Genetic engineering sounds like a science fiction term, but it is very much part of the world we live in. From agriculture to medicine genetic engineering helps us to live in the world we do today. In Table Talk, we talked about different ways we can use genetic engineering and the different techniques a scientist could use to go about actually getting to a specific goal. During the talk and afterward,  I could not help but think about the ethics that gene editing has, especially in the realm of medicine. As it stands the U.S public does not look too highly on the altering of plants and would not be too keen on moving technology to humans. Not only that but the possible ramifications and consequences that it could have are incredibly vast. So how much control should we really have?

Many people are afraid of genetic engineering, but perhaps for the wrong reasons. Most are concerned with the everyday practice of consuming copious amounts of GMO food in our society. Yet, many fail to consider that without this form of genetic engineering, many people would go hungry. GMOs are not bad, they are, in fact, rather essential. But, GMOs are not the only form of genetic engineering in our society, and those other forms are far more concerning.

What people fail to recognize is that genetic engineering is much more dangerous than simply modifying our food. We are entering a scary age of genetic editing for offspring, who are termed as “CRISPR babies.” While perhaps using CRISPR to remove a deleterious allele may be beneficial, it is difficult to draw the line separating morality and amorality. Moving in this direction enters a gray area that could lead to a severe class divide and increased discrimination for these “CRISPR babies.” Again, I do believe that this strategy could become beneficial, however, it is much too early for this technique to be implanted in humans. It is also difficult to monitor the results of this technique, as it is not legal in most developed countries and is borderline unethical.

There are even databases online for sperm banks and egg donors that allow the browser to search for very specific traits, all in hopes for the browser to be able to “engineer” their baby; while this is different from using CRISPR to genetically modify children, it sets a dangerous precedent. Being able to “select” traits that our children will have moves dangerously close to “playing God.” We need to be very alert and informed as this technology moves forward, so as to protect our society from becoming even more polarized.

The genetic engineering discussion this afternoon was apprehensively interesting to say the least. As an aspiring chemistry major, genetic engineering has always peaked my interest, but I never thought it be feasible due to the potential health risks and moral consequences. Yet after having the opportunity to discuss genetic engineering and the plethora of health benefits involved in the  usage of the CRISPR, within  disease control, auto-immune disorders and various cancers, I was, at first, amazed. But as the lecture continued, I realized that there were impeccable downsides to using  CRISPR , especially in terms of regulating its usage. Using CRISPR  to decrease susceptibility to disease or genetically modify produce for sustainability purposes is one thing, but when it is used for cosmetology purposes and the altering of intellectual capability, it becomes an issue. I feel like patenting CRISPR creates many opportunities for scientific advancement  but can also open a pandora box for a multitude of complications and moral crises. Though it was discussed that the usage of CRISPR  was relatively inexpensive, I strongly believe that once it is made available to the public, its price will drastically increase,  as anything does in our capitalist economy. This raises another issue.  Who will have access to  CRISPR ? What kinds of usage of CRISPR  will be approved by health insurance companies? Who will be allowed to approve it? How far will the extent of CRISPR usage go? What was extremely concerning was  how  members of the public were allowed to use  CRISPR  via permission of certain bio-tech companies. The guy in the video was genetically modify his myostatin, not because of any pending health concerns,  but purely for cosmetology purposes . All in all, genetic engineering has its many benefits but will ,most definitely, require regulation .

Technology is so far advanced that a scientist by the name of He Jiankui has already made the first ever genetically engineered babies. This was amazing to me. Society is pretty familiar already with the use of genetic engineering for manipulating crops to create GMO, and that is a controversial topic in itself, you can only imagine how controversial genetically engineered babies are. The study itself is under intense scrutiny, specifically the ethics and secrecy surrounding the clinical trials.

I couldn’t help but think about how the general public would react knowing that we could genetically engineer babies. People have a hard time accepting plants and food that have been manipulated scientifically, they’d blow a gasket with these babies.

