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.