Research Essay – 2019
Germline editing, also known as CRISPR/Cas9 on human embryos, gained over the past few years high media coverage due to the possible impact of this discovery on future generations. For the purpose of this essay, germline editing will be divided into two categories according to the aim pursued. Although research on human embryos will impact the options of germline editing for human enhancement, both issues should be addressed separately. While germline editing on human embryos for scientific research implies usually the use of human embryos solely in laboratories, germline editing for human enhancement suggests the possibility of the birth of an enhanced human being. In the first case, the human embryo could be considered as a product as it will never grow to reach human form. In the second case, the human embryo is designed to be implanted in a woman’s womb and to become a complete human being.
Although scientific research is often beneficial for the development of our societies, those developments can come with a cost. Lifting a ban on creation of human embryos for scientific research might not impact our current society, however, allowing germline editing for human enhancement will definitely have an impact on the next generation. The scale of the issues at stake are different. In this part, the options offered to scientists to perform CRISPR experiments on human embryos will be discussed. (I) In the second part, arguments will be developed for the lift of germline editing on human embryos for two different purposes. (II)
- Alternatives options to the lift of the ban of creating embryo for scientific research
Firstly, the inefficiency of creating human embryos solely for science will be detailed and supported by the bioethical triangles. (A) Secondly, alternatives to the creation of embryos for scientific research will be offered. (B)
- Ethical theories against the creation of human embryo for scientific research
The bioethical triangle includes three perspectives: utilitarianism, liberalism and communitarianism. Often, some of those perspectives will result in the same choice but based on different arguments.
First of all, the communitarian theory would be against lifting the ban on creating human embryos for scientific research as it conflicts with their view on the value of the human being and the society. Indeed, human embryos are generally created and grow into human beings. Changing the core purpose of an embryo for scientific research is against the principles of communitarianism and the Convention on Human Rights and biomedicine.
Secondly, we could argue the utilitarianism view would also not advocate lifting the ban on creation of human embryos for scientific purposes. In order to understand the perspective of utilitarianism it is necessary to examine how the utilitarian would make their choice. Utilitarians would evaluate if the action would produce the maximum utility. In order to be validated by utilitarianism principles, the issue should in a cost benefit setting have to be more beneficial. In the case of creating a human embryo for scientific research, the cost (including time, money and man’s power) of creating the embryo to increase the chances of scientific advancement could be very low. It will be highlighted later, the utilitarian would agree to the use of existing embryos as the cost would be close to none.
Lastly, the liberal view would argue it is part of the choice of each other to allow the creation of embryos if it does not hurt anyone else. However, the shared view of communitarianism and utilitarianism have stronger ground.
- Using existing human embryos for scientific research
As seen in the Court case Parrillo vs. Italy, It could happen that a human embryo, which initially was created to be implanted and therefore to result into a human being, ceases to fulfil its initial aim. In this case, the embryo could not be destroyed nor used for scientific research.
One adequate solution would be to authorize the use of human embryos which would never be implanted. A parallel could be made with recycled elements. For example, destroying a used empty glass bottle for entertainment purposes would make more sense than producing a new bottle just to destroy them. If it is not allowed to destroy human embryos, the unused ones (parents’ mind changes or a parent’s death) could be used for scientific research. This would be considered as the most cost efficient way to utilise human embryos for utilitarians. Moreover, we could argue the communitarian theory would also ally to this cause.
Destroying implanted human embryos through the abortion procedure is allowed and it is a right in the European Union. In this case, the embryo could conflict with someone’s right to not become a parent. Therefore, it is possible to destroy a human embryo when it affects someone else’s rights. However, the embryo not implanted could not be destroyed in some countries. The European court of human rights stated in the ruling Parrillo that each country can decide when the embryo will start to “exist” in their legal system. According to the court, a human embryo is not a thing, it’s a subject of law. This status does not guarantee rights to the human embryo but prevent it to be treated as a disposable object. The human embryo does not really have a proper legal status.
If destroying is not the best option, having frozen embryos perishing and wasted away would go against the bioethical triangle. For liberalism theorists, the right to self-determination should allow both genetically involved individuals to decide what to do with the concerned embryo. Advancement in science by using human embryos which lost their first purpose seems to be the best possible and ethical option both in maximising utility and respecting the human core values.
As mentioned earlier, creating human embryos for scientific research is not the solution, however offering the possibility to use existing embryos could solve more than one issue. On the other hand, lifting the ban on germline editing implies multiple aspects that would be discussed in the second part of this essay.
- Lifting ban on germline editing limited to medical purposes
If the Dutch prohibition on germline editing is lifted only for medical purposes, this would probably benefit the future generation. (A) However, there is a fine line between medical purposes and human enhancement. (B)
- The benefits of germline editing for medical purposes
The convention on Human right and Biomedicine in its chapter IV does allow gene editing on foetuses, only if those are not affecting the germline, meaning it would not be passed into the next generation. CRISPR/Cas9 is a new technology which is not yet authorised as it could lead to heritable genome editing. This could be an issue unless the CRISPR operation leads to the elimination of the “disease gene”. When the only solution is to stop the propagation by eliminating the germline. In those situations, for pure medical purposes, germline editing would be beneficial. The bioethical triangle will probably all be in favour of the germline editing for medical purposes. As having healthy future generations are both important to communitarianism and utilitarianism, liberalism would argue it is necessary that this option is available for all and allows everyone to be born healthy. An example can be taken from the modification performed by the chinese geneticist He Jiankui which resulted in destroying the doorway used by IVH on a pair of twins. It appears that lifting the ban on germline editing for medical purposes is the best thing to do for the next generation. Nonetheless, there will be a fine line between medical purposes and human enhancement.
- The dangers of germline editing for human enhancement
If a human embryo is meant to have a disease affecting its legs, how far could the germline editing of the leg muscle go. Could it also be possible to scale the strength of the leg muscle if the solution is to reinforce the leg muscles?
Human dignity is an inseparable value to the human condition. Each born individual has human dignity, however gene editing could deprive the future born babies from human dignity by creating an enhanced human rejected by society. Being born human automatically leads to human dignity. Those elements are indivisible. Germline editing could enhance humans which would not fall into the category of the human species and therefore the baby could be deprived of human dignity. What are the rights of the baby born without human dignity?
Creating genetically modified babies could lead to the exacerbation of inequality and discrimination, which has not been fully studied. Allowing germline editing for medical purposes would also increase the possibility of germline editing for human enhancement. However, the risk of human enhancement should not prevent lifting the ban on germline editing for medical purposes.
Resource
- H. Jiankui, ‘About Lulu and Nana: Twin girls born healthy after gene surgery as single-cell embryos’, Youtube Channel “The He Lab” (26 November 2018) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th0vnOmFltc&t=4s> accessed on 22 September 2019.
- Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine – 1997, Art. 18.
- Parrillo v. Italy, n° 46470/11, ECtHR 2015.
- Evan v. UK, n° 18770/18, ECtHR 2018
- K. Hasson, and M. Darnovsky, ‘Gene-edited babies: no one has the moral warrant to go it alone’, The guardian, (27 november 2018) <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/27/gene-edited-babies-no-one-has-moral-warrant-go-it-alone> accessed 22 September 2019.
- R. Andorno, ‘Human dignity and Human Rights as a Common Ground for a Global Bioethics’[2009], Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, P. 223-240.