CRISPR-mediated human germline editing : benefits, risks, and why a ban is unethical
Year: 2021
Type: dissertation
Abstract: CRISPR/Cas gene technology provides a versatile system for site-specific gene editing in virtually any cell and has made it possible to cure and prevent genetic diseases and defects. Many genetic diseases, such as Tay Sachs and Huntington’s disease, cause horrendous suffering and premature death, and treatment options are often inefficient or non-existent. Correction of the disease-causing mutation in the germline will save both the affected individual and subsequent generations from the harm of genetic disease. There are still some technological challenges and risks that must be surmounted before CRISPR/Cas gene technology can be adopted for clinical applications. Still, given the tremendous benefits, it may be acceptable to proceed to clinical trials even if some risks remain unresolved.\nSafety is far from the only concern. Heritable germline editing gives rise to a wide variety of ethical issues, especially with regards to non-medical genetic interventions. The potential to genetically enhance human capacities has raised both excitement and fear, and although some commentators advocates for the potential benefits of human enhancement, it is generally frowned upon. Germline editing for medical purposes is, on the other hand, often viewed as morally acceptable and has even been suggested to be a moral imperative. The problem is that the line between therapy and human enhancement is challenging to define. It is, however, possible to draw a line between therapy and human enhancement. This line can, for instance, be drawn at normal gene function, where correction of a mutated gene to restore the gene’s normal function is therapy, whereas edits in genes where there is no mutation to be corrected are human enhancement.\nTherapeutic germline editing is nevertheless often discussed either on the premise that there is no distinction between therapy and human enhancement or on the premise that allowing therapeutic germline editing will inevitably lead to allowing human enhancement. The risk is that the benefits of therapeutic germline editing are being overshadowed by the much more disputed potential to enhance human capacities and thus opt for a ban on human heritable germline editing. It is, however, questionable whether a ban on germline editing can be justified given the tremendous benefits.\nThe aim of this thesis is to analyze whether it is morally permissible to prohibit germline editing, especially considering the potential to cure and prevent genetic diseases. Some of the most prominent ethical issues with allowing germline editing (such as the slippery slope argument, eugenics, discrimination, increased inequality, and violation of the child’s right to an open future) are discussed, but neither of these concerns is sufficient to justify a ban. The thesis concludes that it is not only ethically justifiable to permit germline editing but a moral imperative to continue the research and eventually proceed to clinical trials if the technology is confirmed to be sufficiently safe.
Author: Solvang, Gjertrud Marie
Language: English
Subfield: Molecular Biology
Domain: Life Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W7037006361