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 think it should be allowed for humans but under certain circumstances. I think that it should be available to the people who know they have a genetic disease that can be passed on to their child that could affect their quality of life, or HIV like in the video. I do not think it should be used like “Build a baby” where people are picking and choosing what their kid will look like, I think it should be used for medical purposes only. As long as doing this does not damage the quality of life for the incoming baby and cause other issues, I don’t see why it would be an issue to help make their quality of life better.
I believe that we should allow genetic engineering on humans. I think that the potential risks that come with it do not outweigh the benefits from doing so. It can help us try to avoid many underlying genetic diseases that can be passed from parent to child. By avoiding such like HIV in the baby’s case from the video it can overall improve the baby’s quality of life and hopefully improve their lifespan. Using it in instances like this could overall be very beneficial for society moving forward and could be furthered in its research through more money and time spent researching genetic engineering on humans.
While the potential benefits are compelling, the current state of technology and understanding calls for a cautious approach and I do not think this is something everyone should have access to. These modifications raise ethical concerns, such as lack of consent from the individuals affected and unknown long-term consequences. Technologies like CRISPR may introduce harmful mutations. Therefore, heritable genetic modifications should be approached with great caution and require guidelines, and thorough research, before widespread accessibility.
Here are my thoughts on genetic engineering after watching the Crispr video:
1. There can be possible unintended consequences from genetic engineering regarding genome structure and function
2. Genetic engineering is a great advancement medically, as it can prevent risk of infections from parents, such as HIV infection
3. Genetic engineering needs to be long-term tested for safety of patients
I believe that genetic modifications should be allowed for humans. Genetic engineering protects against harmful diseases and infections like HIV. It also protects against life-threatening lethal genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis. Genetic modification could save a child from having to live and grow up with these diseases. Although there are risks including unknown long-term consequences and potential negative mutations, the benefits outweigh these negatives. Due to these risks, I do believe that genetic modification should just be allowed for the healing of an individual.
I think that genetic modification should be allowed for humans but under certain conditions. The use to prevent diseases and stop the spread of them is a great example. However, it should not be misused, for example, in deciding what genes your child is going to have that involve physicality or looks. This could lead to societal divides or inequalities if not used properly. We also don’t know the long-term effects of these genetic modifications. I believe the use of genetic modification will have great use in potentially preventing or curing serious diseases, improving quality of life, and reducing healthcare costs but they must be used cautiously as there are risks to every scientific experiment and those of this one can be detrimental.
The debate over allowing genetic modifications, like those described in the “CRISPR Babies” video, involves complex ethical, scientific, and societal issues. Editing the human germline, which can pass changes to future generations, raises concerns about unintended effects and long-term safety. Ethical questions include the potential for exacerbating social inequalities and making permanent changes to the human genome. Additionally, there is worry about misuse or creating “designer babies,” where only the wealthy might access such technologies. While the benefits of preventing diseases like HIV are significant, careful consideration and ongoing research are crucial to address these concerns responsibly.
I believe genetic modification in humans should be permitted, but only under strict conditions. Using it to prevent or halt the spread of diseases is a promising application. However, it should not be used for non-medical purposes.
I think that genitic modification should be allowed for humans but only for potentially harming conditiond for humans. I think any features should be left alone as that can result in very big consequences in the future. As for the state of modification i dont think it is anywhere near being safe enough to use everyday. The mutations of the modifactions destroy the purpose of it in the first place. Rules will need to be applied in the future if we ever want to benifiet from genitic modifaction safely and ethicly.
I believe when we have completed more trials and know more about the possible side effects is when it should be deemed “allowed for humans.” I think this type of technology should be available for people and families under strict circumstances. Ethically, it should be something that is used with extreme caution.
After watching the video I believe that genetic engineering should be available for specific people however should not be allowed for everyone. When people know and can prove that they have a high probability of having a child with a genetic defect then they should get the option of gene therapy to allow that child to have a better quality of life. When it come to the general public I think that they shouldn’t be able to pick and choose what genes they want for their child. I believe this because a lot more research should be done on the outcomes of this and if everyone chooses similar genetic outcomes for their children this could risk decreasing genetic diversity.
I think that genetic modification should be allowed for humans but not until more work has been done in humans. This is because there can be possible unintended consequences from genetic engineering, including societal inequality and off target effects.
After watching the video, I think genetic modification should be allowed, BUT in very specific situations. Making DNA HIV resistant or altering a mutation that will effect the development/life of the human are great circumstances for this. When CRISPR was new, people started theorizing that we could create our “perfect” child. I think that is a part of life we should not mess with. Deciding the eye color or how tall your child will be through genetic modification is wrong. It’s like playing God. Instead, if there is a way we can correct genes, like cystic fibrosis, then we should. Another situation that was being tossed around was creating perfect matches for those who need stem cells, bone marrow, blood, etc. This already happens through IVF and I don’t think it’s right at all. If someone has a gene that is more likely to cause cancer, then we should fix that. If genetic modification will significantly improve the life of the individual, I think we should use that tool.
Advanced genetic treatments are expensive. Wealthy individuals can afford enhancements that improve health, intelligence, and physical abilities, while the poor, struggling with basic healthcare, cannot. This would widen the gap between the rich and the poor. If only the rich can access genetic enhancements, they might dominate education and jobs, creating a class of genetically privileged individuals. This new elite could lead to increased social division and conflict, making it harder for those without enhancements to succeed. In my opinion I think that these advancements are great for science and great eradicating diseases but at the same time will everyone be able to have access to these procedures?
