The Future of Genetic Engineering

in Humans
Deirdre Hall

Engl 138- Section 004

4/2/2019

1
Abstract: In recent history, genetic research has taken off. A growing field is that of genetic

engineering, or the practice of specifically altering genes using technology such as CRISPR-

Cas9. Genetic engineering technology becomes significant when it is applied to humans. The

two different possibilities for genetic engineering, editing the somatic and germline cells, have

different implications. Somatic cell editing only impacts the individual to whom the genetic

change was made, and could be used to treat a genetic disease. Germline cell editing will impact

future generations, making it more controversial. Because of unknown risks, the potential to

create designer babies, and the questionable ethics of altering a child’s genes without their

consent, germline cell experimentation/application should be regulated by a committee, as is

done in the UK. If that does not prove to be enough regulation, then the government should

regulate the use of germline cell editing. In any case, genetic engineering should only be used for

medical purposes.

2
Background Information: Genes are the basic units of inheritance in humans,

encoded by pairs of nucleotides in the DNA. Genes encode for proteins, which determine

phenotypic traits (physical traits) such as eye and hair color. Humans have somewhere from

20,000 to 25,000 genes.i The purpose of genetic engineering is to manipulate and/or change

DNA with the intention of modifying the organism.ii

In 1975, scientific research on recombinant DNA (and genetic engineering) was booming.

Research was conducted based on the principle that research should be autonomous and

internally regulated, rather than being regulated by the government. The 1975 Asilomar

conference was a meeting of over 100 notable molecular biologists, with its goal being for the

scientists to discuss the possibilities of genetic technology, and come to an understanding on

what experiments should and should not be conducted.iii Scientists in attendance feared that the

guidelines they created at the conference would someday become legislation. Ultimately, they

agreed that estimated risks should be met with equivalent methods of containment. The

conference summary includes identification of types of experiments and their categories of risk

(minimal, low, moderate, and high). The summary includes recognition of the fact that they

could not accurately predict all future experimental risks- especially those associated with

eukaryotes (mammals, including humans).iv The significance of this conference is that it was the

first time the scientific community had discussed the need for regulations in regard to genetic

experiments. It is also important to note that scientists wanted to keep the government from

getting involved.

The invention of the CRISPR-Cas9 device (CRISPR- Clustered Regularly Interspaced

Palindromic Repeats) revolutionized the potential of genetic engineering. Using CRISPR-Cas9,

researchers can precisely cut a strand of DNA at a selected location. This is accomplished using

3
a strand of RNA that matches the desired DNA sequence and the enzyme Cas9. The CRISPR

method revolutionized genetic engineering because it is faster, more accurate, and costs less than

other methods of gene editing. Controversy arises because it is possible to use this genetic

engineering method in humans.v Also, while CRISPR is more accurate than older methods, it is

not accurate 100% of the time, so there is a chance for errors to occur.

Figure 1: A representation of the CRISPR-Cas9 device. Time progresses as you move from

top to bottom of the image.

There are two types of cells in the human body— germline (the egg and sperm), and somatic

cells (everything else).vi Both types of cells can be genetically modified. Modifying the genes in

a person’s somatic cells only affects the (presumably) consenting individual. Germline editing,

4
on the other hand, affects future generations. As it stands, there is no federal regulation on either

kind of gene editing. Scientists are guided by ethics.

Introduction to the Issue: With advances in the genetics field, and genetic

technology becoming more precise, it becomes necessary to evaluate the risks and benefits of

gene therapy. Because the technology is relatively new, the long-term effects of gene therapy

remain unknown. With that said, the potential to treat genetic diseases through somatic cell

editing cannot be overlooked. Germline cell editing, on the other hand is unethical. The child is

stripped of the freedom to decide if they want a particular phenotype to change, and it comes

with inestimable, unknown risks. For this reason, somatic cell editing research and

experimentation should continue without the interference of the government. Germline editing in

humans should be restricted to genetic diseases/health issues. If it becomes necessary, the federal

government should step in to regulate the practice of germline cell editing.

Somatic Cell Editing: One of the most appealing applications of genetic engineering

technology is its use to treat genetically-inherited diseases. Already, somatic cell editing has

been used to successfully treat SCID, or Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Disorder. SCID is

usually deadly within a year. With new genetic techniques, it can be treated. This is promising

for the clinical application of somatic cell editing.

