Recent experiments (in the video in this week’s folder) 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.
Although there are many risks involved, I believe that this type of gene modification should be allowed in humans. Gene surgery can save the life of a child from a genetic lethal gene that the child has no control over. This surgery can help limits diseases, like HIV, around the world. By exome sequencing, only one gene, which was the one gene targeted (HIV), was changed and affected by the gene surgery. The main goal was accomplished with no complications, which thus helped save children’s lives from pain and suffering. There is also the ethical issue of gene surgery. Gene surgery should only be used for healing and preventing diseases, not to genetically engineer or design a child. His work is very controversial, but it is saving children’s lives, like Lulu and Nana, and doing good work. Many families are in need of this technology, and as long as it is used for the right purposes, I believe that gene modification should be allowed in humans.
While this technology can save lives, it is not clear that it is doing so in the cases of Lulu and Nana. First, the specific changes that were made in these children have not been tested (for example in cell culture) to show that they cause HIV resistance. There is a specific mutation in the same gene that is found in people of European descent that does cause HIV resistance, but this change was not made in the babies. There are other known naturally occurring changes in this gene, but they do not confer HIV resistance.
Secondly, people with the HIV resistance allele may be more susceptible to West Nile Virus and other diseases.
Thirdly, (And this is general problem with using CRISPR with whole organisms) not all cells of Lula and Nana will have this change. Some of their children (but not necessarily all) will have the change. When dealing with experimental animals such as mice or fruit flies, one usually has to go to the next generation and select those that have been changed. While this is not a problem with these organisms, due you want to do this with humans?
I think genetic modification of babies genomes for their own benefit should be allowed but only with extreme caution. If this is an effective method of protecting babies from genetic diseases I believe we should take advantage of it. However, just because it worked in this case does not necessarily mean it will work every other time it is used. I think a lot more research and evidence needs to be present in order to allow this type of procedure to be available worldwide.
I am hesitant to fully endorse gene surgery, given the unclear ramifications. However, as mentioned in the video, it did allow for the birth of two healthy girls, Lulu and Nana, without fear of inheriting HIV. Similarly, we see genetic conditions such as cystic fibrosis raging havoc on families. Having a method which could potentially significantly decrease, or eradicate, a lethal disease such as this, is a goal which medicine strives towards. Thus, I do believe that gene surgery does hold great potential for the world of medicine. But, I am uncomfortable allowing it for humans as of now. It is still a very novel concept and there is not enough data to suggest the limitations or implications of genetically engineering modifications to a person’s genome. Additionally, as we have seen countless times in this course, human genomes vary from person to person. Therefore, an otherwise harmless mutation could be triggered by genetically modifying a change. Thus, I think more research, especially in vivo experiments within labs, ought to be conducted before clinical trials begin, and then finally, before gene surgery is offered as an option to parents. It holds the potential for a lot of good, but, it also involves mysteries which we do not have clear answers to yet. As such, I would like to have more data, and strict regulations, before playing with people’s lives by endorsing gene surgery to the general public.
This topic has and will continue to be a controversial topic. Personally I think genetically produced babies are wrong if it is just rich parents trying to make a perfect baby. However if it is similar to this case with the two twins being genetically modified to resist HIV then I would support it. Being able to avoid this horrible disease and many others would benefit the individual. Being able to pass it down to generation as well would help lower the number of incidences of infections and diseases in the future. It would be amazing if parents who have a genetic disease that can be passed to their offspring not have to worry about if there kids will one day get it as well, for example Huntington’s disease.
I am very skeptical about things like this just because you see what happens when you mess with human nature in horror movies, so it’s almost something that I wish people would just leave alone. But I also understand that as science expands…..It’s bound to happen and sometimes it can be a wonderful thing as it has been good thing in lots of cases. I think that this surgery should be allowed but only for certain things. I also think that there needs to be a lot more research on it as well as more examples of how and if this works.
CRISPR has such potential to do wondrous things for humans, preventing and curing diseases. While I think the experiment He Jiankui conducted was very important, and world changing, I think he did so under unsafe conditions. Listening to his speech makes his decision very compelling, but the ramifications of changing embryonic DNA without rigorous testing are vast and deep. What happens if Lulu and Nana end up with severe disorders down the road from these changes? As the disease Nicholas Volker has, it only takes one amino acid change to have devastating effects. So while I am fully on board to allow CRISPR to work wonders, there does need to be more care and research done before major trials are conducted.
