The Ethics of Genetic Editing: People vs "The Experts"

The Phenomenon

History is littered with examples of Public’s antagonism towards Scientific Consensus on environmental and technological questions. It is a frightening phenomenon and the stakes with the Public in it's understanding of Genomics are particularly high. But before I explain why, I wanted to list some of the most prominent Scientific Controversies. 

Examples Thereof

1.      The “debate” on anthropocentric Climate Change is conspicuous to all of us. We did not act against Global Warming with expedience because while scientists were working to prove its real, lobbyists for non-renewable energy companies and their parliamentary surrogates had already politicized the issue to mankind’s detriment. And now….by 2040…we will have the privilege to sail over the north pole - which we cannot currently - as there will be no sea ice left in the arctic ocean

2.      GMO’s, a salubrious biotechnology could have fed millions of starving people around the world but it was maligned as carcinogenic, allergenic, mutagenic….. toxic in every conceivable way by misguided “environmentalists” despite all evidence to the contrary. Communities of Botanists and Geneticist through public education programs could have pre-empted such fear mongering and instilled masses with more favorable attitudes but they failed.

3.      The Bill and Melinda gates foundation could have successfully eradicated polio by now. We would have far fewer cases of small pox and the flu in the US were virologists disseminating the science behind Vaccines instead of Jenny McCarthy. Now people believe Vaccines cause Autism

4.      The controversy over Stem Cells has dissipated with the advent of iPS cells but far more progress could have been made if a moratorium had not been imposed on research thereupon on baseless religious ground by previous administrations. More on this later

Genomics for Dummies (myself included)

Now…..by Genomics I am referring here to the twin technologies of Sequencing and Editing the Genomes of living organisms.

It can be described more intuitively as the deciphering and editing of the instruction manual of our biological lives. Everything from the pigmentation of our skin to our pathological proclivities to the amount of ear wax secreted by our ear canals is encoded in our genome.

Somatic and Germline Genetic Editing (SGE &GGE)

I will focus here more on the debate surrounding Genomic editing, because as far as I know Genome Sequencing research has been left unmolested by socio-political forces. But I would not put anything past our species.

There are two types of Editing one can conduct on Genomes: Somatic and Germline.

Somatic editing is currently used for therapeutic reasons but the tools of Germline Editing can be wielded for human enhancement by editing embryos and lowering the descendant generations predisposition to disease, increase their featural symmetry and quite possibly their intellects. It is this ability to tweak human cells in heritable ways that raises a number of thorny questions

• Will GGE exacerbate economic inequality?
• Would GGE violate the tenets of the world’s monotheisms?
• Will it represent a “Crack in Creation” to quote Jennifer Doudna inventor of the technology? So what if it does?
• What if any parallels can we draw between the proponents of GGE and those of reprehensible eugenics programs of the 20th century??

I do not have answers to all of these question but I have thought a great deal about the arguments for and against GGE. Full Disclosure: I am for it.

The Case to Pursue GGE

A number of diseases are caused by mutations in a single gene, most notably: Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, Beta Thallisemia, Tay Sachs Disease. Such Monogenic Diseases can be cured relatively easily by making precise cuts to our DNA using molecular scissors like CRISPR, an SGE tool.

GGE where SGE Fails: However most genetic diseases are wrought upon people by their inheritance of multiple genes from their parents and interplay between these genes biological products – proteins, enzymes etc. Very little is known about the precursors to these conditions which are collectively referred to as Polygenic Disease.

GGE research will yield insights on polygenic disease mechanisms that SGE cannot. Enlightened with the knowledge which we can edit embryonic cells and help our posterity avoid the scourge of inherited genetic disease. This is not only a reason to pursue GGE but a moral imperative for it

Finally any ban on GGE will be futile and counterproductive. It will spawn a black biotechnological market in countries with lax medical regulation lacking any patient protection. Desperate couples and families will undertake pilgrimages, as they already do, to these illegitimate therapeutic hubs to save their loved ones from slings and arrows of genetic misfortune.

Chinese Scientists at Sun Yat-sen University led by Junjiu Hang (JH) have already conducted GGE experiments on “non-viable” embryos. Since these embryos could not have developed independently, by JH’s logic they were able to circumvent moral conundrums that GGE is mired in.

What effect will bans imposed by Western Sovereigns have on the pace of Chinese GGE Research? Probably none. I would rather the US be at the vanguard of GGE rather than have it react to breakthroughs made by others.

The Case against GGE

Safety: Many people argue that GGE should be outlawed on the basis that it is unsafe. It is a catch 22 argument since it is the very reason why we must support more GGE research so that we can understand all of its adverse effects.

Consent: Another criticism of GGE is that it allows parents to make decisions on behalf of their unborn offspring without their consent. This again is a weak counterpoint since mothers already take many decisions during their pregnancy and after conceiving; decisions that have long term consequences for their children: The Pregnant Mother’s decision to smoke and Drink , to not take neo-natal vitamins, Child’s diet, its place of residence etc. all matters over which the child is not consulted. Should we then pass laws that ensure progeny’s consent is factored into every parental decision that affects their lives?

Religion: Stem Cells were previously drawn from embryos, viable embryos. Since they held the potential to develop into human beings. The faithful argued that using them for research was blasphemy as it intervened with the work of god and deprived the embryo of existential possibilities. Later with the discovery of Induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) Cells which were drawn from blood and skin instead of embryos, scientists were able to sidestep such attacks.

As excited as I am that, with the discovery of iPS, Stem Cell Research (SCR) can now continue unabated, I think an opportunity to engage with people of faith was lost. Now GGE researchers will have to tamper with embryos again and will likely encounter similar opposition as SC researchers had to previously.

For people who consider embryo editing to be unethical due to the risks it poses to their incubation into fully formed creatures as god, my simple counterargument is as follows: With future breakthroughs in cellular science, we can potentially culture any type of cell into an embryo and subsequently into a human being. When we scratch our noses we kill skin cells, skin cells which as I described earlier as the source of iPS. Will the religious institutions then issue edicts against scratching our noses just like it is currently espousing one against GGE.

Economics: The most powerful counterargument against GGE is that the wealthy will become healthier, stronger, faster, and smarter with their access to GGE and leave the poor further behind? Access to GGE could potentially exacerbate economic inequality like the inheritance of capital never could. As legitimate as this concern is, even now, with the current ban on GGE in place, the wealthy can go to plastic surgeons, micro-biome and stem cell experts and acquire all kinds of advantages for their children but there is no standing injunction against plastic surgery and wellness clinics to level the playing field. In my opinion, Government should not be paranoid about new options for biological enhancement but should focus rather on making them affordable and accessible to the least amongst us.

Conclusion

GGE is not yet ready for Human Clinical Applications. There is a lot we need to learn about it. But I think the moral, and medical case for promoting GGE research in the lab and on other organisms is robust and outweighs all it’s risks.

What are your views on the subject? Please leave your comments below…..