Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
A significant scientific breakthrough in the 21st century is gene editing, particularly via the use of CRISPR-Cas9. This innovative technique enables accurate genetic alterations in live organisms, including humans. Manipulating the human genome has the potential to profoundly transform the field of medicine, enhance the overall well-being of individuals, and eradicate genetic conditions that are passed down through generations. The primary advantage of gene editing is its ability to address and prevent hereditary disorders. Cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anaemia, and Huntington’s disease are all attributed to genetic alterations. Gene editing has the ability to correct these mutations at their origin, providing a resolution rather than just alleviating symptoms. Gene editing has the potential to enhance human abilities beyond only fixing genetic issues. This might include enhancing the immune system to fight against infections or reducing the likelihood of chronic diseases by altering genes related to cholesterol or blood pressure. The applications are wide-ranging, including the enhancement of agricultural resilience as well as the development of innovative cancer therapies.
Although the procedure has the potential for significant advantages, it has encountered ethical concerns. Nevertheless, these worries often arise from misconceptions or apprehension about unfamiliarity. The ethical objections to genome editing in humans often revolve around the apprehension of “playing God,” the possibility of producing customized offspring, and the anxiety over unforeseen repercussions. Nevertheless, these fears, while not completely baseless, may be resolved by meticulous regulation and ethical supervision.
“Playing God” argument: It refers to the act of assuming the role or powers of a deity, often in a metaphorical sense, when one exercises control or makes decisions that have significant consequences on others argument: The claim that gene editing is immoral due to its alteration of what is considered a natural order is a philosophical position rather than a scientific one. This argument neglects to recognize that humans have extensively manipulated natural processes throughout history, including practices such as agriculture and medicine. Utilizing antibiotics, vaccinations, and agricultural techniques such as crop breeding are all methods of modifying the natural world to enhance the well-being of people. Gene editing is a method that builds upon previous methods with the goal of treating and preventing diseases and ameliorating overall quality of life.
Designer Babies and Inequality: Another issue arises from the possibility of using gene editing techniques to produce what is often referred to as “designer babies,” whereby certain genetic characteristics such as IQ, physical attractiveness, or talents might be deliberately chosen. This gives rise to concerns about worsening socioeconomic disparities if these technologies are only accessible to the affluent. Nevertheless, these problems are not intrinsic to the technology per such, but rather to its implementation and regulation.
Unforeseen repercussions: The potential for off-target consequences, in which unwanted sections of the genome are modified, is a legitimate issue. Nevertheless, this statement applies to all medical interventions.
It is important to acknowledge, however, that the field of medicine has a long history of introducing new ideas and practices that originally posed concerns. These risks were later reduced via careful study and regulation. Emphasis should be placed on enhancing the accuracy and security of gene editing technologies rather than completely disregarding them.
Gene editing may have advantages beyond curing illnesses. Understanding and altering genes may reveal human biology which might lead to scientific and medical discoveries. Gene editing is also crucial to personalized medicine because it allows for genetically tailored treatment. This personalization improves therapy efficacy and reduces side effects. Gene editing may also improve food security by producing crops that are more resistant to pests, diseases, and climate change and also help in reviving endangered species.
Given these potential benefits, gene editing research must be funded. Allocating money to gene editing research may ensure that the technology advances ethically, prioritizing safety, justice, and human welfare.
Human gene editing has the potential to transform medicine, boost human abilities, and solve global problems. The ethical issues raised in regards to this are not deeply thought of and most of them arise from social or religiously conservative luddites which are mostly baseless reservations often lightly researched and thought of. With responsible governance, regulation, and public engagement, gene editing can be a force for good. Gene editing may be beneficial if reasonable regulation, public involvement, and governance are implemented. Considering the enormous benefits this path may provide to all of humanity, it is not only morally right to pursue it but also essential. Therefore, in order to fully use gene editing in a manner that is both safe and equitable, it is imperative to give more priority to the distribution of funds and scientific research in this area.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint