One of the most controversial types of technology is
biotechnology. It has may positives attributes that include improving the
quality of life for those who are born with disabilities, eradicating diseases,
and even strengthening the nutritious density of agriculture. However, it could
have dangerous implications.
In recent years, gene-editing has been expensive, labor
intensive, and inaccurate causing it to be infrequently thought about as a
realistic option for regular consumers. That is about to change with the
creation and improvement of CRISPR/Cas9.
CRISPR is a form of biotechnology that uses the immune systems
of bacteria to cut and alter the genes of other organisms based on programmed
artificial genetic code. It has become more cost effective and faster to do
than traditional methods. According to an article on Vox, some key
implementations of this biotechnology include:
1.
Editing crops to become allergen free, live under
extreme-weather conditions, or survive devastating diseases.
2.
Preventing or eradicating genetic diseases. Scientists
have begun research to change the structure of DNA so that it changes the BRCA
genes (found to increase risk of breast cancer) and the mutations that cause
cystic fibrosis. There is already research showing that this technology can
create a gene to be immune to HIV. Read more on that here. However,
occasionally a misfire could lead to cancer, so heavy precautions needs to be
taken before this can be used safely.
3.
Creating new and stronger antibiotics. With
antibiotic resistance on the rise, this new technology can help create more
antibiotics cheaper than before.
4.
Gene Drive. This biotechnology works with CRIPSR
to choose which genes are passed down or survive and which ones don’t. This has
the potential to eradicate the mosquitoes that carry malaria.
5.
Finally, and potentially most dangerously,
creating designer babies. The ability to edit human genes is great when talking
about reducing the risk of certain cancers or building immunity for
life-threatening diseases. However, that also gives us the power to pick and
choose which genes are desirable and lends the ability to design what a person
could look like.
This theory of adapting or augmenting the human genome isn’t
something new. In 1957, the idea of transhumanism gained traction in the
science-fiction community. The movement focuses on “the use of technological
advancements to enhance our physical, intellectual and psychological
capabilities, ultimately transcending the limitations of the human condition.” As much as it was science-fiction then, it is now real, possible,
and has potential to become accessible. The questions lie in what we choose to
use this new technology for.
In reference to being asked about how humans and technology
interact in the future, science historian at Vanderbilt, Michael Bess says, “I
think each of us needs to ask, “What does it mean for a human being to
flourish?” These technologies are forcing us to be more deliberate about asking
that question. We need to sit down with ourselves and say, “As I look at my
daily life, as I look at the past year, as I look at the past five years, what
are the aspects of my life that have been the most rewarding and enriching?
When have I been happiest? What are the things that have made me flourish?”
Questions for reflection:
1)
Do you believe that biotechnology has the
ability to make our lives more rewarding and enriching? Why or why not?
2)
Do you think the pros and cons are equal for
gene-editing?
3) Do you think CRISPR has the ability to interfere with the human condition?
Ted Talks for more additional thought:
One of the creators of CRISPR
Technology and the human condition
Ted Talks for more additional thought:
One of the creators of CRISPR
Technology and the human condition
1. I believe that biotechnology has the ability to make our lives more rewarding. There are numerous possibilities for CRISPR that can help humans live longer, better lives. There are many diseases that have been plaguing poorer countries that can not afford vaccines that this technology could eliminate from the world. We could also revitalize many species that have been extinct for hundreds of years now such as the wolly mammoth whose cells were recently brought back to life.
ReplyDelete2. I really like the gene editing idea since if I had the ability to make my child smarter or more athletic I would. However, I think the biggest worry would be the social-economic divide this could cause. Rich people would be able to afford this technology while poor people would not. This could cause a huge divide in our economy. There is also another possible serious issue of if people used this gene editing for the negative. While it is a very extreme example but if some of History’s worst leaders had access to this technology and they used it to create children with the same evil traits as them it could be very damaging to society.
3. CRISPR has the ability to help humans progress as a species. With the new technology CRISPR can eradicate life threatening diseases. The technology is becoming cheaper and quicker to do helping people from all over the world. For right now, I think it would be safer if CRISPR is not used on humans and only used to help the human race through fighting diseases, creating better crops, or treating/helping endangered species.
