Designer Babies

Imagine a world where we strive for perfection to create the ultimate utopian society. A world where we could control and decide exactly what we want our children to look like and their interests a world where humans were designed to be “superbeings.” Take it a step further beyond just physical characteristics and imagine a world where we edit our genes to prevent our bodies from contracting diseases. This Frankstein-esque world seems only possible in a sci-fi novel, but it has started to become a reality. Dr. He Jiankui, a Chinese scientist, is the first to successfully create a gene-edited human baby using CRISPR technology in November 2018. Although Dr. He defended his experiment by insisting it was for medical purposes as he cut out the CCR-5 gene responsible for HIV, has been met with universal condemnation from the global scientific community. Because the technology’s use on human embryos to edit babies is new, scientists do not yet have the proper research to fully understand the repercussions it could have on future generations and the possible ways its use, for good or bad, could change the human race forever. Dr. He has proved that if the technology is available, it’s going to be used.

CRISPR was first developed in 1993 as a way to study the immune system but wasn’t used for gene editing until 2013. The technology works by using enzymes to target and cut out specific parts of genes, thus altering the DNA.

Genetics is a highly complex domain that is still not fully understood by scientists—single genes are not directly connected to a single trait and they interact with each other in unique ways. The technology is mostly used in laboratories for studies, which is another reason for the backlash Dr. He’s experiment has received. His experiment was privately funded and took place outside the research facilities of the university he worked at in China. Acting as a rogue scientist and carrying out this experiment without official permission, regulations or supervision has raised red flags about the capabilities that scientists have. While scientists are held to certain ethical standards, it is impossible to keep track of absolutely every experiment that is being conducted around the world. In the eyes of the global scientific community, Dr. He violated those standards and ethics by using the technology to alter and create human life.

In March 2019, a group of 18 scientists published an opinion article in Nature, a science research site in response to Dr. He’s experiment, calling for a moratorium on gene editing embryos until there is an international framework setting conditions for the technology to be used in which they state, “this is a crucial moment in the history of science: a new technology offers the potential to rewrite the script of human life. We think that human gene editing for reproductive purposes carries very serious consequences—social, ethical, philosophical and theological. Such great consequences deserve deep reflection.”

It’s important to clarify that the scientists calling for the moratorium are not calling for a complete block on the use or research of CRISPR technology and its uses on gene editing. The technology is striving for a world without pain and suffering. Having the capability to cut out diseased sections of DNA could ultimately lead to a completely disease-free world.

In reality, this gene editing can lead to increasing our chances of contracting other diseases that we otherwise might not have, new diseases developing, and different conditions caused by genetic abnormalities. Because the use of CRISPR technology is relatively new in the gene-editing domain, scientists have not fully been able to identify how modifying genes for one purpose, such as Dr. He removing the gene linked to HIV, can have adverse effects and to what extent. While Dr. He successfully removed the CCR-5 gene which prevented the baby girl from being born with HIV, Zhang Feng, a CRISPR pioneer for gene-editing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology notes that removing the CCR-5 gene “will likely render a person much more susceptible for West Nile Virus.” According to a study published in Nature Biotechnology in July 2018, researchers in Britain discovered that using CRISPR technology might cause more harm than good as the possibility exists for it to harm healthy genes rather than just removing the ones in question.

The controversy surrounding Dr. He’s experiment is two-fold—not only is the scientific community concerned about completely changing the human genome and the possibility of creating new diseases and abnormalities, but they have also identified eugenics as a threat to society.

Eugenics is defined as “the science of improving a population by selective breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.” The concept was first introduced by Plato in 400 BCE in order to create a master guardian class. In 1883, the term “eugenics” was first used by Sir Francis Galton, a British scholar, to mean “well-born.” In the early 20 th century, countries such as Belgium, Brazil, Canada and Sweden implemented eugenics policies to prevent mental institution patients from procreating in an attempt to prevent a mental disease from being passed on.

Gene editing for the purpose of “improving” the human race raises the question of the dangers associated with eugenics for society. Is it our place to design our children based on our own desires? Kazuo Ishiguro wrote in his book Never Let Me Go, “a two-tiered society with elite citizens, genetically engineered to be smarter, healthier, and to live longer, and an underclass of biologically run-of-the-mill humans could evolve.” Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World also depicts a rigidly stratified dystopian society determined by one’s genetics and intelligence.

The panic that Dr. He’s experiment has created is similar to the one incited by In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) in the second half of the 19 th century. The first successful embryo using the technology was created in 1944 but did not result in a viable pregnancy.Critics argued that humans should not “play God” by creating babies in scientific laboratories—even the Vatican spoke out against the use of IVF. Others countered saying the technology was beneficial because it allowed people to have babies who otherwise wouldn’t be able to.

The first successful IVF “test tube” baby was Louise Joy Brown born in England in 1978. Since then more than five million babies have been born throughout the world because of the technology.

While IVF is more widely available and the technology has advanced significantly since it was first developed, it is not accessible to everyone and cannot guarantee a viable pregnancy. Each cycle of IVF is physically and financially draining—the process takes a heavy toll on a woman’s body with large doses of hormones and each cycle can cost up to tens of thousands of dollars. All moral, ethical and scientific concerns aside, IVF technology would have to be advanced even further to make it faster, easier and more reliable and affordable as the first step for couples seeking to genetically modify their children. Although Dr. He has proved that CRISPR can be used to create actual gene-edited human babies and not just for experiments that remain in Petri dishes, being able to make the CRISPR technology readily available to the public would also be necessary and is not likely to happen for a while.

With any new technology or scientific advancement, concerns and opposition are going to result from uncertainties. In IVF’s case, people were concerned about our power to create life “unnaturally.” Gene edited babies take it a step further by raising ethical and biological issues about how far science should be allowed to go in controlling a natural process.

Following the alarms raised by the scientific community, countries around the world now need to implement legislation regarding the allowance or prevention of the use of CRISPR to create genetically edited humans. Currently, 30 countries have legislation that either directly or indirectly bans the use of the technology to genetically modify embryos.While there has been concern expressed by scientists all over the world, there have also been discussions regarding possible allowed circumstances for the technology to be used. Overall the scientific community has agreed that the technology should not be used for eugenics purposes such as choosing the baby’s eye color, but rather in cases where the baby’s life may be in danger once it is born due to genetic abnormalities. In July 2018, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics declared the technology was “morally permissible” to use if it added to the child’s future and didn’t add to the inequalities that already exist in society.

Being a newer technology, CRISPR’s full abilities are still unknown. Although it is important for regulations and guidelines to be put in place while the scientists continue to experiment with CRISPR, the technology exists and is not going away. The possibilities for this technology are endless and will depend on the restraint of human beings who tend toward impetuousness.

By Cristina Mendoza

Illustration by Sophia Foerster