Since the beginning of time, humans have sought to perfect their population. During the Spartan age it was infanticide, in the 1920s it was the sterilization of “undesirables” in the United States and in the 1940s the desire of a “perfect race” led to the atrocities we now know as the Holocaust. The goal of perfection although a simple one, can take unspeakable twists and turns that many choose to avoid. However,  now with the introduction of CRISPR humanity has a new possible way to pass-on the desirable traits on children. Gene editing on embryos has become a trending topic in the scientific community, bringing into question whether humans have a right to play with nature. The fact of the matter is that when properly regulated this new technology offers a chance to have healthier children and happier parents. The following topics will be mentioned throughout this paper; what exactly gene editing is, the advantages and disadvantages gene editing presents and what designed babies mean for our future, and most importantly if one was to have the chance to “design” a baby, should they?

Sci-fi books about a perfect society with perfect people seemed far away and unrealistic. Most people regard it as such: fiction. Gene editing makes this no longer a “what if” scenario, science now has the ability to allow parents to choose what genetic factors they would like their offspring to have, what diseases they would like to make their children less vulnerable to, making the embryos immune system stronger. According to the NIH “Genome editing” (also called gene editing) is a group of technologies that give scientists the ability to change an organism’s DNA. These technologies allow genetic material to be added, removed, or altered at particular locations in the genome.” Variations of this technology are known as CRISPR CAS9 which has generated a lot of excitement because it is faster, more accurate, cost effective and overall more efficient than other methods. The CRISPR CAS9 was adapted from a naturally occurring genome editing system in bacteria. The NIH states that, “The bacteria captures  snippets of DNA from invading viruses and use them to create DNA segments known as CRISPR arrays. The CRISPR arrays allow the bacteria to ‘remember’ the viruses (or closely related ones). If the viruses attack again, the bacteria produce RNA segments from the CRISPR arrays to target the viruses’ DNA. The bacteria then use Cas9 or a similar enzyme to cut the DNA apart, which disables the virus. CRISPR-Cas9 system works similarly in the lab. Researchers create a small piece of RNA with a short ‘guide’ sequence that attaches (binds) to a specific target sequence of DNA in a genome. The RNA also binds to the Cas9 enzyme. As in bacteria, the modified RNA is used to recognize the DNA sequence, and the Cas9 enzyme cuts the DNA at the targeted location. Although Cas9 is the enzyme that is used most often, other enzymes (for example Cpf1) can also be used. Once the DNA is cut, researchers use the cell’s own DNA repair machinery to add or delete pieces of genetic material, or to make changes to the DNA by replacing an existing segment with a customized DNA sequence.” As it is made evident, gene editing was inspired off of another living organism who already has a version of “gene editing” as part of their survival. As the NIH and other scientific institutions keep doing more research and experiments, the safer and more reliable it will be to perform this procedure on human embryos.

In spite of these proven advancements, the scientific community is still on the fence about moving forward with this technology. The question that remains is not whether the procedure can be done but whether it should be done. It is a bit unnerving that the power to produce  human beings the way the parents want them to be, not the way the genes decide to be arranged is at our disposal. Humans who have no traces of diseases that once riddled their parents or the gene is there but it is not expressed (meaning the children does not present any symptoms and therefore the offspring does not suffer the effects the disease presents itself with when the gene is expressed). Children who are born healthier than their siblings who probably were not “designed babies” and might suffer from a weak immune system and get sick often. That is exactly the dilemma, to know those options are within the reach of our hands is nerve wracking, because as people the question that plagues us is whether we have the right to change other people, even if it is for what is considered “beneficial”. When earlier technologies such as PGS and PGD, two techniques used by physicians during in-vitro-fertilization was able to screen embryos for genetic predispositions, disorders and treatable diseases, it opened the door for CRISPR. It also opened the door for doubt, with the introduction of these technologies parents now had the means to “prepare” for their children, to know what to expect. If their children was to have Down syndrome or any other detectable genetic disease the parents were able to somehow get ready for their coming child who will need special care-take. Parents “get what they get” but now they can get “ready” for they “get”. At the time when these technologies were new (about 20-30 years ago), the world asked the same question they are asking now about gene editing: we know we can do this but does that mean we should?

