Watch this video
As shown in the video above 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?
In principle, I support the general idea of using genetic modifications to cure diseases. However, this can only be done with extreme precaution.
First, we need to consider whether it is technologically feasible and reliable to implement the treatment. One criticism that Dr. He received for his experiment is that the CRISPR is not sufficiently mature for clinical practices.
Second, the risk and danger of the treatment need to be weighed against the benefits. There are many alternative approaches to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, so the need for genetic modification is unjustified.
Third, we need to be fully aware of the seriousness of genetic modifications. Unlike the standard gene therapy that affects only the patients themselves, genetically modified embryos can pass along the modified genes to their offspring. As a result, this treatment has implications for people surrounding the patients or even the society at large. Hence, these types of treatment can only be conducted after being aggressively vetted by professional ethics committees.
This is a delicate ethical problem we as society face. Genetic modification holds the promise of alleviating human suffering, oftentimes, before it can occur. By correcting and/or altering genetic sequences and gene mutations, it is believed that the risk of genetic disease could be significantly diminished. Proponents believe the rewards greatly outweigh the risks.
However, at this stage in development, we know little of the long-term/unintended side effects that methods such as CRISPR gene editing may produce for humans. For this reason, I believe that it is crucial to continue many more years of testing before significant human trials take place.
Overall, I believe that we must tread carefully into this new paradigm. If genetic modification and gene editing ever advance to become accepted clinical options, it will be in large part due to built trust and robust, repeatable clinical outcomes. This can only occur with time and testing.
I feel like these scientists have their hearts in the right place. Just not wanting children to be born with hereditary diseases they would have to suffer with forever. However, how long until that care turns into breeding out other things such as autism and down syndrome. This is just treading the line between what can be considered the betterment of society and what can eventually develop into a modern form of eugenics. It only takes a group of scientists to decide what’s right and wrong and play God on unborn children. For things like HIV and cystic fibrosis I can agree that I would absolutely not be upset if they were bred out of the human race forever. But, in saying that, I do not know what kind of doors something like that would open. I think it’s to much of an ethical issue to let only a small group of scientists decide the fate of everyone.
All in all I guess I would say just to be careful with something like this. You can exterminate all the harmful diseases you want but eventually I think someone is going to take it to far somehow.
I do believe this type of technology should be utilized to treat disease. However, there comes the point of who makes this decision. In addition, governmental regulation would be a tricky slope to navigate. And what constitutes a disease would be a moral challenge to navigate. However, there are moral boards for situations such as this to evaluate the pros and cons of various cases and scenarios. One thing that would is clear is that it would be difficult to have blanket laws surrounding this type of treatment. However, the promise of not allowing a child to suffer or to lead a full and healthy life is one worth considering.
I think engineering a baby’s gene to resists HIV infection should be allowed, especially if previous trials showed positive results. Although this process may be expensive and needs to be done under serious precautions, I think this is an extreme advancement in CRISPR research and could prove to decrease death and infection in future generations.
Although CRISPR has the potential to protect the girls from future HIV infection, a lot of risks can come with the procedure of injecting the mother with other people’s genes. I think a lot of good comes from this procedure, but there needs to be more science involved since they’re dealing with unintended changes to the genome. I think these sorts of experiments should be allowed (especially if the patient is okay with it) because it discovers a whole new realm of research that could change the world forever.
These scientists seem to know what they’re doing since they did the experiment on the mother’s genes before implantation to see the effects first. However, just because there were positive results at first, doesn’t mean off-target editing and/or large gene deletions will occur in the future, unfortunately. Overall, I think the science is there and the results of this treatment could be very effective, but there is still a lot of unknown with the CRISPR/cas9 protein.
I definitely support these genetic modification. As the scientist himself said this couple did not want a designer baby just a baby that was healthy and free from HIV. Yes there are risks with the modifications but like in any health service often the benefits out weigh the risk. These type of modifications could be the future of healthcare and how we eradicate certain diseases like HIV.
Human genetic engineering is still in its infancy, and I don’t think it is wise to move too quickly. Recent advances in technology have outpaced the necessary ethical discussions around many of these subjects. In 2015, Jennifer Douda, the inventor of the CRISPR-Cas9 technology, gave a talk in which she recommended a pause on certain clinical uses of CRISPR-Cas9 involving editing heritable genes. The potential long-term consequences are not well known.
The fact that these genetic modifications can be passed on from generation to generation means we are making decisions with repercussions not just for ourselves, but for our descendants. It really has profound implications for the future of human beings as a species. We don’t know what other mutations could be influenced by the changes we are making, because we haven’t yet been able to thoroughly study it. If we open the door a little bit without proper research we could end up going too far, forever releasing a mutation into the human genome of our own creation.
