Gene Therapy Argumentative Essay

The opportunity to decide which genes will be passed on to future generations certainly would be tempting for many people. A method by which we could prevent genetic diseases and customize our offspring’s gender, physical traits and the intelligence is not as impossible as it may seem at first. The debate over the designer children revived recently with the discovery of the new technique allowing scientists to alter DNA.

Genetic engineering was originally designated for medical purposes to correct the mistakes in DNA that condition certain diseases, and therefore prevent them. The first approved trial of gene therapy was conducted in 1990 by Anderson and colleagues on a disease called adenosine deaminase deficiency, in which the loss of a

single enzyme results in a severely compromised or completely lacking immune system (Comfort). This event appeared to be successful, however there were failures in the following years, caused by unintended consequences, that contributed to temporary cessation of the gene therapy.
This topic returned in recent years, yet the old methods have been improved and the new methods have been developed.

With a technique called CRISPR, scientists are able to “…target a specific area of a gene, working like the search-and-replace function in Microsoft Word, to remove a section and insert the ‘correct’ sequence” (Berg). Although this method has previously been used on human somatic cells, scientists claim there are intentions to use it on human reproductive cells in the future. Besides preventing diseases, such as Tay-Sachs disease that gradually destroys nerve cells in the central nervous system and leads to death at an early age, it would also enable altering DNA to obtain desired physical features, such as eye, skin, hair color and height (Comfort). The ethical concerns arise when it comes to changing germline cells resulting from the fact that changes made in the germ cells or in the genes of an embryo could be passed to future

generations.
Proponents argue these methods are ethical and should not be considered immoral because they will simply “allow parents to choose the child they want; not simply reject the ones they do not want” (Baird 14). Moreover, they are beneficial for humanity because due to germline editing scientists can “affect the genes that are carried in the ova and sperm, thus eliminating the disease or disorder from all future generations, making it no longer inheritable” (Baird 14). Rejecting this possibility would be against the future generations because any technique that help to prevent genetic disorders will protect children from suffering devastating diseases (Baird 15). They argue that since we have the abilities to prevent the incurable diseases and those that many people cannot afford treatment it would be unethical to deprive the society of them.
On the other hand, the opponents claim that genetic engineering in the germ cells is unethical because “meddling with the genome has a high risk of unintended consequences” (Comfort).

We cannot be sure about the outcomes of the genetic modifications because preventing one disease may also lead to another genetic abnormality. It may also lead to choosing certain traits over the others and therefore create selective breeding of the human race. Opponents express a concern “that genetic modification will destroy genetic diversity and will lead to a ‘neo-eugenic,’ or new eugenics, movement, homogenizing the population over time in a discriminatory manner” (Ossareh 764). In the pursuit of perfection, we may erase some genes from the human genome and favor only certain

traits.
The use of genetic engineering on human germ cells should not be legalized because the risks of such proceedings predominate over their benefits. So far, we are unable to prove the safety of these techniques and the unforeseen side effects may be much more serious than anyone can think. The return of eugenics when people would guide their own evolution and treat their offspring just as specimens that need to be upgraded is, next to the health concerns, another serious threat. It is unethical to decide for the future generations before they are even born and who may suffer the consequences.
The concern is that CRISPR is not a perfect method and even though it allows much more than the other techniques it also poses a risk of the unpredictable side effects. According to Gupta and Musunuru, “a number of studies in mammalian cells have documented off-target mutations occurring at significant rates at sites with sequence similarity to the on-target sites, occasionally rivaling or even surpassing mutagenesis at the on-target sites.” These studies revealed the imperfection of this technique. Due to the similar structure of the off-target and the on-target sites, it may lead to one disease while preventing another because “genome-editing might disable a tumor-suppressor gene or activate a cancer-causing one” (Begley). The risk is higher for the humans whose genome “may contain multiple DNA sequences identical or highly homologous to intended target DNA sequence” resulting from “CRISPR/Cas9 may cleave also these unintended sequences causing mutations which may cause cell death or transformation” (Rodriguez 2). CRISPR poses a risk of the off-target mutations because it has the ability to cut DNA even though it already had targeted the sequence it was supposed to and “…might also allow pieces of two different chromosomes to get together, a phenomenon called translocation, which is the cause of chronic myeloid leukemia,” also known as the cancer of the white blood cells (Begley).
The inefficiency of this technique was also proved in the germlin