I share the sentiment that if not regulated properly, this technology could lead to racism and classism and even the eradication of cultures. I’m reminded of a tweet from known model and deaf activist Nyle DiMarco where he shared a report that talked about scientists using CRISPR to “cure” a deaf baby. He was livid with this news and indicated that “curing” deafness is really the eradication of an entire culture and that we need to stop looking at deafness as a disability. I agree with this notion and if scientists start curing diseases like autism too, what message are we sending to society about people with these diseases? That there’s something wrong with them and that they must be fixed? It’ll only further societal stigmas already in place.

In the rose scholars genetic engineering lecture I learned about GMOS and their impact. This talk was very relevant to me as a Plant Science major, and GMO discussion comes up in a lot of my classes. GMOs are foods that contain the DNA of a foreign organism, that is put in to improve the food in some way. Most GMOs are created to improve the flavor, color, yield, and for pesticide resistance. We talked about the debate over whether GMOs are good or bad, and I think that GMOS overall are a positive thing, and are necessary to feed the growing world population. Many people are worried about the safety of genetically modified crops, but there have been no proven health concerns. I think that the general public seems to be scared of GMOs because they do not know enough about them, but that with increased education and exposure, they will be more supportive. I truly believe that the population cannot be sustained without the use of GMO crops. A lot of talk right now is about Roundup resistant crops, as people are scared of weeds becoming resistant to the herbicide itself. This is definitely a valid concern as it has happened in some places, but there are measures we can take to prevent resistance from developing without forgoing the benefits of GMO crops, such as using a variety of herbicides besides Roundup, or manually tilling resistant weeds.

Genetic engineering is a hot topic in the scientific community, especially recently. As a student in biology, I had a pretty solid background in a lot of the techniques discussed at the Table Talk. I am generally a supporter of genetic engineering when it comes to GMO (genetically modified organisms) is agriculture to produce larger crops and pest-resistant crops. These crops can help increase crop yield and can have implications for helping farmers in developing countries.  However, some of the other topics we discussed are more controversial. The genetically engineered baby from China raises some huge ethical questions. I don’t think it is ethical to design a perfect baby and it could help perpetuate classism if it became a common practice. This theme has been demonstrated in Sci-Fi movies like Gattaca, where the wealthy controlled the genetic engineering and the poor could never compete with their perfect genes. However, the potential to prevent horrible genetic diseases before the baby is even born is ethical and an amazing advancement in medicine. It can be difficult to decide where the line should be drawn when discussing technology like this. With the advancements in science that are happening every day, it is essential that we start thinking about these questions because the day that we will need the answers is fast approaching. I really enjoyed this Table Talk and found it to be a very thought-provoking conversation about a topic I already had an interest in.

The idea of having the ability to choose every aspect of your child’s appearance and aptitude, down to his/her eye color, is a thought believed to be reserved solely for dystopian films such as GATTACA. However, after attending this particularly frightening table talk, the idea doesn’t seem so far fetched to me any more.

With technology such as CRISPR in existence today, the ability to genetically edit babies is rapidly evolving as scientists test the bounds of eugenic exploration. The moral defense for pursuing such controversial work typically revolves around its ability to prevent disease or genetic disorders in babies before they are even born, sometimes with a very simple switch. But as incredible as such a development could be to our world of modern medicine, delving into personal genetics could get very messy, very quickly with insurance rates, discrimination, and the individual advantages/disadvantages GATTACA so prophetically pointed out for us. 

Despite the hot debate still surrounding this issue, I was more than shocked to find out that gene edited babies already do exist, designed covertly by a Chinese scientist in 2018. More are expected to be on the way as biologists in countries such as Russia take advantage of their nations’ freer laws in terms of research-based restrictions, such as those found in the U.S.. With no central authority able to control the world as a whole, regulating this new form of technology will prove extremely difficult, even if all international powers can come to a final decision on whether or not gene editing is appropriate in babies. With the restrictions set in the U.S., America is already at a disadvantage should CRISPR babies become the future of our world. With the historical inevitability of technological progress, I believe that said future is a very strong possibility, and probably not as far off as any of us would have originally expected. Whether the U.S. agrees with the experiments or ethics of prenatal gene editing or not, I’m afraid it eventually won’t have a choice in pursuing the research if it hopes to stay on par with other countries around the world.