I do support human genetic engineering research, and I believe we will be able to utilize it in amazing ways that will help many people. I also believe we have to be extremely careful in how we go about doing so. The potential for abuse of technology will always be real, but more so without proper ethical debate. Besides the potential for irrevocable negative change to the human genome, designer babies, eugenics, and discrimination could be real consequences without proper regulation. I think the overall question, should the modification in the crispr babies video, or similar modifications that can be passed from generation to generation be allowed for humans, isn’t one we know the answer to yet. More research is needed, both scientifically and ethically.
Genetic engineering has been a very political topic in the bio world, and rightfully so, but in the right hands, it can end suffering and be extremely useful. The main worry with genetic engineering always seems to be that the wrong people will get the technology and start modifying their babies to make them more pretty or perhaps even worse; people will create a “super human” with all the best genes necessary to be the smartest, most athletic, etc. While I agree that these things should not happen, I don’t necessary agree that the cons outweigh the pros0–and that’s just considering the worst case if it were to get into the wrong hands. We regulate all sorts of things in the modern world, and I think that this technology is so useful that it’s worth trying to regulate to save lives and end suffering.
After watching this video I have learned a lot new insight of genetic modifications. Personally I support and agree with these genetic medications and think that they should be allowed in our society. I think this should be allowed since in the past many great outcomes have happened from these modifications. I believe doing such a thing can lower the over all future deaths and infections in the future generations to come in our world. For example this scientists talked about how this couple did not want their child to have HIV therefore they went forth with it. I think that if this continues to be done then this could lower diseases and stop the spread as quickly.
Although this process is a huge ethical debate I think that this is something important to consider and get done since it can end suffering and pain to a human and lead to many great outcomes. I thing genetic engineering will create a great future since we will be helping out future generations from the potential risk they may be putting on themselves.
I do support these genetic modification, but I believe it should be on a case to case basis. The scientist pointed out they just want a healthy baby, like everyone. And it is scary because this may add risks, but in this situation a baby born with HIV also has risks. I think as a world this would help in certain situations, like this could potentially erradicate HIV. I do understand why some people are against this, but I believe that in some cases the benefits do out weigh those risks. In less life threatening diseases like vision problems, I don’t think it is necessary at this point.
Absolutely I believe this should be engineered in humans. Genetic engineering is the future and could possibly cure things like HIV/Aids, cancer, and diseases like we watched last week that cause blindness. While there is still research needed to be done this could be huge not only in illnesses but also could play a huge role in preventing them. Like he said in the video these crispr and grna can be inserted into embryo developing fetuses and they can have this already developed in their immune system when they are born. Obviously this can get out of hand if there is no regulation, but with intense research and extensive regulation genetic engineering using the Crispr gene could save so many lives.
I do believe generally, genetic modification should be allowed around the world. Gene therapy allows families who have been watching their children and family suffer from diseases to have some sort of hope in the cure of the disease. However, it does raise some ethical concerns. Genetically modifying a genome of an individual does pose of risk at changing unwanted parts of the genome, creating more serious complications than just the one disease. I also believe that CRISPR, for example, should only be used when the disease is most definitely hereditary and will most likely be passed down generation to generation. If there is little evidence of a disease to occur, one should avoid genetically modifying their genome, or they may pose a risk at increasing their chances of complications.
I’m not sure where to even start with this…. yes, AIDS is currently an incurable disease that can be devastating to the patient and their loved ones on many levels. It is transmitted by a virus and is NOT an inheritable genetic disease. That said, the type of genetic engineering performed in this case on IVF embryos prior to implantation is indeed inheritable for all subsequent generations. I would really like to know what ethics board review process was in place, if any, to approve this procedure.
From a theoretical viewpoint, I am in favor of using scientific procedures (including genetic engineering) to alleviate human suffering and I know that there will always be controversy associated with the initial human clinical trials for new procedures. The reality check comes in when I consider the fact that in the past we have frequently plunged forward with new scientific discoveries before pausing to consider the long term implications.
I think it was great they were able to prevent an HIV infection in these children and that they grew as healthy babies. However, if this is to be common place I think there needs to be a strong body responsible for oversight and that each case must follow certain criteria. Throughout this course we have been taught that genes never impact just one thing, so there also needs to be significant evidence that whatever is being modified will not impact the human being negatively in other ways down the road.
I do find that it is great that this type of technology is available especially for a virus such as HIV that can be fatal and present with a lot of complications as it progresses. In terms of whether or not it should be used on a regular basis is up for debate. I question how effective this gene therapy can be if someone were to inherit a genetic disorder that is more complex. Also, I wonder how the process would work and if it would be feasible if there were several genes involved, would gene therapy be sufficient to prevent the onset of the disease or would additional gene therapy be required. Overall I do believe that it is something that should be considered and be researched further to evaluate its efficacy with other genes in preventing other inherited diseases.