As is the case with most new technology, fear stems from the unknown. Scientists still do

not know the function of ‘introns’ in the genome, which are sequences of DNA that are not

expressed in the phenotype. Introns do not seem to have a function, but the other parts of the

DNA, ‘exons,’ are not enough to control every function in the body. The exons do not even have

enough information contained in them to code to brain function alone! Given everything that

5
scientists do not know, and because the technology is relatively new, it is impossible to

determine the long-term side effects of somatic (or germline) engineering. It is known that

somatic cell edits will not affect future generations, so any complications will be limited to the

individual receiving treatment. Studies with poor results raise these issues to the surface. For

example, experiments involving the insertion of viruses into humans with genetic diseases have

had mixed results. Some have been successful, while the worst-case scenario treatments have led

to the growth of tumors. The unsuccessful trials create a stigma surrounding genetic treatments,

labelling them as dangerous. This label is unfairly given. Genetic treatments, like other medical

practices, must be tested over extended periods of time in order to determine effectiveness. Most

professionals believe that gene therapy will someday reach its promised potential.vii

Germline Cell Editing: Germline cell editing is not yet a possibility in humans. Like

somatic cell editing, it has the positive potential to eradicate genetic diseases. In this case though,

the edit would be passed down through the generations, potentially sparing future children from

suffering. While this is a good outcome, there remains the fact that a lot about the genome and

genetic technology is unknown. Given everything scientists do not know about the genome,

germline cell editing could have additional unintended effects on human beings. If there are

negative side effects, they would be passed down through the generations. The embryo also does

not have the ability to reject a genetic change- it is being forced upon the unborn child. When the

child has grown up, they might wish that their parent had not made that choice in their place.

This makes the ethicality of germline editing hazy at best. In addition to this, there is a risk of the

technology being abused.

‘Designer babies’ are a dangerous concept associated with germline engineering. A

designer baby is one that has been given selected traits through genetic engineering. A designer

6
baby would have traits the parents, or society, deem desirable. For example, the parents may

choose for their baby to have brown hair and blue eyes, and to be predisposed to be thin and tall.

This idea creates concern for several reasons, the first being that this technology would likely be

expensive. Society could become divided between those wealthy enough to pay for this

treatment, and those who are not so fortunate. It would make wealth divides more obvious in

physical characteristics, and could lead to discrimination against those with traits deemed less

than ideal.viii

The risks of germline editing were exemplified by Dolly the sheep. Dolly was a genetic

clone of her mother, and the very first clone ever successfully created. She appeared normal

except for one serious flaw- Dolly died at a young age because even though she was young, her

genes, copied from her mother, were old. As mammals age, so do their genes. When genes age,

telomeres found on the ends of chromosomes (like caps that protect the DNA from being

destroyed) get shorter. Eventually, the organism dies. This is exactly what happened to Dolly,

indicating that even though the animal was young, she was old on the inside. Dolly experienced a

number of health complications later in her life, including a virus, arthritis, and tumors in her

lungs. The average sheep lives to be 10-12 years old; Dolly died at the age of six.ix This is an

example of genetic engineering, specifically cloning, being attempted in an animal. The

experiment had unprecedented side effects- a major concern in germline experiments.

Religious Concerns: According to Christianity, genetic engineering is seen as a method

of altering God’s image. A concern with germline editing occurs because humans are, according

to the Bible, “image-bearers.” This idea rules out the ethicality of somatic cell editing. According

to the same idea, if embryos are also considered God’s image-bearers, then they, too, should not

be altered. So, germline cell editing is out, too. The results of a 2016 poll, shown below, indicate

7
that individuals of high religious affinity do not support genetic engineering, while individuals of

low religious affinity do not object to it.

Figure 2: 2016 Poll of adult opinions of the ethicality of germline cell editing. Left- acceptable.

Right- religious objections (tampering with God’s creation).x

The Bible cannot possibly say anything specific about genetic engineering because of

when it was written. To draw these conclusions, religious individuals are interpreting passages in

a way that makes them applicable to life today. Opting out of genetic engineering will be a

choice in the future. If an individual has a religious objection to the concept, then they can

choose not to participate in it. Religious opinions should not determine the future of genetic

8
research or experimentation. The government should not regulate the research or practice of

genetic engineering for religious reasons because of the separation of church and state. Any

future regulations should stem from the obligation to protect American citizens.

Suggestions: With the looming, unknown risks that lie in the future of genetic

engineering, it is crucial to establish boundaries for the technology. At the Asilomar conference,

it was important to the scientists that the government remain uninvolved in genetic research,

allowing it to progress, unhindered. While this approach is suitable for now and American

biologists have, as of yet, been accountable to each other based on ethical principles, it may

eventually become necessary to regulate genetic engineering methods. I do not believe that

research or experimentation on somatic cells should be limited. Though the long-term risks of

somatic cell editing are unknown, the potential benefits far outweigh concerns over negative

effects that are not even known or guaranteed. The future of disease eradication lies in genetic

engineering. Somatic cell editing does not influence future generations, so any negative side

effects will not harm the children of the individuals who volunteer for gene therapy. Because of

this, somatic cell research should be encouraged at present in hopes of finding disease

treatments.

