Entering Bioethical Spheres: Should Gene-Editing be off the Table?

Our current era is at a decisive and definitive threshold and crossroad vis-à-vis the DNA and gene-editing revolution. The Covid pandemic has not only accelerated this in many ways, but it has proven that these methods and techniques can be effective in creating life-saving vaccines and how this has the potential to be used in the medical field to a wider extent. But every promise and each potential pound of cure will also contain an ounce of doubt and worry, or, to put it in superhero jargon, with great power comes great responsibility.

On this issue, I was a bit on the fence because I could see how this technology, like almost anything really, could be potentially misused for nefarious schemes and purposes. Recently, the nonpartisan debate series Intelligence Squared U.S. held a live debate on the motion whether “to use gene-editing to make better babies”, and I entered and approached this debate as undecided; I was curious to find out what each side had to say on the matter in order to become clearer about where I actually stand on this issue and to make up my mind by either supporting or opposing the motion at the end of the discussion.

Let me first introduce and give a bit of background information and the main arguments of the debaters from each side of the table. On the Pro side arguing for the motion of gene-editing, we have George Church, professor of genetics, geneticist, and founder of the Personal Genome Project. He explained that gene-editing is essentially about subtracting, adding, and replacing genes. He was in favor of using and regulating it as opposed to outright banning it, which is the case and situation at this current moment.  

By incorporating and regulating the science, we would minimize potential risks. We could ensure safety standards and measures in addition to encouraging whistle-blowing to uncover and reveal any misuse and abuse. This would represent a reasonable and viable alternative to covert unregulated government use, which can be much more dangerous, unpredictable, and harmful.

However, when it comes to gene-editing, we ought to be aware of a vital distinction between its use and potential therapies. The germline gene therapy is heritable and will be passed on to other generations, while somatic gene therapy is applied only to the current person. Either case may be justified and acceptable when there are strong health consequences associated with them. For instance, at some point, we may be able to treat Alzheimer’s in a patient, but would it not be an even better idea to ensure that future generations of that person will not be afflicted by the disease? We already have screening for healthy babies, but this could make it possible on a much wider scale and panorama.

George Church’s companion on the Pro side was Amy Webb, a social scientist, futurist, and author of "The Genesis Machine". She favored an ethical and cautious approach and measure to gene editing. Her argument was that nature is “full of bugs” but that we can fix errors on its biological code. In other words, we have the power to make corrections and prevent genetic risk, and hence, reduce human suffering by making people less vulnerable to pathogens and potentially making us all more resilient in the process.

As a futurist, she is aware that the survival of our system may need and require intervention but at the same time, we would want to use a measured and pragmatic approach that does not give in to the dangers of catastrophizing or falling victim to wild speculations. Gene-editing does not automatically lead to a Gattaca-like dystopia as films tend to prey on our fears about the potential threats of this type of technology; nor should we give in to or be overwhelmed and intimidated by an overall lack of diversity and dangerous and wild depictions of Aryan babies in the future. In fact, the aim and hope are not to make designer babies but to reduce suffering and make humans healthier, more resistant, and resilient to disease and pathogens.

Let us now move over to the Against-side of the debating table. The first opponent was Marcy Darnovsky, a bioethicist and policy advocate, and executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society who claimed that gene-editing was wrong and dangerous and that it opened doors to new kinds of social injustice via the practice of embryo selection.

Marcy was more concerned about the societal consequences of reproductive gene therapy and enhancements, which could lead people to essentially order and design their own babies according to their likes and desires. Consequently, this would resemble a type of eugenics and increase the genetic haves and have-nots, while on the other side, decreasing diversity and individuality.

Finally, last but not least, we had Françoise Baylis, a philosopher of trade and author of "Altered Inheritance". She first focused on the allocation of time, money, energy, and talent that we would spend on this technology at the expense of other urging and important issues and research.

Secondly, we would be essentially playing God by taking over human evolution. We have no right to have genetically modified children and we should not tinker with human lives in this way and manner. She likened the proposed measures as “enhancements” not unlike piano lessons and cosmetic surgery.

And yet, the overall aim of science should be to build a better world for everyone and that we should be aware of our worldview as well as the kind of humans we want to have in the world. It would come down to the difference between needs and wants. We would need food and should not then ask for croissants. It is about what will help all people everywhere and should not turn into a matter of privilege or luxury.

The problem of this type of “personalized medicine” is that it would lead to privileged access of the wealthy and become their realm and domain but that the rest of the world would be left out. Finally, she agreed that we could reduce suffering but when we do so, we also rob humanity of the chance for growth that comes from dealing with pain and adversity, and again, we should not intervene in this form and fashion.

Seen and judged purely in terms of debating, I must say that Françoise was the strongest debater of them all. This should not surprise much as she is a philosopher who debates for a living and relishes and is comfortable and at ease in these types of interactions and situations. At the same time, I think that Marcy hit a populist nerve as social injustice is on the mind and conscience of practically everyone these days and clearly resonates with them. This may explain why the Against side ended up gaining significant ground but fell short of overall winning the debate as 56% ended up supporting the motion with 37% being against it, and 7% remaining undecided and not being swayed either way.

In terms of reasons and arguments, I was undecided at first and was worried about tinkering with human nature, with the fabric and characteristics that make us all who we are but was then swayed by the arguments provided by the Pro camp. There are different reasons why I agree with them.

First off, whether we like it or not, whether we embrace and welcome it or not, technology is advancing and gene-editing is becoming more and more a reality. Instead of trying to suppress something that is outside of our control, we can regulate it to ensure that it does not lead to substantial and significant misuse and abuse.

Secondly, I agree that suffering is part of human reality but there is more than enough going around, especially nowadays, and it is our task as humans to try to reduce and alleviate it to the best of our powers. Gene-editing can eliminate certain diseases for ourselves, others, as well as the generations to come. Yes, it will change us, and yes, it will be tinkering with our evolution, but it will also prevent and circumvent many health risks and diseases, and that makes it a worthwhile endeavor in my view.

You can watch the full debate here or listen to the podcast version here.