This video brought a very interesting topic to surface; genetic modifications to cure disease even before the individual is born and brought into this world. We all know that science keeps improving and advancing, however this is a new concept for me, and I was very intrigued to learn about it. My first impression on this topic was that generally, I support the use of genetic modifications to cure and prevent disease transfer from generation to generation. However, there are ethical issues that arise for society to think more about. With stories like that of Lulu and Nana, there is a large promise that human suffering from genetic diseases could be eliminated and even prevented from occurring in the first place. This would allow two individuals with any genetic background to feel safer in having children together. However, the video, and even science lacks knowledge on the long-term side effects that CRISPR gene sequence alteration may endure on patients. Lulu and Nana had a positive outcome and a successful story when it came to their CRISPR experience, but that doesn’t mean all other stories will be a happy ending. What if large gene mutation/deletions occur next time? Are scientists thinking about that? Or are they just focusing on this one positive outcome?
All in all, if two parents have done their own research on such procedure, can afford the associated costs, and sit down and think everything through, then I think they should be allowed to make that decision. Ultimately, it is their child/children that would be included in this treatment and they are the decision makers. The more people that volunteer for such treatment, the more we are going to learn about gene modifications – potentially helping the prevalence of using the CRISPR therapy.
After watching the video and considering the material from the last two weeks of class, I was just thinking about how lucky we are to have the technology and option to modify genes. Although genetic modification can be a controversial topic, regarding the video, I believe that it should be allowed in situations like HIV and congenital blindness among other disorders that can cause a decrease in quality of life as well as threaten the life of an individual. For genetic modification to be considered ethical, I believe that if parents choose to have the genes of their unborn children modified, then both parents have to be accepting well educated in the procedure, and the must be ‘surgery’ considered safe and cause no other complications. In the case of Mark, who happened to be HIV positive and who believed that he would never be able to have children, gene modification gave him and his wife the opportunity to have children unencumbered by the many difficulties that the virus entails. I support gene modification if the goal is to improve the quality of life and health of an individual, though I do not support gene modification when regarding the looks of a child nor experimentation on sex cells.
At the end of the day, everyone has a different opinion from on another; I know if I were a parent and suffered from a genetic disease that my children would most likely suffer from, if given the option, I would go through with gene modification to ensure a healthier life for my child.
Genetic modification in embryos can be a very slippery slope. In this example, preventing the pathway of HIV from infecting the two girls, I believe is a proper and expectable use of Crispr technology. Using this technology to eliminate life threatening and seriously life debilitating is, I believe an ethical use.
That being said not every case will be black and white and I believe in there would be a lot gray area. For example case of severe vs. mild autism, one case is a lot more debilitating in terms of quality of life than the other but neither are life threatening disorders. At this point we would be using Crispr as a way to “better” society and I would consider that unethical.
We have great, life altering capabilities with Crispr but it will be easy to misuse this power. So we have to go into this new Crispr era with extreme caution.
I do believe that there can be a future where we utilize CRISPR. Like any new medical concept, we need more research. I believe right now the best way we could introduce CRISPR would be through testing the therapy molecularly on sample DNA.
CRISPR was introduced to the public through unethical research. Yes, CRISPR is so exciting and should be used in the future to help genetically modify disease. However, after the unethical experiment where even the doctor forged documents, CRISPR will not be widely accepted.
I believe CRISPR should be allowed, but just as any new procedure or treatment, it should be rigorously tested. Especially, the genes they will be editing. CRISPR has the power to cure cancer, blood disorders, blindness, AIDS, muscular dystrophy, Huntington’s disease, and sickle-cell. All in all, I believe CRISPR should be able to be a new treatment option, but highly observed and surveyed for unethical applications.
Ideally yes, but I don’t see any realistic scenario in which it wouldn’t end up being used for the wrong reasons.
Lets assume that the therapy was a success. The daughters genome was properly changed (it wasn’t) with the gene to make them immune to HIV and that is the only difference the therapy made (we won’t know because the study was very poorly done) With this assumption we are stating that HIV can be completely prevented with no side effects. The treatment would be completely beneficial to our species, but who would be allowed/enabled to get it? We are currently seeing the COVID vaccine used as a tool to garner international political favor. No matter how easy the genetic modification process is made, I can’t realistically see that it wouldn’t be leveraged by a powerful entity to exploit the developing world.
That isn’t even getting into the slippery slope of designer babies, or addressing that the operation the video covered was so terribly done. What impacts will it have on Lulu and Nana’s children? Will they even be fertile? Is the new artificial gene more prone to mutation or other errors? Doing this procedure forced Lulu and Nana, and any of their future children, into a life of being test subjects.
In the video it talked about how the father Mark struggled throughout life because he had HIV and how he and his wife Grace would never put that on a child. So in the video, they had twin babies that were genetically engineered to resist the fathers HIV infection. With this being said it seemed as if the procedure was a success and neither of the babies were born with the HIV infection. For most people they will see this as great news and that genetic modifications can help resolve certain infections, but others will also see the negative outcome that can come from this as well. Some negative outcomes could be modifying your baby in a way you could change the eye color, hair color, and even the IQ. Gene therapy is a very exciting topic and something that can grab a viewers attention but it can also be used in a bad way instead of just for something good like allowing a baby to be born without a certain mutation or infection.