know there are others who certainly think differently about this topic.
I personally think after watching the video that this should be allowed for manipulation of humans, but only for life threatening diseases. Personally, as a human myself, I would be thrilled to know that my parents altered my genes so I wouldn’t have to deal with HIV for the rest of my life. Although I do think it could get very controversial, because an improper change of genes could cause a child to have many problems once they are born. I think with more research and consistent successful trials, this should be allowed. I do know that there would be some people who would want to change sex’s or height and things like that to their children. However, I do not find this ethical. I believe this option should strictly be for life threatening complications only.
Gene modification will always be a touchy topic based on the heavy ethics involved and moral disagreements between individuals. I think in this specific case, it is quite fascinating that we have the ability to potentially stop HIV from being passed down and remove this from potential children. I think if certain guidelines are in place if the baby could be in danger such as in this case, we should definitely be using this technology to our advantage. However, of course the line gets blurry because the question of where do you stop in the pursuit of altering and potentially creating “perfect” children and what exactly are the criteria for modifying genes. I think the technology is terrific, but I also understand you can’t just pick and choose certain things based on your own opinions. On the contrary, we do have guidelines for other things such as surgery being elective or medically necessary, so it is possible that we could utilize this way of thinking when babies could be in danger at birth such as the case with the HIV or the woman with vision issues.
Although a controversial topic that has many views and opinions, I do think that genetic modifications should be allowed for humans. The possibility of being able to shield a human from a potentially deadly or painful disease is a phenomenon that should be utilized. While I do think it should be utilized, I also think this kind of technology should not be taken for granted and should not be used irresponsibly. The ability to prevent babies from inheriting painful and debilitating diseases from their parents is something that could save a human from suffering. If it can be done safely and ethically, I think this is an amazing leap in health and science that we should use. Of course there are dangers to this type of technology, but many technologies and therapies in science always come with risks. I think with more trials and tests, this should be allowed. Also I believe that certain regulations should be sought to ensure it is being done for health reasons. IVF itself was a very controversial issue for a very long time, but it also brought so many people into this world and gave the possibility of a family to people who wouldn’t have been able to have one otherwise. My sisters are the product of IVF and the world would be missing out if my parents were never allowed to utilize that technology. As long as it is used for the right reasons and not to create the “perfect child”, I do agree with allowing it to be used safely.
In the case of two children born genetically engineered I believe it is a beautiful scientific discovery that should be utilized. IVF in general has made it possible for people to start families that normally wouldn’t be able. Now science has advanced to stop genetically inherited disorders and diseases which again I would look at as a blessing. having this medical technology would stop the suffering and fear of many families with these conditions. with that being said there is a very fine line involving ethics of when and how much this should be used. In my opinion it should be used as any medical procedure is used which is based on a case to case bases, a necessity or at the doctors own digression. like the doctor said it should not be used for personal preference of children such as eye color or hair color. enable to stop this amazing technology from being abused regulations would have to be in place.
I am strongly in favor of advancement in genetic technology for the purposes of ridding embryos of fatal mutations or engineering HIV resistant babies. If, for example, you could identify genes associated with higher risks of chronic disease, heart disease, dementia, obesity, or cancer and change them into a more favorable form, it would dramatically improve quality of life for future generations. This technology, however has a long way to go in proving its repeatability and safety for other applications. This sort of progress is inevitable moving forward and it may soon become practical and safe to “engineer” babies, like the movie Gattaca. I think that as the tech advances, there needs to be an international, unified ethical body that is able to regulate what is legal to perform.
I believe genetic modifications should be practiced, but with extreme care. In the video, the man states that IVF gene modification is only meant to help a small number of families. If this is the case, I support gene modification if there is no other treatment possible, like the case for children born with vision impairments.
I also believe this type of gene modification can easily be exploited to people who have the means to seek out this treatment. It may leave many people without resources. I think major regulations should be in place to prevent any unethical issues that may arise in the future.
