As a biologist, this was a simply splendid table talk! While our understanding of the human genome and its corresponding proteome is still the greatest obstacle from fully utilizing the potential that genetic engineering technology represents.

Monogenic traits, such as eye color, genetic bases are relatively easy to understand and manipulate. However, the majority of diseases and other characteristics are far more complexly coded, with polygenic bases, that may included hundreds if not thousands of genes. Heart disease, mental diseases, diabetes, cancers, dementia, etc. fall into this latter category. If our technology to engineer the genome is to have any utility, we have to figure out the genetic basis for these syndromes and diseases.

Even the techniques used to modify the genetic code in an efficient and precise manner are relatively brand new. While CRISPR-Cas9 (clustered regularly interspersed short palindromic repeats) seems to have been the talk of the town for ages, its application for genetic m,modification was only first proposed by Jeniffer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier in 2012. This is not to say that our abilities are rudimentary; proposals to cure mitochondrial diseases through “three-parent” fertilization, rid diseases like Duchenne muscular dystrophy and other diseases for which we understand their genetic basis, and improve the prospects of future generations so that they won’t face the same terrible ends that exist today is all rather exiting.

It was an exiting chat.

What is the modern family nowadays? No, I’m not talking about the TV show but rather the set characteristics that each family must have in order to be deemed a family. Are there even characteristics? I usually don’t go to Urban Dictionary but their definition of family seems to detail a very concise point. Urban Dictionary defines family as, “A group of people, usually of the same blood (but do not have to be), who genuinely love, trust, care about, and look out for each other.” Rather than having a particular structure, the ability to have fluidity amongst the definition of family is the key idea in this situation. Although I understand that there are many people who are against the ethical implications of the three parent child but there are many reasons as to why the idea of the three parent child can benefit the people who choose to go through with the process. From LGBT+ parents who want to have children or couples who have issues with getting pregnant, the idea of the three parent baby allows parents to extend their love to children that they have always wanted. There are many couples who although have the financial ability and desire to have a child, but are disappointed in their inability to have their traits carried on to their beloved child. This process allows such a child to be grown out of love from several parties. While there are risks to going through this process, there are also risks in going through processes like in vitro fertilization that have continuously helped couples to have kids in the past. While there are ethical implications to this process, there are many positives that outweigh the situation.

As a student majoring in public health, the talk with Shiv was particularly intriguing to me. I actually have been exposed to the world of genetic engineering in high school for biology class and have engaged in several debates on the topic. However, the talk really compelled me to get in touch with this topic again for its implications on the global population in the very near future.

In all honesty, I used to thin CRISPR was some sort of microscopic tool – a pair of scissors perhaps – that can cut and hence alter sections of DNA to your wish. However, it is only now that I understand that it is only the name of a family of repeated DNA sequence and that we have discovered its wonderful ability to help us edit our genes. I found out through the internet that by the beginning of this year, 86 people in China has reported having their genes edited using this technique! That is really crazy to think about how the tiny teeny genes in your cells can be edited and offer you endless possibilities to change your life!

As I have been familiar with the three-parent baby technology, it was interesting for me to look at people’s reaction when they first heard about this breakthrough. It is definitely not something people would think about when I said that the mother actually contributes much more to the fetus than the father: except for half of your genes, you inherited everything else in your body from your mother. This leads to unhealthy babies being born when the powerhouse of the cell – the mitochondria – from the mother is faulty, leading to some babies needing two mothers instead of one to help them have a healthy life. To me, it secretly made me happy and proud of being a woman and our ability to give life.

However, all technologies and attempts to alter the natural world hold great moral and ethical implications and genetic engineering is really high on the list of debatable technology. Are we playing God? Are parents breaching the rights of their unborn babies when they decide their genetic make-up? Will we widen the differences between different socio-economic classes too much when only rich people would be able to make themselves healthier, smarter and eventually, richer? I have no certain answers for them, but it is crucial to ask these questions as we strive to embrace these wonderful technologies without causing harm to the society.