I think that genetic modification should be done cautiously. When genetically modifying an obvious error with a baby, if the parent chooses to do so, then I believe that it is alright. Parents should be allowed to have the option in this scenario to decide if they would like to genetically modify their child. If there is no specific reason for why the genetic modification is being done other than the parents just want to change their child to be exactly the way they want them to be, I don’t think it should be allowed. The consequences of what could go wrong or what could happen are too much of a risk to take on a child that would otherwise be normally healthy.
I do not believe that CRISPR should be allowed to be used in such a way that it’s effects genetically modify an embryo so that the modification can be passed down from generation to generation. The risks are both unknown and untested and experimenting with humans in this capacity is unethical. Human beings’ lives are not something to “guess on.” Not only does a scientist not know the possible complications the modifications can cause in the first generation, but the fact that the modification can be passed down to several generations after is extremely unsettling. There is no sound and ethical way to understand the scope and effects of the gentic modification in the future generations. Scientists are unaware of the true consequences that could arise from such modifications. Thus, this approach should be banned.
I think for now, the answer has to be no. Sure, the story of an HIV positive adult wanting to have children who don’t have to live with all of the struggles associated with the disease is very intriguing and the concept of being able to resist such a virus is very appealing. However, as is the case in all medical ethics scenarios, the well being of all involved parties has to be a priority. The problem (at least ethically) is that these parents are essentially signing up their unborn children to be test subjects. The other problem I have with this scenario is that the potential side-effects of the treatment (both prenatal and postpartum) are completely unknown. They don’t really have any idea what to expect from a medical standpoint and while it is nice that they are doing ultrasounds, blood tests, and genetic sequencing, it is all just to monitor conditions. Having the information from those tests isn’t necessarily going to help them with treatment/preventative measures should something go wrong. The motive behind all of it is great but ultimately, it is still gambling with the lives of those children. In the world of medical ethics, putting more value in research/experimentation than promoting life is never going to be well received.
I can see the benefits of genetic engineering such as this, and understand that it means the world to those parents to have children who are not effected by the health effects or stigma of HIV. However, this seems too early to be able to fully endorse it. At birth their genomes are intact but we do not know if they may be more susceptible to mutations or others as time goes on. This has great promise, but needs to have some details figured out about how their lives will be and potentially future generations.
I think similar genetic modifications should be allowed in humans, because it allows the opportunity to save/cure “incurable” diseases in babies/people. For some, this genetic modification may be the only chance at a normal life, and this may outweigh the potential risks to a family. I think with a little bit more research the modifications may be safer for humans. This may be the next step in curing diseases such as cystic fibrosis, or preventing the spread of HIV, therefore, I think genetic modification should be allowed in humans.
I think these type of genetic modifications should be allowed. I like how the man in the video presented this information. I agree that picking things like hair or eye color should not be allowed but I do agree that in situations like this and other similar situations, this modification should be allowed. As long as research continues to prove that this is safe and effective, I think the benefits would outweigh the negative aspects as you mentioned some people with the HIV resistance are more susceptible to west nile virus.
I personally don’t think one should mess with the genetics of a embryo. Until there are years of animal studies that show the fate of what can happen over several generations, and possible mutations, the CRISPR system shouldn’t be used on embryos. I can get behind using gene therapy to help a person with a specific disease. Not something that could effect many generations, what if they aren’t resistant to HIV or become more likely to get it, or worse, make HIV even more worse than it is. Are they injecting HIV into these girls to see if they are truly resistant to it?
As a person who has underwent several IVFs with ICSI, and was offered that each embryo could be checked before being put back. My husband had extremely low sperm count, and was tested to see if it was something he could pass onto sons, if so we can just put the girl embryos back. His wasn’t genetic and we didn’t have to make this decision. We also refused genetic testing of each embryo, because we would love this child no matter what. We discussed the other options such as using a sperm donor, embryo donor, and adoption.
No one can guarantee a healthy happy baby. This could get way out of control, rich would want there designer babies. Money talks in this world, and not everyone is ethical.
You discuss a point that the video failed to mention. It is possible to genetically test embryos for conditions, so one does not have to use Crispr to edit embryos to avoid genetic conditions. I had a student who had a difficult dominant condition that she did not want to pass on. She and her husband planned to do in vitro fertilization to pick embryos that did not have the condition. Alas, her condition got more severe and they decided that pregnancy would be to hard for her to handle. While such testing may not be for everybody, it would usually be preferable to gene modification.