Allowing parents to have a choice whether they want a chance to stop diseases that plagued their loved ones from doing the same thing to their children or not, is not what is being put to question. In an article published on November 26, 2018 by the New York Times titled “Chinese Scientist Claims to Use Crispr to Make First Genetically Edited Babies” by Pam Bullock, Gina Kolata and Sui-Lee Wee, they mention that “If human embryos can be routinely edited, many scientists, ethicists and policymakers fear a slippery slope to a future in which babies are genetically engineered for traits — like athletic or intellectual prowess — that have nothing to do with preventing devastating medical conditions.” CRISPR should not be considered as an option to parents who their children to have certain physical traits such as height, hair or eye color, it should be considered an option to parents who want to avoid having a child with a disease that would negatively impact the life they imagined for their children, a disease such as sickle cell anemia (there is research being done about treating sickle cell anemia with gene editing). In the article “‘Designer Babies’ Almost Thirty Years on” by Alan Handyside, Handyside recalls the limitations that were placed in the 1990s when PGS and PGD were introduced. The same fear that parents would use this PGS/PGD to create their desired offspring led to many regulations of the technology, restricting its use to detecting diseases and nothing more. Handyside who worked closely with PGS/PGD understood that it was not easy to create “desired” traits in offspring despite the public’s seeming over reaction, writes: “Beyond sex selection, the ability to ‘design’ a baby with one or more desired traits such as hair and eye colour, intelligence, sporting or musical ability etc. by PGT and embryo selection is extremely limited. Despite knowing much more about the genetic basis of these traits and having the technical ability to track their inheritance, the right combination of genes still has to be present in the parents and their embryos at sufficiently high frequency to make it feasible to select an appropriate embryo”.  Gene editing is an intricate and complex process because of the incalculable nature of genes themselves .When one gene is changed, every single cell in your body is altered because every cell is an exact replica of the other (they carry different functions because in each cell specific genes are activated to carry on their mandated role), due to this intricate connection the minimal of changes will affect the entire genetic composition of the embryo. As Marcy Darnovsky writes “By all accounts, far too much is unknown about issues including off-target mutations (unintentional edits to the genome), persistent editing effects, genetic mechanisms in embryonic and fetal development, and longer-term health and safety consequences.” One drop of sweat, saliva or absolutely anything to make a mistake that could negatively affect the child. Due to the amount meticulous details that go into the procedure, it should only be done by reliable, trusted, recognized and experienced professionals in the matter.

CRISPR gives parents a chance to actually change things. In the previously mentioned article published in the NYT by Pam Bullock, Gina Kolata and Sui-Lee Wee it is spoken about a Chinese scientist named He Jinauki who announced to the world that he had successfully edited a pair of twins, in the article it is stated that “On Monday, a scientist in China announced that he had created the world’s first genetically edited babies, twin girls who were born this month. The researcher, He Jiankui, said that he had altered a gene in the embryos, before having them implanted in the mother’s womb, with the goal of making the babies resistant to infection with H.I.V. ” As it has been stated, Dr. He was immediately condemned because his actions were thought to be self serving: he put the livelihood of the babies at risk for fame, it can be perceived as if the Chinese scientist rushed the procedure and standards to be able to do such delicate procedure just to be the “first one” to do it. The true issue is that  gene editing has not been done on enough human embryos for the world to understand the long-term effects of such alterations. The opportunity to perfect our genes is present but there are obstacles to make it a viable and real choice. The downsides to CRISPR are quite clear: the lack of studies done on human embryos and the uncertainty of what happens after it is done. In order to make use of this technology the right way we should enforce strict regulations and boundaries, giving limitations on what we can do with CRISPR as we learn more about it, maybe limit it to using it exclusively when the parents desire for their children to not have a congenital disease to be activated or present. Such boundaries can safely have trials and test the true limits of this technology. The fact of the matter is we have quite some time before CRISPR is used to actually “design” babies, there are still experiments to be done to be sure that its’ use on human embryos is safe and that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of the procedure.

In order to move forward in science we must do just that: move forward. CRISPR presents many possibilities for parents and children, although the long-term effects are still unknown one must still be open to the possibility, that way when gene editing is modified to make it safe for humans, society is not skeptical about its benefits. Afterall, changes are scary, doing new things are scary but humans have not found cure to the chicken pox, or that chemotherapy gives cancer patients a fighting chance to battle their disease by being scared of the outcomes. Science has gotten to where it is right now in-spite the fear of every new technology that is brought forth. Completely restricting this technology only restricts what the human race can do for the future, one can only imagine the many doors that will open once gene editing is allowed to be performed on humans.

Works cited

• Handyside, Alan H. “’Designer Babies’ Almost Thirty Years on in: Reproduction Volume 156 Issue 1 Year 2018.” Reproduction, Bioscientifica Ltd, 25 Aug. 2018, rep.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/rep/156/1/REP-18-0157.xml.
• Harris, John, and Marcy Darnovsky. “Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos?” National Geographic, 26 Nov. 2018, www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-gene-editing-pro-con-opinions/.
• Kolata, Gina, and Pam Belluck. “Why Are Scientists So Upset About the First Crispr Babies?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/health/crispr-gene-editing-embryos.html.
• Hussain, Wajid, et al. “CRISPR/Cas System: A Game Changing Genome Editing Technology, to Treat Human Genetic Diseases.” Www, 26 Oct. 2018,www-sciencedirect-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/science/article/pii/S0378111918311168?via%3Dihub#s0025.
• “What Are Genome Editing and CRISPR-Cas9? – Genetics Home Reference – NIH.” U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 30 Apr. 2019, ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/genomeediting.
• Kolata, Gina, et al. “Chinese Scientist Claims to Use Crispr to Make First Genetically Edited Babies.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/health/gene-editing-babies-china.html.