to support gene editing and why

The Project Syndicate opinion piece on gene editing and ethics entitled “Gene Editing is Powerful Tool for Good but Only If Used Wisely” outlines in brief the major points relevant to the debate on medical technology. One of the most promising areas of new research in science and medicine, gene editing is already allowing for major and minor modifications to the genetic material in plants and animals, and to a lesser degree for human beings.

As the Project Syndicate authors point out in the article, the CRISPR project signals one of the most remarkable breakthroughs in genetic science: the ability to edit the genome of an organism. Now that the human genome has been credibly and functionally mapped, it will soon be possible for scientists to also edit the human genome with the goal of eliminating disease and enhancing human well-being. Therefore, I am fully in favor of gene editing and agree that it should be embraced and promoted with the utmost care and ethics.

The main reason to support gene editing in general is of course, its potential to eradicate some types of disease, while also offering the potential to strengthen the human body, build resilience, and generally improve both mind and body exponentially. There are a number of genetic diseases that gene editing could eliminate instantly: “hereditary diseases that cause very real misery” including sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, and type 1 diabetes (Project Syndicate 2).

Gene editing has the potential to reduce suffering among the general population; it would seem a greater crime to suppress the technology than it would to promote further innovation, research, and development. With the promise of eliminating certain diseases and promoting greater overall human health, it seems improbable that anyone would not support this wondrous new technology.

Gene editing is also an inevitability, “like it or not,” now that CRISPR and the human genome project have evolved to the point where they can be applied directly to the real world (Project Syndicate 2). Consumer demand, curiosity, and the desire to apply the technology to promote health and well being will only push for more innovation in the area of gene editing. Because it has become an unavoidable reality, gene editing needs to be discussed openly in the scientific community, by policymakers, and by other major stakeholders.

Only through open dialogue will it be possible to develop the right kinds of safeguards that will prevent unethical use of gene editing technologies. Open dialogue related to gene editing will allow for the emergence of creative solutions to ethical problems, which can be applied on a global scale because gene editing does impact the whole of humanity. Most of the reasons people fear gene editing, or argue against it, can be resolved through sensible approaches to the development and implementation of the technology.

Safety is not an issue at all, as Project Syndicate points out in the first page of the article. However, equitable access to gene editing is. As the authors point out, few would say the rich should forestall their children’s education until the poor have enough funds to send their children to the same colleges and universities. Likewise, it makes little sense to withhold valuable technology until the entire world can access it equitably.

Equity is an issue pervasive throughout human societies; gene editing could in fact help to reduce inequities but only.