Gene editing, particularly through CRISPR technology, has revolutionised the field of genetics. Scientists now have the ability to precisely alter DNA, potentially curing genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anaemia. In animals, gene editing has been used to create disease-resistant livestock and even resurrect extinct species. However, these breakthroughs bring ethical dilemmas.
Advancements in Cancer Treatment
One of the most promising applications of gene editing has been in cancer treatment. Recent breakthroughs in cell and immunotherapy have enabled scientists to modify patients' immune cells to better recognise and destroy cancerous cells. In particular, CRISPR has been used to enhance T-cells, the body's natural defence mechanism, making them more effective against aggressive cancers. While these treatments offer hope for patients with previously untreatable conditions, ethical concerns remain. Could these modifications lead to unforeseen genetic consequences? And should such treatments be made universally accessible, or will they remain an option only for those who can afford them?
The CRISPR Babies Controversy
One of the most infamous cases highlighting the ethical challenges of gene editing was the 2018 announcement by Chinese scientist He Jiankui. He revealed that he had genetically modified twin embryos to make them resistant to HIV, marking the first known instance of gene-edited humans. The international scientific community widely condemned his actions, citing the lack of long-term safety data and the potential for unintended genetic consequences. This incident raised concerns over ‘designer babies’—where genetic modifications could be used for non-medical enhancements such as intelligence or athletic ability. Should humanity risk creating a genetic divide between the modified and the unmodified?
Regulation and the Future of Gene Editing
Different countries have taken varied approaches to regulating gene editing. The UK permits limited research on human embryos under strict conditions, whereas nations like China and Russia have faced criticism for their lenient oversight. The US has banned federal funding for embryo editing, though private ventures continue to explore its possibilities. The future of gene editing will likely hinge on global ethical agreements, but with technology advancing rapidly, the challenge lies in keeping regulations up to speed with scientific capabilities.
While gene editing holds immense potential, its ethical considerations cannot be ignored. Should we embrace its medical benefits while enforcing strict limitations, or will the temptation of enhancement lead us into uncharted moral territory?