In the Table Talk, one of the recurring thoughts I had was about how genetic engineering could potentially impact disability. As many disabilities, or predispositions to becoming disabled, are genetic, it seems to me that soon we will have the ability to them at the earliest stages of fetal development, and perhaps even “correct” them. This does, I feel, raise important issues regarding how we as a society should treat disability. For many, disability is a net-negative, even a tragedy, something to be avoided and, if unavoidable, managed and mitigated through medical care until “normalcy” is once again achieved. Yet, for me (a person with a disability), I know that my disability is one of the main reasons I am even here at Cornell. While it certainly is not all sunshine and roses, I would not be the person I am today if it weren’t for my disability.  With my life experience in mind, I have a lot of concerns about just how far we will go in with genetics with regards to disability. On the other hand, it is the desire of every parent to ensure the best life, as they define it, for their children, and who am I (or anyone else) to say what they can and cannot do for their child? These are both sides of argument that will need to be considered as medical technology advances. I can only wonder what the outcome will be.

After attending the genetic engineering talk, I was thoroughly surprised by the kinds of topics that are currently being worked on! Going into the talk, I did not know much about genetic engineering besides genetically modified foods. However, at the talk, we discussed using animals to grow baby organs and the three parent baby (using mitochondrial DNA). I think it is definitely interesting to think about the ethical implications of these topics and how people would react if, for instance, baby organs were actually frequently grown in animals and what it would be like if this was the norm. It’s hard to wrap my head around how much science has advanced in what seems like such a short period of time! I certainly don’t know how I feel about a three parent baby – on one hand, it is crazy that the baby has DNA from three different people and this is a huge advancement in science. On the other hand, does this have negative effects, whether it be biological, social, etc., on the baby as s/he grows up (or does it have an impact at all)? Ultimately, this talk really made me think about where I draw the line for when genetic engineering has gone too far. In some people’s minds, this line may not exist whereas in other people’s minds, we may have already crossed it. I’m not too sure where I stand.

In high school, I remember watching the same film in both honors and AP Bio. GATTACA, a film starring Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman, explores the potential issues and consequences of genetic engineering. In a futuristic society where genetic status has overridden more humanistic concerns, the rich and successful, eager to obtain physical and mental perfection, have taken to genetically engineering their off-spring. These lab-created babies are known as “Valids”, while those conceived in the normal, loving fashion are called “Invalids”, and are considered second-class citizens at best. The movie shows the main character’s journey as he goes through great lengths as a genetically inferior man and assumes the identity of a superior one to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel.

Shiv’s table talk made me realize how much closer we are to making GATTACA a reality. With his mention of the revolutionary gene-editing tool called CRISPR, and how it can be used to develop gene-based medicines for genetic diseases, it seems that we are indeed closer to that reality. Furthermore, for the first time, recently, scientists have demonstrated that a controversial new kind of genetic engineering can rapidly spread a self-destructive genetic modification through an entire species, such as mosquitoes. The scientists used CRISPR to engineer special mosquitoes with a “gene drive”, which rapidly transmits a sterilizing mutation through other members of the mosquito species. These special mosquitos were created in the hopes of using them as a new weapon in the long, frustrating fight against malaria. However, there is a lot of controversy behind this method of eradicating malaria, as Shiv explained that it may seem as if humans are “playing god”. If modifying mosquitos brings so much controversy, I wonder what the public response to genetically modifying humans will be.

While eating dinner, I listened to GRF Shiv speak about the current state of genetic engineering and the implications of technological and scientific advancements in this field. We covered topics like CRISPR, three parent babies, growing and harvesting human organs in pigs, and cocaine immunity. Thinking about the immense potential of genetic engineering, I found these discussed advancements to be intellectually stimulating and surprising. Although research is still in its preliminary stages and genetic engineering certainly cannot be used for commercial purposes yet, the ideas sounded very promising. At the same time, these ideas made me fearful and skeptical for the future.

