Would You Tamper With Your Child's DNA?

           

Source: CRISPR Gene Editing Prompts Chaos in DNA of Human Embryos

    My psychology professor last summer introduced this prompt to us one day. Initially it seemed like a ludicrous question, and then I realized "it's 2019, CRISPR kits are purchasable on Amazon and a persons complete genome can be phenotyped within the span of days." 

   

    Initially, I had essentially agreed:

I would tamper with my unborn child's DNA to prevent genetic diseases and mutations. Although it may initially appear unethical to tamper with the natural development of a child, it falls under the same intent of treating and curing diseases. For generations, humans have already tampered in one form or another the natural composition of our bodies and the world around us. We have developed infrastructure and medicine to better our living conditions, getting rid of otherwise life-threatening diseases or reducing their adverse effects. Tampering with an unborn child's DNA can help reduce their susceptibility to disease until delivery and into development. For example, as a result of a mother consuming alcohol during a pregnancy, a baby in the womb can develop fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, causing deformities, learning disabilities and stunted growth. In this case, to wholly prevent the illness, editing out these disorders increases the likelihood of a healthy child. There are risks to changing ones DNA however, as each gene is a part of a polygenic system where one change can induce a domino effect. For example, should immunity against the AIDS be activated, the adverse effect could be obesity. In spite of the risk of activating unknown genes or mutations, as such is the risk with taking store bought or prescribed medications. While the comparison may seem inconceivable, in the end both have the same motivations and the same risks: to improve overall vitality despite the gamble of mildly inconvenient to life threatening side effects. 

    But then when considering "designer babies", my thoughts changed:

This incentive to improve health and overall state of life can be argued to tamper with an unborn  baby's psychological or cosmetic traits. I digress. While the two do overlap to pursue humanities end goal-evolution- the intent to change an unborn baby's mindset and beautify them in the parents image will do more harm than good to the child and today's society. We have pursued disease prevention not out of narcissistic values, but to prevent death and medical dependence. The intent to pursue cosmetics is an individual choice, along with training the mind in the individuals own vision and not anyone else's. Permanently doing so will amplify the already perilous psychological effects of social media and our judgmental society. It can also serve as a socioeconomic driver to widen gaps between cultures, gender, race and income. At that point, genetic modifications will cause children to become trophies, much like social media has already subjected millions of children to this fate already. Editing ones child genealogy to match the trends of today will consequently cause long term self esteem issues, as popular cosmetic trends fluctuate already decade by decade. In that sense, it would not be unlike today, except it would not be as easy to turn off or ignore with the click of a button.

    As we assimilate more and more into technology, it is in fact a very crucial question to begin pondering yourself. My generation may as well be the first generation to have this luxury widely accessible for our children. With that, our future may become worse, or it may actually improve. It is uncertain how the world will react, but peering at historical trends in even seemingly irrelevant medical discoveries, is it reasonable to be hopeful towards the "good" application of gene editing? 

    

    To answer my own question, honestly probably not. Reading the Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks was a huge wake-up call to malpractice in medicine. A black woman was not asked for consent to harvest her cancer cells, and essentially was mistreated under "doctors" who had studied their whole lives only to subject this woman to pain and suffering just for the sake of "science". So who is not to say they won't do the same with gene editing? Playing the game of cosmetics with unborn children? 

In Unnatural Selection, a Netflix docuseries about the possible benefits and repercussions of genetic engineering, doctors all over the world support this ideology, not just for medical reasons, but for cosmetic and experimental ones. In one episode, Ukrainian doctor Jeffrey Steinberg agreed to change a couples childs' eye color to blue eyes instead of brown. "Biohackers" (normal people) purchase CRISPR kits and have already been experimenting with their animals, one man named David Ishee attempted to turn his dogs fur neon and right now has been working on making DIY COVID-19 cures with them. 

    The argument that CRISPR should lie solely within the power of medical "professionals" is already disparaged, and the ideal that people will utilize this power for medicinal purposes is demolished by the clear favor the power of "biohacking" has on the average citizen for experimental or cosmetic reasons.

But...there's...still hope, right?