I think the social-economic divide it could cause is an important point! Thank you for highlighting this potential issue.
Delete1. I also agree that biotechnology has the ability to make lives more rewarding and enriching. It gives many people the opportunity to not only survive but thrive when they previously would not have been able to. I don't think it necessarily means that people can pick and choose the genes of their children; however, if it helps with health effects and dietary restrictions as you mentioned above, it would improve the lives of millions of people. We have had many negative health trends in recent years and could quite honestly use some form of improvement. The main consideration I think should be made is cost and access. This could have the potential of having great enrichment to lives, but if it becomes a marketed service, the only lives it could improve would be of the wealthy that could afford to do so. I also think the initial implementation, such as making a child more athletic for example, could have some social stigma attached to it. Those that were born with certain skills may find it unfair if some were "given" those same abilities.
ReplyDelete2. I think the pros outweigh the cons for gene editing. There are many precautions that would have to be considered, but if properly implemented, it could greatly reduce the potential cons. Members of society would be happier and healthier. There are many people that have been limited by no fault of their own, and it is hard to measure the impact of helping them. If integrity could be upheld on the execution of it, then there would be few cons of potentially misusing gene editing for personal gain.
3. It does have potential to interfere with the human condition. I think Bess makes an excellent point that we need to think about what it truly means to be human, and to acknowledge that it doesn't mean being perfect. CRISPR has potential to greatly benefit society, by the plant and dietary modifications; however, it needs to be considered with great caution when improving human health. As of right now, I think it should be closer to a "last resort" option for humans and used more in relation to things like BRCA than selecting what genes to pass on.
These are all excellent points! I really enjoyed how you addressed that this could be used maliciously for personal gain. I also liked your point that being human doesn't mean being perfect and we should only use it for certain situations.
DeleteThe cover of the most recent Wired magazine is a picture of Cow, with the headline, "Crispr could give us a more humane world. Will humans let that happen. Here's a picture of it. I can copy the article for those interested.
ReplyDeleteThe point of this article is that Crispr is not just about editing human genomes, but also animals, and organs. As the front page suggests, on-demand organs (which are in short supply), disease-proof babies (certainly a problem in some parts of the world), and horn-free cows (rather than them having them burned off in a painful manner). Any other "humane" examples come to mind?
DeleteI think it's a great idea to have disease-proof babies, especially in countries with high rates of malaria and limited income and access to health services. Animals and organisms also raise an interesting issue! Imagine being about to create an organ that is designed to not be rejected by the recipient's immune system.
Delete1. I believe that biotechnology does have the ability to make our lives more rewarding. By eliminating genes that cause disease, our world could see a huge decrease, and eventually elimination, of a wide range of illnesses. This transformative innovation in biotechnology can treat heart disease, Alzheimer’s, blood disorders, and many more debilitating diseases. Additionally, gene editing could potentially save endangered species or resurrect extinct species. As you mentioned in your post, this technology allows us to experience things that have previously only been perceived as science fiction—from preventing or eradicating genetic diseases to creating new and stronger antibiotics. Even though biotechnology and gene-editing does have some potential dangers, there are certainly elements that have the ability to enrich and improve our lives.
ReplyDelete2. Even though there are many pros to gene-editing, I think that there are just as many cons. Some researchers and bioethicists are concerned that this biotechnology will start us on a slippery slope when it comes to non-therapeutic and enhancement purposes. Besides the moral issue at hand, there may be long-term consequences associated—whether with off-target effects (edits in the wrong place) or social issues.
3. CRISPR does have the ability to permanently interfere with the human condition. Because gene therapy involves making edits to the body’s set of basic instructions, it could eradicate certain genetic disorders and diseases, but if abused, could result in severe social inequality—given that not everyone would have equal access to creating “designer babies” by hand selecting superhuman traits. If gene editing is used for crop modifications, preventing diseases, and creating stronger antibiotics, then this biotechnology will most likely benefit the human race. If we decide to experiment on humans to simply create the ideal human, this should definitely be used cautiously, as unknown consequences may arise.