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?
I feel that this circumstance is very reasonable to modify the genetics to make the offspring’s quality of life much better. I think with this area of experimentation, it can become very tricky to draw lines and boundaries. Especially after we discussed the idea of changing children’s eye color, and even gender, I feel much more hesitant saying I agree with this gene therapy because of how it could evolve into something much more cosmetic, and less to improve the health and quality of health in the child. However, if it was done with only the intentions of offsetting diseases and disorders, I think it could be super beneficial in peoples lives.
I feel this situation would be acceptable for modification. How he described the parents’ concerns it seems like they had the best intentions, and it would allow the family to have a normal lifestyle without excessive worry. I was more concerned with his comment about countries that were performing forced sterilizations then these two girls’ modifications. There is certainly a fine line that needs to be established between treatment/prevention and playing God. If it were to become a free for all I could see people using it to change themselves with each new fad and the populations diversity would disappear.
I do think that this is a genius way to prevent certain diseases that cause extreme health risks, however I think we should be careful when modifying one’s genome. We have little to no studies on the long term affects that modifying a genome might have on an individual. With that being said I think that if someone is predisposed to have a disease that would affect them greatly or even cause death, modifying the genome would be a good last resort way to prevent that from happening.
I think that in this case of genetically engineering a gene, it’s not unethical, as it’s to help prolong and improve the children’s lifespan. Especially since the pregnancy came full circle through IVF to begin with. However, even if this is a positive thing, I think this type of science should be used with caution. Although the girls were born healthy, it doesn’t mean that the genes can’t still mutate down the line. With science comes more science, always. So I think that while it’s beneficial for these girls, it wasn’t exactly necessary either. I do not think this should be used as a regular fix for something.
I believe that this is a big step into preventing disease and keeping humans much healthier than we are now, but modifying one’s genome is a very risky procedure. We have not seen the long term affects that CRISPR babies can have, so we shouldn’t be producing much of them at all until we have more research. I still do believe this kind of technology is very important and can create large advantages to human life, but we should not use it lightly.
In this situation, I do think that this modification was acceptable. Being able to give the girls a life without suffering is something incredible. And giving the parents the gift of a child (or 2) when the possibility seemed impossible was probably heart warming. But with great reward comes great risk. Someone mentioned above the possibility of genes mutating in the future. I would be concerned about the future of the girls. Hopefully nothing would come of this. I do agree and think this is not a means to a regular fix or solution but for situations that have little to no answer, this modification was definitely worth the risk.
I think it defiantly depends on the situation. I dont think it should be illegal. While gene modification sounds heavy and risky, a lot of the times these doctors have tested these therapies. Id look at the risk vs the benefit. If we can safely do gene modifications that will improve the quality of life, then I say do it. However these methods should be tested first and if someone is willing to take that risk, Id say let them. Testing on animals with similar issues that we could improve I think is a great route. Once those are deemed safe, I think its okay to try it out on humans. When is comes to specific genes though such as eye color and height, I think that is wrong as it will not affect their health.
I think that modification in this case was acceptable, but I do think it depends on the situation. If it can be an almost guarantee that the modification will improve someone’s conditions, it should be an option to be done. If it can’t be, I don’t think modification should be allowed. I also believe that if the modification isn’t necessary to improve someone’s life, it shouldn’t be allowed to be done. The risk of modification to simply choose something to do with outward appearance isn’t worth it.
I absolutely think genetic modification should be allowed for humans. That said, any benefits and risks should be made clear to those considering genetic modification because informed consent is vital. Given how new the technology is, I don’t feel it should be done unless for quality of life improvement, however it’d be fascinating in the future to see modifications of genes regardless of medical necessity.
I think it should be allowed in humans. You aren’t changing their phenotype (which I think shouldn’t be allowed), just the genotype. You are preventing them from future suffering. Genetically modifying their appearance should not be allowed. It selfish choosing what your child would look like.
I think that this technique should be allowed and encouraged for future development. It will help prevent life threatening diseases and could possibly extinguish some all together in time. I do believe the ability to change a child’s appearance shouldn’t be allowed at all though. This process using proteins that would protect against harmful invaders, I think it should be allowed when used properly for medicine.
Yes, so long as the human benefits outweigh the human costs in the short term and the long term. I do not think that the appropriate balance of the benefits and costs of human genetic engineering are clear today. It is true that the human genome can be affected to cure disease. That should be celebrated. The unintended consequences must always be considered. Identifying the unintended consequences and the unforeseen risks of human genetic engineering will require painstaking efforts on the part of scientists, which would then quickly be followed by the difficult work of convincing the bulk of human society to accept the idea of human genetic engineering.
Yes, genetic modifications that will prohibit a person from getting a disease should be allowed for humans. I think that it is great that this genetic modification even exists. I love that those individuals were able to have children and stop them from inheriting HIV from the parents. It is physically and emotionally beneficial to the offspring. As well as a weight off of the parents shoulders. However, when it does come to cosmetic features, it is a bit concerning to offer gene editing in that area. As it is not called for.
I think genetic engineering is a great tool for helping people and will continue to do so. For the purpose of ensuring healthy people and prevention of life threatening disease, I think genetic engineering and this “gene surgery” will be very helpful. On the other hand, some people aren’t quite as ethical as others. As the doctor mentioned, he didn’t want designer babies, and I agree. I don’t believe it should be allowed that people choose how they want their own children to look or behave. Silly things like hair or eye color shouldn’t be decided on a parent’s preference, nature has it’s own beauty and it flourishes in everyone it’s own way naturally.
I think using gene therapy to prevent inheritable diseases could be a game changer for the future of humanity. This could be used to treat diseases like HIV and prevent cancer in children whose families have a history of it. In the future, it might be possible to genetically modify humans to resist all sorts of diseases. I don’t agree, however, with turning the process of having a baby into something similar to customizing a car. Each person that is born is born with a beautiful combination of both their mother’s and father’s genes. I think it would be ridiculous to change your baby’s eye color or swap genes to make them “better” by any physical standard.
While it is a good thing that disease immunity such as HIV immunity can be passed down from one generation to the next, the types of gene editing that should be able to be done should be carefully regulated in humans. If it would be considered socially acceptable for a grown human to be vaccinated against or for said disease, then I would argue that it is acceptable for gene editing to be done in order to prevent said disease or characteristic. But when it comes to traits such as sexuality or autism that are not considered to be diseases and are not something that a grown adult would be able to be vaccinated against, it would not be socially acceptable for gene editing to occur to change that about an unborn child.
In this circumstance, modifying genetics to enhance the quality of life for offspring seems reasonable, although establishing boundaries can be challenging in this field of experimentation. After considering the potential for cosmetic changes such as altering eye color or gender, I am hesitant to fully support gene therapy if it veers away from improving health and well-being. However, if the primary aim is to address diseases and disorders, gene therapy can be highly beneficial. It depends on the situation, where modifications should be allowed if they can significantly improve someone’s condition but should be restricted if unnecessary or solely focused on just appearance, as the risks outweigh the benefits.
I feel like this is a hard situation to make judgement on. The eradication of disease like HIV in babies is undoubtedly a positive thing. It would get tricky when people start wanting to modify other things that are not possibly life threatening . Money could be thrown around and take the attention of the doctors away from people who are actually relying on the technology for admirable uses. The designer babies could very easily evolve into something that is not used for the greater good of humanity.