Germline cell editing is far more controversial. Because it can change the course of a

child’s life, without consent, it enters into an ethical grey area. The technology is not yet

available. When the technology becomes available and affordable, it should not be used lightly.

The federal government should step in and create legislation against the creation of designer

babies. However, germline cell editing should be permitted for use for medical issues. The

definition of a medical issue becomes hazy when it comes to babies with the genetic code for

Down syndrome, blindness, or deafness. To some, Down’s syndrome is not viewed as a

9
disability, while other parents would opt to have a child without Down’s syndrome. There are

also entire cultures to be found in the blind and deaf communities. Most blind and/or deaf

individuals do not identify themselves as disabled. Instead, it is part of their identity. It remains

unclear if these conditions should be grouped into the category of medical problems to be solved

through genetic engineering.

For now, the government should be hands off and let new research come to light about

the nature of genes and effects of gene therapy. In the future, gene therapy should become

accessible to individuals in need of medical treatment. However, germline cell editing should not

be legally permitted for use for non-medical purposes. In the UK, gene therapy research on

humans must be approved by the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC). This committee

prevents the creation of designer babies, or any genetic experiments not conducted in an ethical

fashion.xi As an alternative to the federal government getting involved in the U.S., a similar

committee could be established. The US National Human Genome Research Institute currently

serves the purpose of considering the ethical arguments associated with genetic engineering.

However, it does not respond to the ethics of experiments or prevent gene therapy practices from

coming into being.xi A new committee should be formed that regulates germline engineering

experiments in humans.

Conclusion: Scientists have a lot left to learn about the human genome. A collection of

about 140 scientists recognized this in 1975 at the Asilomar conference, where they determined

that precautions should be taken to make sure dangerous experiments are contained. However,

they also did not want the government to control scientific research. Somatic and germline cell

editing are both treatment options for diseases, though germline editing is not yet possible. The

difference between the two methods is that changes to DNA in somatic cells will not affect the

10
genes of the individual’s offspring, while germline editing will impact future children. The

danger of genetic engineering lies in the possible unknown side effects. Because of the

unknowns, somatic cell editing is a safer option for humans. Germline cell editing could also

easily be used for non-medical, cosmetic reasons, creating class divisions. Therefore, somatic

cell research and experimentation should be strongly encouraged, while germline cell editing

should be monitored by a committee in order to ensure the safety of human subjects.

11
Sources:

i
“What Is a Gene? - Genetics Home Reference - NIH.” U.S. National Library of Medicine,

National Institutes of Health, ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/gene.

ii
"Genetic Engineering." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2014. Opposing

Viewpoints in Context,

http://link.galegroup.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/apps/doc/PC3021900072/OVIC?u=p

sucic&sid=OVIC&xid=360ce104. Accessed 15 Apr. 2019.

iii
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee to Study Decision Making; Hanna KE, editor.

Biomedical Politics. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1991. Asilomar

and Recombinant DNA: The End of the Beginning. Available from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234217/

iv
Berg, P et al. “Summary statement of the Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA

molecules.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America vol. 72,6 (1975): 1981-4.

v
“What Are Genome Editing and CRISPR-Cas9? - Genetics Home Reference - NIH.” U.S.

National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 2 Apr. 2019,

ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/genomeediting.

vi
Griffiths, Anthony JF. “Somatic versus Germinal Mutation.” An Introduction to Genetic

Analysis. 7th Edition., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1 Jan. 1970,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21894/.

12
vii
Mavilio, Fulvio, and Giuliana Ferrari. “Genetic modification of somatic stem cells. The

progress, problems and prospects of a new therapeutic technology.” EMBO reports vol. 9

Suppl 1,Suppl 1 (2008): S64-9. doi:10.1038/embor.2008.81

viii
Ly, Sarah. “The Embryo Project Encyclopedia.” Ethics of Designer Babies | The Embryo

Project Encyclopedia, 31 Mar. 2011, embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies.

ix
“The Life of Dolly.” Dolly the Sheep, The University of Edinburgh,

dolly.roslin.ed.ac.uk/facts/the-life-of-dolly/index.html.

x
Plumer, Brad, et al. “A Simple Guide to CRISPR, One of the Biggest Science Stories of the

Decade.” Vox, Vox, 27 Dec. 2018, www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17594864/crispr-cas9-gene-

editing.

xi
“Is Germline Gene Therapy Ethical?” Debates, The Public Engagement Team at the Wellcome

Genome Campus, 3 June 2015, www.yourgenome.org/debates/is-germline-gene-therapy-

ethical.

13