I have reservations about the ethical and moral implications associated with genetic engineering in humans. Although the possibility of eliminating certain genetic diseases and conditions is encouraging, there are also reservations about the consequences of modifying the human genome. Before any decisions are made, it is crucial for society to have mindful and knowledgeable conversations about the potential risks and benefits of these advancements. The long-term effects of these genetic modifications are still unknown. I am of the opinion that genetic modification can be incredibly beneficial in preventing or treating serious diseases, enhancing quality of life, and reducing healthcare expenses, but it must be approached cautiously due to the potential risks. Every scientific experiment carries risks, and those associated with genetic engineering can be harmful. I do believe that genetic engineering should be experimented with, but only on individuals who fully understand the risks and hazards and have a higher likelihood of success.
I believe this should be available for people. However I also think there must be strict restrictions, regulations, and oversight to prevent people abusing the service. Unlike regular gene therapy, this sounds more like altering genes to improve ones health. While I think that is good (preventing deadly diseases), I see a possibility of abusing that goal and going to an extreme to use this advanced genetic modifications to modify genes that may not revolve around a life or death situation. In biomedical ethics it is inherently important for open discussion and debate over this issue as there are moral and obligational grey areas.
I feel that the genetic modifications should be allowed and used to a certain extent. I think the genetic modification line should be drawn at changing major characteristics of your baby. Using genetic modification can be very beneficial in raising an offsprings quality of life, like the example of Lulu and Nana. Using genetic modification on illnesses or viruses discovered before birth can be very beneficial, but there needs to be protocols in order for people not to abuse it. Looking deeper into genetic modification, we also need to look at the availability and how much it is going to cost, and apply this to the regulations and protocols. If the modification is too expensive, then only the poor will have the viruses because they will not be able to afford the modification. So when we think about genetic modifications and how to incorporate them into our society, we need to think about more than just what it will do for the offspring. Overall I do feel that genetic mutation should be allowed.
I agree with the man in the video that it is crucial to protect people from life threatening diseases or diseases that harm quality of life. I do not see a reason why someone would disagree with that, besides ethical reasons. But I do agree that this is ethical for the reasons this man is using genetic editing for. He also mentioned in the video and I quote “loving parents don’t change the eye color of their child”, I also agree with this statement because there is no reason to mess with the natural genetics given to a human if it doesn’t threaten them in anyway. I think with more research and identification of the risks of genetic editing, we can come to an agreement as a society to use this for life threatening or harmful genetic diseases.
After watching the video about CRISPR babies, genetic changes should only be allowed for medical reasons and under strict rules. Genetic engineering has the huge potential to get rid of major genetic diseases like HIV and cystic fibrosis, which would make people’s lives much better and extend their lives by a lot. However, there are moral issues and possible long-term effects that we need to think about. Before making it widely available, we need to do a lot of study and tests to ensure it is safe and effective. In addition, it’s important to stop misuse, like “designer babies,” and to stop making it so that only rich people can buy these changes. Making sure there are moral rules and oversight will help us use this powerful technology in a way that is good for everyone.
I believe that genetic modifications which can be passed from generation to generation unlike standard gene therapy should be allowed for human use within reason. Although I do not see problems with using science and technology to provide safe futures for the children of parents with transmissible diseases, the question is rather open-ended. I also believe that many cosmetic or physiologically enhancing genetic modifications should be allowed; however, there should be strict regulations for safety testing. Before a new type of genetic modification can be used in humans, it should be thoroughly tested in a variety of animal models and have the results of these studies analyzed by a disinterested third party regulatory organization that has maintaining public health as their main priorities. My main ethical concern with banning heritable genetic modifications before their possible pros and cons are understood in the real world is that it is impossible to ban a medical practice worldwide. This would require unanimous support from the governments of all countries. As long as the technology exists, there will be people who are able to use their power, money, and social status to evade regulations. This inequal access could create further inequalities. Allowing for universally accessible, well regulated, and safe options for genetic engineering is therefore the best policy option in my opinion.
I believe that in the future genetic engineering may become more popular and be treated as an elective choice for people. However, I think there should be some qualifications as to whether or not it is allowed to be done. If a baby is predisposed to a disease then genetic engineering should be allowed to better the child’s standard of living, but if the parents just want to engineer their baby’s genes to give them blue eyes then I think that should be voided, just due to the ongoing research on the topic.
I personally think they should be allowed. If we are able to genetically modify babies to be resistant to deadly diseases such as HIV I think it would be a better quality of life. My only causes of concern would be would humans intentionally exploit this for their own gain and create their perfect “designer baby,” or would they used it for what’s it intended, to hopefully become resistant to diseases and pass it down your family lineage so they don’t have to worry about contracting the disease. Another thing to worry about is the cost, and how easily accessible it could be.
The video made the technology look promising, but they left some important information out. About 1% of people of European descent are HIV resistant due to a mutation in the same gene that was altered in the Chinese babies. However, they are more susceptible to other conditions such as West Nile Virus, Influenza and encephalitis Furthermore while the changes are allelic, they are not the same at the molecular level and the engineered changes were not tested, even at the level of tissue culture. Given that this is the first time that humans have been genetically modified in such away that the changes can be passed on to future generations, they should have been more careful and probably chosen a different gene.