As the world of science enters the realm of what was once science fiction, many important debates and discussions will serve to mold the world’s future. Thus enter the old science fiction flicks such as the 1997 film Gattaca, a movie ahead of its time with respect to its focus on parents’ eugenic policies that promoted the manipulation of their children’s genes. After viewing this film, it is difficult not to conclude that any form of gene editing technology only leads to a dystopian future in which genetic discrimination rules supreme. We must despise any potential Nazi-esque policies that Vincent Freeman had to suffer through as a result of the eugenic ideal of his society. The obvious enemy of humankind is this gene editing technology
…show more content…
While this technology certainly helped spark the ethical debates concerning genome editing, it failed to yield an affordable and efficient means of editing human DNA. While there were many other gene editing inventions that dabbled in the field for the next couple of decades, it was not until 2012 that the reality of its feasibility truly became apparent. It was the “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,” and a nuclease that it utilizes, Cas9, (or CRISPR-Cas9 for short) that brought the conversation about gene editing back with vigor. Whether or not humanity has been able to agree on the use of gene editing, it has already proven successful in treating humans in a few extreme cases. Not only was the ability to edit human genes brought back to the forefront of conversation, but the disputes that lie among it were resurrected as well. While gene editing may seem intimidating and immoral to some, it is a process that, once further analyzed, must eventually be accepted and regulated …show more content…
A leading point that is already enforced as illegal in the law books of many countries is the legality of editing germline cells in the body, or cells that will make changes in generations to come. So far, all of the changes that have been made in humans have been to somatic cells, or cells that will not carry over to descendants. Making a change to germline cells would permanently alter the future lives of many people if merely one human decided to change their germline cells. A lack of choice for the future generations in what their genetic makeup will be is thus apparent and a leading reason for the illegal status of germline cell alteration. But is this reasoning truly rational? Does a person really have any control over their genetics in the first place? If anything, it seems that one’s ancestors would have had good intentions and would have wished to better their own lives through gene editing, not alter their genes in a way that would harm future generations and themselves. And the illegality of germline cell editing seems to be based on the faulty assumption that one has control over their cells in the first place. In contrast, a person would only have true control over their body if he or she could
While this technology certainly helped spark the ethical debates concerning genome editing, it failed to yield an affordable and efficient means of editing human DNA. While there were many other gene editing inventions that dabbled in the field for the next couple of decades, it was not until 2012 that the reality of its feasibility truly became apparent. It was the “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,” and a nuclease that it utilizes, Cas9, (or CRISPR-Cas9 for short) that brought the conversation about gene editing back with vigor. Whether or not humanity has been able to agree on the use of gene editing, it has already proven successful in treating humans in a few extreme cases. Not only was the ability to edit human genes brought back to the forefront of conversation, but the disputes that lie among it were resurrected as well. While gene editing may seem intimidating and immoral to some, it is a process that, once further analyzed, must eventually be accepted and regulated …show more content…
A leading point that is already enforced as illegal in the law books of many countries is the legality of editing germline cells in the body, or cells that will make changes in generations to come. So far, all of the changes that have been made in humans have been to somatic cells, or cells that will not carry over to descendants. Making a change to germline cells would permanently alter the future lives of many people if merely one human decided to change their germline cells. A lack of choice for the future generations in what their genetic makeup will be is thus apparent and a leading reason for the illegal status of germline cell alteration. But is this reasoning truly rational? Does a person really have any control over their genetics in the first place? If anything, it seems that one’s ancestors would have had good intentions and would have wished to better their own lives through gene editing, not alter their genes in a way that would harm future generations and themselves. And the illegality of germline cell editing seems to be based on the faulty assumption that one has control over their cells in the first place. In contrast, a person would only have true control over their body if he or she could