I considered the ethical dilemmas surrounding genetic engineering. Specifically, I thought about the possible problems associated with genetically modified organisms. It is undeniably true that genetic engineering offers a wide range of life-changing benefits. For example, Shiv mentioned that scientists recently genetically modified a mouse to be immune to cocaine addiction. If probed further, this research may one day be applied to humans and lead to the development of treatments for drug addictions. Also, CRISPR, which stands for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats of genetic information, are specific patterns of DNA sequences that can be edited. CRISPR can be manipulated to modify, delete, or correct genetic abnormalities. The possibilities of CRISPR are seemingly endless because it can be used to target crippling diseases at the source and eliminate or reduce one’s chances of getting them. For example, as evidence increasingly suggests that Alzheimer’s disease is tied to genetics, medical scientists could harness CRISPR to remove or edit the specific gene sequence that causes the disease.

However, history suggests that technological and scientific breakthroughs can often be manipulated in the wrong ways to harm society. I thought about my high school biology teacher and her daughter who struggled with a mental disability. She would passionately talk about her stance against using genetic engineering to modify abnormalities and “fix” humans. While I acknowledge that genetically engineering humans can save millions of people from pain, I firmly believe that it should never be used to alter personal characteristics like the color of one’s eyes or hair. Likewise, parents should not be able to increase their chances of giving birth to a child who possesses greater intellectual or athletic ability. With this in mind, human society must set clear boundaries regarding genetic engineering to avoid creating an intolerant world populated by “ideal” humans.

Shiv’s talk on Monday was very insightful, and it taught me a lot about how genetic engineering could affect our society in terms of ranging from changing science or even impacting our economy. The implications of genetic engineering are vast, and the consequences can be either positive or negative. The story of the three parent baby was quite interesting, and I did more research into how it worked afterward. In the case of the family that successfully went about it, they used the mother’s nuclear DNA, a donor’s mitochondrial DNA, and a father’s sperm. However, according to the article, it wasn’t that simple – over five embryos were required to have one develop properly. It can be seen as positive in that a baby was indeed successful and is a great sign of scientific progress, but others may question the morality of the use of multiple embryos. In the end, with any scientific progress, people are going to be skeptical. Gene editing and genetic engineering may be viewed by great advances by some but not by all. Ultimately, we need to be aware of not only the scientific progress taking place but also how people react to/feel about these changes.

Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2107219-exclusive-worlds-first-baby-born-with-new-3-parent-technique/

As per Shiv’s recommendation during this week’s table talk, I watched the Gene Editing segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. And of course, he talked about gene editing and genetic engineering.
In one part of the segment, John Oliver showed a snippet of an interview to George Church, a geneticist, and the interviewer asked if CRISPR could give us unicorns. Now, let me back up a second and explain what CRISPR is. CRISPR is a protein found in bacteria and it forms part of their defense mechanism against host pathogens. Its function is to recognize exogenous DNA and destroy it. Applications of CRISPR were discovered to edit DNA strands and essentially use it as a “copy-paste” tool. For this reason, scientists have been focused on trying to use this technology to cure diseases but people like this reporter have bigger priorities.
Both things are very difficult to reach; it has been an uphill battle in effectively curing a disease in humans using CRISPR and we are still yet to see a unicorn.
This technology is relatively new and the world of science moves slowly but surely, so although these ideas sound extremely fascinating, the research still has a long way to go. I’m optimistic that science will be able to cure genetic diseases in humans and the research does look promising.

I had the opportunity to attend the table talk on genetic engineering with Shiv and other rose scholars. One topic that I am really interested in is the three-parent baby.