I think, as shown in the video, that the genetic modifications achieved on the embryos was a miraculous breakthrough that helped save the lives of the babies. I think this helps to show that genetic modifications should be allowed on humans. However, I think this is important for altering life threatening conditions only. For traits to be altered just to be more favorable then there is the possibility for more to be changed that we cannot predict the results of down the line. Obviously for such minor benefits this wouldn’t be worth the risk. For other life threatening diseases, it is important that the results are well studied since it is a genetic modification then it can be passed to future generations. However, that is a benefit for those with severe diseases with the potential to eradicate chances of the disease with an individual but also by allowing that person to not worry about passing it onto their offspring as well.
“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 such as the one used to treat the woman with the vision problems ) be allowed for humans?”
Absolutely, yes. I agree with nearly everything He Jiankui said, save for two statements: that gene survery is simply “another IVF advancement,” and that it’s only intended to help a “small number of families.” As with everything, certain regulations will need to be in enacted before the technology can be proliferated ethically, but CRISPR opens the door for untold alleviation of suffering, and I think we should start out the argument on a much broader scale.
I’ve got a couple of personal reasons for thinking this. For one, in light of COVID-19, I think it’s become increasingly apparent that the sick, the infirm, and the immunocompromised among us are more of a rule than an exception. Prior to COVID-19, and prior to the newsreel highlighting the diversity of at-risk populations, I think we all had a bit of a tendency to initially dismiss the virus as being little more than a seasonal flu—something that can’t seriously affect healthy adults. We then learned that all of us are, to some extent, not quite as healthy and impervious as we’d thought, and nearly all of us are related to someone who does fall into an at-risk population.
How does this relate? If CRISPR can one day augment our offspring to combat the development of HIV, cystic fibrosis, or multiple sclerosis, then I have faith it can also combat the development of disorders afflicting my friends and loved ones—high blood pressure, Alzheimer’s, ankylosing spondylitis. The potential is relevant for more than just a small number of families.
Beyond that, and a little closer to home, my own situation is not too far off that of the parents described in the video. While my significant other and I are fortunate enough to not be afflicted with HIV, we do have a handful of personal and family histories of diseases and disorders which we’d prefer not to pass onto our children. Having the opportunity to safely and reliably avoid passing on, say, one’s depression or another’s autoimmune disorder, would be a blessing.
I think that embryonic gene editing should be allowed for humans in certain circumstances. I agree with the video that this technology should be reserved for a select few genetic diseases such as HIV or blindness. Embryonic gene editing should be illegal to use for traits like intelligence, skin color, eye color, etc. as this could quickly devolve into a eugenics situation. Even if this technology is limited to specific genetic diseases/disorders, there is still a lot of controversy in determining which conditions should be edited out of the embryo. For example, there is a large percentage of people in the deaf community who do not consider their deafness to be a disability and actively oppose cochlear implants. In addition, CRISPR is still new technology and we do not have data from multiple generations to show that embryonic gene editing doesn’t have any long-term negative outcomes. There is a potential that editing the genetic disease out of the genome could have harmful effects elsewhere in the genome that haven’t been detected yet. We should extensively study embryonic gene editing in model organisms for a few generations before fully embracing the practice in human embryos.
As others have said, this is controversial and brings up the issue of where to draw the line. I agreed with what He Jiankui said in the video- that this should be kept for healing and not creating a designer baby. In some instances this form of genetic therapy is life changing and should be utilized- such as preventing HIV infections. However, the use of this to heal brings the question- which inherited mutations need healing and which ones do not? Where is that line drawn that one disease is acceptable but another is not? It brings the value of different lives into question. I believe this technology is wonderful and has great potential to help the small proportion of families it should be used for, I just worry about how it is decided what that proportion is.
