CRISPR – Are We Facing the Improvement of Human DNA?

The genetic enhancement of humans through CRISPR became a reality a few years ago. Should we continue to develop this technology?

In November 2018, news from China shocked the world. A scientist named He Jiankui announced the birth of twin girls, Lulu and Nana (their real names remain unknown). What caused such a strong reaction was the fact that their genomes had been artificially modified by scientists. A year later, another genetically ‘edited’ girl, Amy, was born.¹ Criticism of the research’s ethical breaches led to the scientist receiving a three-year prison sentence from the Chinese authorities.² The girls are reportedly in good health and developing normally.³

What is CRISPR?

What exactly happened? For the first time in history, the human genome was artificially altered. Scientists attempted to modify the DNA of embryos to provide them with partial or complete immunity to HIV. To do this, they used a new technique called CRISPR R,⁴ also known as CRISPR/Cas or CRISPR-Cas9. This is why such children are sometimes referred to as CRISPR babies. What does this method entail?

In 2012, a team of scientists led by Jennifer Doudna discovered a mechanism in bacteria that records previous infections and removes foreign DNA using the Cas9 protein. The key breakthrough was not the mechanism itself, but its use in other organisms to alter their genes. This made gene editing possible at a relatively low cost. The patent dispute over the technology is still ongoing,⁵ although Doudna and her colleague Emmanuelle Charpentier were awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery in 2020.⁶

Genetic human enhancement and bioethics

The debate extends into another significant area: bioethics. The case of the Chinese CRISPR children illustrates this clearly. The response from the scientific community was one of broad condemnation,⁷ with Doudna expressing that she was ‘horrified’.⁸ He Jiankui was sentenced to prison. This reaction is hardly surprising, as interference with human DNA raises serious ethical concerns. Nonetheless, some groups strongly support the idea of genome editing in humans, not only for medical reasons but also for enhancement. Leading this view is the transhumanist movement, which, drawing on evolutionary theory, argues that humans should direct their own evolution.

Tomasz Kraj from the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Kraków notes that genetic enhancement in humans could take five forms: (1) improving future generations, starting with children (improving their lives), (2) improving physical capability (achieving higher performance levels), (3) increasing lifespans (preventing aging), (4) elevating emotional states (increasing happiness), and (5) moral enhancement. The aim is to strengthen human abilities, capacities, and potential.⁹ Transhumanists therefore support the continued development and wider use of this technology.

CRISPR – a grim vision of the future

Is this really the right direction? Bioethicists warn of numerous risks linked to the manipulation of human DNA. A direct danger lies in possible mistakes during genetic alteration, which could cause serious harm or even premature death.¹⁰ Scientists and ‘genetic editors’ carry a heavy ethical responsibility for each individual life.

Other dangers concern the ways in which this technology might reshape society. One can imagine geneticists modifying an embryo’s genome to eliminate genes linked to conditions such as Down syndrome. But what about cases where parents wish to select traits like blue eyes over brown, or more unusual characteristics? How would a child feel, knowing their features were chosen rather than left to chance?¹¹ What if certain societies begin to engineer new, genetically defined social classes?¹² There is also the theoretical risk of creating a group of people designed for obedient labour. That would be a true social nightmare.

This dilemma is also connected to potential attempts to enhance athletic performance. If parents wish to raise an athlete, a geneticist could modify the child’s DNA accordingly. Adults might also undergo treatments to alter their genes for improved performance in sport or in warfare, raising the issue of genetically engineered soldiers.¹³ However, how would such interventions affect the principle of fair play in sport? Should recognition for achievements be given to the athlete or to the geneticist? What place would personal effort hold in this context?¹⁴

Instrumentalizing humanity and humans

When discussing genetic human enhancement, it is important to ask whether we are improving only certain traits or the human being as a whole. T. Kraj points out that strengthening one area of human ability does not mean a person becomes morally better. Even now, some individuals are exposed as frauds or are skilled at creating scandals. A person might be considered ‘better’ in some respects, but that does not make them a better person. If we already live in a self-centred society, how much more selfish could it become if amplifying such traits through genetic means became possible and legal?¹⁵

We are faced with dilemmas concerning individual freedom and the changing definition of what it means to be human. The uncontrolled spread of genetic manipulation technologies risks reducing people to biologically modifiable objects, leading to their instrumentalisation.¹⁶ At the same time, continuous unregulated enhancement could reshape the idea of social Darwinism. These paths are not mutually exclusive, as it is not difficult to imagine a society in which superhumans and subhumans exist side by side. This was precisely the aim of the Nazi regime, with tragic consequences, and similar visions appear frequently in science fiction.¹⁷

Today, we are only at the threshold of the widespread use of human genetic enhancement through CRISPR. The transhumanist movement is eager to see these changes take place before our still unenhanced eyes.¹⁸ However, we must reflect on the limits of applying this technology. Should such genetic modification be available only to certain individuals, or should it be accessible to all? Should it serve exclusively therapeutic purposes, or also be used for non-therapeutic enhancement? Where should the line be drawn?