The success of this scientific research will improve the health of the next generation. The nucleus of an egg with a disease would be replaced with a healthy one, and everyone expects to live longer. Is that necessarily a great thing for the world? Although the government will spend less money on health care, the resources human use will increase exponentially. Food, water, shelter are indispensable. The cost of living will increase, and the quality of life will decline.  It is debatable that whether or not the three-parent baby has a positive impact on the world as a whole.

I had the pleasure of attending this table talk about genetic engineering. Shiv led the discussion and I listened to the information and then the debate. Genetic engineering is the use of new science methods and technology to alter an organism’s genome. Genetic engineering has many applications such as agriculture (GMOs), vaccines, hormones, energy production, and even designer babies. With beneficial applications to debatable ones, genetic engineering is a hot topic.

The ethical problems associated with genetic engineering is that we take away nature’s power to create diversity and the different forms of beauty that we see around us. We don’t let biology decide what characteristics the child will have. Yes genetic engineering can prevent certain diseases and any life threatening issues. But genetic engineering can also end up being used for personal interests such as creating a child with a specific characteristics like designer babies. I personally think that before we make a decision about genetic engineering, we need to contextualize where and what we are using it for. This will help us make better and informed decisions about the ethics.

I didn’t know much about genetic engineering other than its advancements are becoming more prevalent in our lives. I was really excited to join this Table Talk so I could learn more about this subject. I was expecting the conversation to circle around the way food is genetically modified and how that is affecting us, the eaters. However, the discussion delved into deeper territory.

It was mentioned how we are in the very elementary stages of growing human organs in pigs. This was particularly interesting because of all the effects it would have on humans’ standard of living. For example, picture that this advancement was so successful, it became the new norm. It would be a very normal concept to have farms full of pigs with human organs. This would be great for sick patients to have easy access to the organs they need. It would take a lot of pressure off donors. But this would also impact the economy. With an inelastic price of organs, there would no longer be a need for the organ black market. Therefore, the crime rate would drop where organ harvesting is concerned. So having a farm full of pigs with human organs goes so far beyond the scope of just genetic engineering advancements. It would have an unimaginable impact on our way of life and our economy.

As we talked about the many potential benefits of genetic engineering and CRISPR, I realized that I needed to reevaluate my preconceived alarmist assumptions about all that could go wrong if genetic engineering is applied to humans. Admittedly, I had an irrational fear that soon after genetic engineering was applied to humans, humanity would be on the fast track to living in a world where individuals’ genetic code determines how the world perceives them and what opportunities or life paths they believe they can pursue. Accordingly, rather than being excited by a scientific breakthrough in genetic engineering that could powerfully better the lives of many, my initial reaction would be one of skepticism or even fear, thinking that we were getting closer to living in a world where genes determine everything. However, after listening to the potential that genetic engineering has to drastically improve individuals’ quality of life and even save lives, I realized that I should not be letting a fear that certain applications of genetic engineering will result in problematic consequences create a skepticism toward all genetic engineering applied to humans. Indeed, when considering the story of Layla, a child dying of leukemia who was ultimately saved by immunotherapy and genetic engineering’s potential to treat muscular dystrophy, it becomes difficult to argue that scientists should not pursue advancements in genetic engineering solely because of the problematic applications of genetic engineering to which those advancements could give rise.

At the same time, however, I do not think it is too far fetched to consider that if technology and scientists’ understanding of the human genetic code continue to rapidly advance, we may end up in a world where, for example, parents are altering the genetic code of their unborn babies, ensuring that they have certain color eyes and that they have genes that increase their likelihood of being tall and athletically inclined. A society in which human beings have the power to selectively alter the characteristics of themselves or their children to meet standards of social desirability may very well be a society that is more intolerant of difference or socially “undesirable” characteristics. Accordingly, without being overly alarmist, I think it is important to consider the possible ramifications of certain applications of genetic engineering so that we can be ready to develop a set of procedures or ethical standards that allow society to reap the benefits of genetic engineering while minimizing the societal costs of potentially problematic applications of genetic engineering.