Obviously with the technology to edit the exact substance that makes all life what it is comes immense weight and responsibility. In this way, we are one step closer to an almost divine ability— to determine who’s who and what’s what in the natural world. In these early stages, I believe that we have a healthy apprehension about for what this ability should ethically be used. However, as we’ve seen with most new inventions throughout history, things eventually lose their novelty and become more commonplace and taken for granted. I think that the danger of abuse of these capabilities lies in that creep toward normalcy— when we are no longer amazed at the God complexes that are undoubtedly created in this field, we are at risk of making a careless move that could have huge implications (potentially for genomes throughout the rest of time). I say this because I do think that these technologies should be allowed to be used now; it would almost be unethical not to use them where the alternative are deadly or excruciating diseases. However I agree that a legitimate body of experts needs to be implemented as soon as possible to serve as authorities on the advance of this technology.
After watching the video, I can see how gene modification could be beneficial for life threatening infections such as HIV. However, I think the manipulation that can be caused from such engineering could be very dangerous. Modifying a genetic makeup could improve a human’s quality of life but interfering with the natural process in my personal opinion is too much power for medical or scientific professionals to hold. Especially in the situation where a child is involved. I think there is an extra moral or ethical dilemma in the sense that children are not able to consent to such experiments. I personally believe If there was further testing and successful trials this should be allowed for serious life threatening situations.
I think this is a very controversial and disputable topic as there are a lot of ethical and moral disagreements that are involved with it. As we see in the video both the babies’ genes were modified to resist HIV infection which is a good thing according to me. The infection is prevented from being passed on to the children from the father. I think in such cases it should be allowed. However, there should be certain criterias that qualify the person to be eligible. Using it for unethical needs such as different physical features like eye color should be banned. It should only be considered if the individual is being protected from some kind of disease that could be lethal or could harm their future development.
After watching the video I believe gene modification can be a very slippery slope but if done correctly can be life saving to generations to come. I liked how the man in the video ended by saying modifications that change the physical appearance or that enhance IQ and things of that nature are not permissible. This is something I strongly agree with and think is something that needs to be highly regulated when this becomes available for the public. Which I believe will be sooner than we think with the exponential science discovery growth. Prevention of horrible diseases or infections should be encouraged but making the “perfect human” is inhumane and not equal to everyone. I believe more work needs to be done on this topic given the life saving possibilities CRISPR holds.
This is a very controversial topic. I think that genetic engineering for humans should be allowed, but perhaps on a case-by-case basis where the risks and benefits are evaluated thoroughly. It’s an especially difficult decision for me when genetic modifications are done to embryos because the humans that develop from those embryos don’t get a say in whether or not they want to be part of a scientific experiment – it’s already been decided for them. Obviously, when genetic modifications have the intended results, it can be extremely beneficial and even life-saving. However, I know that I personally would be very resentful if someone performed a risky genetic experiment on me without my consent, even as an embryo, and it had extremely negative consequences. That’s why I think that genetic engineering on humans should be allowed only after it has been well researched on other animals, it is viewed by the general scientific community as having minimal risk, and it’s done with good intentions, like curing a disease. It’s much easier to agree that gene therapy is ethical because the people who undergo gene therapy have chosen to do so on their own terms.
I understand that this is a very controversial topic, I firmly stand on the side of research. It is true that gene modification tip toes on the border of ethical and non-ethical, but ultimately these findings will improve quality of life for not only humans that are currently alive, but for future generations as well. Some might argue that it is unfair to these babies as they do not have any choice in whether or not they are affected by this gene modification, however it is important to note that we already vaccinate children at very young ages without their “consent”. These vaccines are foreign materials to their bodies, and often have effects that last entire decades, yet we still administer them keeping in minds the health benefits they provide. The same applies to essential surgeries and health procedures. I think that gene therapy should be treated the same as the aforementioned health services. As long as it is proven to be safe and effective, there is nothing wrong with altering the genes of individuals to make them resistant to life-threatening diseases such as HIV, or disabling genetic defects.
After finishing the video, i believe that gene modification is beneficial for those with life threatening illnesses such as HIV. i also agree that it should be kept for ethical reasons such as to heal others instead of taking advantage and creating a “specially modified baby”. I believe that nature should be left alone and follow its destined course because i don’t find it ethical to be able to pick and choose what traits we want our children to have.