CRISPR – two directions for bioethics

This is the challenge that contemporary bioethics must address. Bioethical conclusions can be based on one of two premises: either that humans are unique beings, deliberately created by God in His image, or that they are the product of a random biological process with no purpose, shaped through evolution. Evolutionary theory assigns a fundamentally different value to human life than the doctrine of creation, which views humanity as intentionally made in the image of God. According to evolution, humans are simply animals, though more intelligent than others. The logical outcome of this view is that we can treat one another as nothing more than intelligent animals.¹⁹ In this is the case, there is no reason to refrain from carrying out even the most degrading experiments on another human being.

However, if it is true that we are created by God, as many aspects of our humanity suggest, then our perspective changes entirely.²⁰²¹ As humans, we are capable of abstract thinking, experiencing complex emotions, and creating and building anything, limited only by the laws of physics. We are able to express both joy and love. We do not simply observe; we also devise complex plans. Nor do we confine ourselves to our immediate surroundings, as we are drawn to what lies far beyond the horizon.

From the perspective of deliberate divine creation, bioethicists can establish meaningful boundaries for genetic intervention in human beings.

By the way, we recommend reading the articles:

• The Texas Mystery Spider
• True Femininity
• The Gaia Hypothesis: A Challenge to the Secularity of Evolutionism
• Earth – the Only Planet with Fire
• Lost Paradise – Did It Actually Exist?

Footnotes

1. Xie, E., 2023. ‘Respect them,’ says He Jiankui, creator of world’s first gene-edited humans. South China Morning Post. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3209289/we-should-respect-them-chinese-creator-worlds-first-gene-edited-humans-says.
2. BBC News, 2019. China jails ‘gene-edited babies’ scientist for three years. BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50944461.
3. Newcomb, T., 2023. The First Gene-Edited Babies Are Supposedly Alive and Well, Says Guy Who Edited Them. Popular Mechanics. Available at: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a42790400/crispr-babies-where-are-they-now-first-gene-edited-children/.
4. Acronym for: clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats.
5. Ben-Jacob, S., 2023. The Ongoing Patent Battle Over CRISPR/Cas-9. CJCR Blog, 47. Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=cjcr-blog.
6. The Nobel Prize, n.d. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020. The Nobel Prize. Available at: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2020/popular-information/.
7. Agarwal, R., 2018. China’s Genetically Edited Babies: What really happened? Science In The News, Harvard University. Available at: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/chinas-genetically-edited-babies-really-happened/.
8. Yong, E., 2018. The CRISPR Baby Scandal Gets Worse by the Day. The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/12/15-worrying-things-about-crispr-babies-scandal/577234/.
9. Kraj, T., 2016. Granice genetycznego ulepszania człowieka. In: Słowiński, R. (ed.), Inżynieria genetyczna człowieka – możliwości i ograniczenia. Polska Akademia Nauk, Poznań, pp.75–92. Available at: https://publikacje.pan.pl/chapter/117520/granice-genetycznego-ulepszania-czlowieka.
10. Kraj, T., 2016. Granice genetycznego ulepszania człowieka, op. cit.
11. Sterckx, S., et al., 2013. “I prefer a child with …”: designer babies, another controversial patent in the arena of direct-to-consumer genomics. Genetics in Medicine, 15, pp.923–924. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/gim2013164.
12. Kraj, T., 2016. Granice genetycznego ulepszania człowieka, op. cit.
13. Rabiah, Y.P., 2021. From bioweapons to super soldiers: how the UK is joining the genomic technology arms race. The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/from-bioweapons-to-super-soldiers-how-the-uk-is-joining-the-genomic-technology-arms-race-159889.
14. Kraj, T., 2016. Granice genetycznego ulepszania człowieka, op. cit.
15. Kraj, T., 2016. Granice genetycznego ulepszania człowieka, op. cit.
16. Kraj, T., 2016. Granice genetycznego ulepszania człowieka, op. cit.
17. See e.g., the movie Gattaca (1997).
18. Cotsaftis, O., 2018. CRISPR/Cas9: Transhumanism and Designing the Living. Matters Journal. Available at: https://mattersjournal.com/stories/transhumanism.
19. Newitz, A., 2014. Yes, Humans Are Animals — So Just Get Over Yourselves. Gizmodo. Available at: https://gizmodo.com/yes-humans-are-animals-so-just-get-over-yourselves-1588990060.
20. DeWitt, D., 2006. The dark side of evolution. Creation Ministries International. Available at: https://creation.com/the-dark-side-of-evolution.
21. Sullivan, D., 2016. Gene Editing and Designer Babies—Why the Future Desperately Needs Us. Answers in Genesis. Available at: https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/gene-editing-and-designer-babies-why-future-desperately-needs-us/.

© Source of main image: Canva.

Evolution of Thinking - Sebastian S.

The portal EvolutionOfThinking.org, created by the Research and Education Institute, focuses on education and the dissemination of knowledge related to research on various aspects of human well-being.