I actually think that genetically modifying children to be resistant to diseases like HIV, cancer, and sickle cell anemia should be allowed. I think the fact that the children’s father has HIV and knows how hard it is living with the disease and wants to protect his children from ever experiencing what he experienced makes perfect sense. On the other hand I do think that modifying a child’s DNA so that they have a certain appearance or IQ should not be allowed. I think that vaccines are pushed on the population but if its possible to modify DNA to prevent the diseases that we are vaccinating against then it should be done.
I think that, “genetically modifying children,” is a terrifying phrase to some people. In some cases, such as picking physical traits, there is no reason for modification. This is outrageous. But, other genetic changes, such as resistance to diseases, is plausible and seems to have more benefits than risks. When risks outweigh benefits, then the statement, “do no harm,” can be followed. This type of science is very new, and I believe research needs to be done in different species before human trials. Once there has been success in pre-trials, then I think it will be acceptable to try to cure cystic fibrosis, HIV, and more from genetic modification.
I do believe that genetically modifying children or anyone could potentially be a great thing. But right now I think there needs to be a lot more testing and facts behind it. Right now there is just not enough evidence that this can be successful. More research needs to be done, before I could say that we should be using this more often.
Genetic modification is a controversial topic because the thought of messing with nature can be scary. There are risks involved and it can also be abused like to make “designer babies” for example. However, in Lulu and Nana’s situation, I think it was a very beneficial treatment and allowed a couple to have children without the fear that they would also have HIV. It could also be very useful in cancer treatment. I think with more research and regulations, gene modification should be allowed for humans as long as the benefits outweigh the risks.
I am split on this issue. On the one hand, a parent generally (and reasonably) wants the best for their child, and genetic modifications like the resistance to STDs is among the many things a parent may choose for their child. On the other hand, the child did not decide to have their being altered, and is thus a small breech of the rights against their person.
However, one may argue that – while in the womb – a fetus does not technically have rights to its own body. Under this assumption and the presumption that no side effects have been examined of the modifications in question, I’d argue that the altering of the genome for precaution is not immoral and thus should be allowed.
I think that genetic modification is acceptable as long as it is used to prevent a health issue which could harm to be fatal to her person. I do not agree with genetic modification when it is used to alter someone’s genes so they look a certain way or have some sort of athletic ability. With all of the risks it imposes, I think that it should only be allowed as a last resort for someone who would die otherwise.
Everything you do in life including medical technology has some sort of consequences. The parent’s whose babies were genetically engineered made a choice to bring their daughters into this world without a disease that can not be cured by drugs. in the long run, preventing them for a lifetime of pain and suffering. But as a parent, you have to make a decision for your children with the best interest in mind. I think gene surgy used for healing not modifying superficial features gives a lot more partners a chance at creating life without fear that their offspring will be subjected to a disease that can be genetical.
The risks of complications that the eggs may undergo during gene surgery far outweigh the cruel long term effects of living with a disease like HIV. Although, it may not work in every case, if the parents agree to the risks then the genetic engineering for healing purposes should proceed. I’m not a parent, but I can imagine the challenging decision of raising a child with a fatal illness or potentially giving them a normal life away from HIV. The fact that the engineering happens outside of the body then the modified and newly fertilized egg is inserted into the mothers womb makes it better than altering an already forming or functioning human. The future could be eradicating harmful life threatening diseases that we are otherwise cursed with unless genetic engineering advances.
I would endorse the use of gene surgery to help prevent diseases and/or disorders. In the case of Lulu and Nana, the doctor was morally and ethically responsible in making the decision to help the parents bring the girls into the world. He created a thoughtful opportunity for the parents and children.
My concern with genetic engineering is creating designer embryos with superficial traits rather than focusing on editing a glitch in the DNA that could potentially change a person’s life for the better. I do not agree with this use of science and technology.
In physical surgery, a surgeon corrects an error in the patients body system. Genetic surgery is a deeper level and has amazing potential to help a lot of people.
I think that genetic modification can be used to a certain extent if it is for a genetic disease that can cause death after birth or even before birth then yes I think genetic modification should be used or say autism for example. If it is something along the lines of just wanting your child to have blond hair and blue eyes then no I don’t think it should be allowed for those reasons but if it is used to save lives or to help The child in the future then yes it should be used.