TED ATAKENT COLLEGE / 9-B The Perfect, Edited Babies’ Generation Deren DEMİR The most popular use of the new gene editing technique CRISPR is also the most controversial: editing the genomes of human embryos to eliminate genes that cause disease. We don’t allow it now. Should we? Naturally, this question is open to discussion. The embryos, provided by patients undergoing vitro fertilization, will not be allowed to develop beyond seven days. But in theory and eventually in practice CRISPR could be used to modify disease-causing genes in embryos brought to term, removing the wrong script from the genetic code of that person’s future descendants as well. This is the thing which was wished before by the patients who have genetic code problems, for their children not to have genetic diseases. They mostly say that their life is not easy, they are not offered options like everyone does and that makes their life even harder. Proponents of such “human germline editing” argue that it could potentially decrease, or even eliminate the incidence of many serious genetic diseases human suffering will be worldwide. There is another question to be asked. Whether they only do it for the good of human generation worldwide? Opponents say that modifying human embryos is dangerous and unnatural and does not take into account the consent of future generations. Who is right? The most common objection in editing genes is to try acting like God or being involved in God’s work. This argument rests on the premise that natural is good. Yes, natural is good but what if the nature is your disease? Do you take pills like antibiotics while you are sick? Antibiotics, as you tell by its name is anti-biological, not natural. We would not be able to use antibiotics to kill bacteria or otherwise practice medicine, or combat drought, famine, or pestilence because the thing we do to prevent them is not natural. So that we should brood on our life. There are nearly no products that are organic, they are simply made by people. The topic that is discussed in this article is unnatural so are the pills and many products used to enhance diseases. This question, whether its unhealthy or healthy, because it isn’t organic lags behind. Finally, there is the argument that modifying genomes is inherently dangerous because we can’t know how it will affect the individual. How can we know without trying it? We can guess but it will be a guess only. It can be wrong or right. But there is a great risk. Human beings are afraid of the things they don’t know, this experiment’s results aren’t known and that is the good and dominant reason for them to be scared. They are right. Can you count on a great risk? The aim of this article is not about the right to wrong, it is not about who wins the game. It is for humanity, for the good of humanity. I think that, there are many questions to be answered before it comes official, for that everyone should work hard, and we should put our soul into humanity and the future generations.