Research Essay – 2019
Germline Editing and CRISPR/Cas9
Germline editing, also known as CRISPR/Cas9 on human embryos, has gained high media coverage over the past few years 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 for germline editing for human enhancement, both issues should be addressed separately. While germline editing on human embryos for scientific research usually implies 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 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, such developments can come with a cost. Lifting a ban on the 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 is different. In this part, the options available to scientists to perform CRISPR experiments on human embryos will be discussed. In the second part, arguments will be developed for lifting the ban on germline editing on human embryos for two different purposes.
Alternative Options to Lifting the Ban on Creating Embryos for Scientific Research
Firstly, the inefficiency of creating human embryos solely for science will be detailed and supported by the bioethical triangle . Secondly, alternatives to the creation of embryos for scientific research will be offered.
Ethical Theories Against the Creation of Human Embryos for Scientific Research
The bioethical triangle includes three perspectives: utilitarianism, liberalism, and communitarianism. Often, some of these 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 of society. Indeed, human embryos are generally created to grow into human beings. Changing the core purpose of an embryo for scientific research goes against the principles of communitarianism and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.
Secondly, one could argue that the utilitarian view would also not support lifting the ban on the creation of human embryos for scientific purposes. To understand this perspective, it is necessary to examine how a utilitarian would make such a choice. Utilitarians would evaluate whether the action would produce the maximum utility. In order to be validated by utilitarian principles, the action must be more beneficial in a cost-benefit analysis. In the case of creating a human embryo for scientific research, the cost (including time, money, and manpower) to increase the chances of scientific advancement could be very low. As 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 that it is part of individual autonomy to allow the creation of embryos if it does not harm anyone else. However, the shared views of communitarianism and utilitarianism have a stronger grounding.
Using Existing Human Embryos for Scientific Research
As seen in the court case Parrillo v. Italy, it could happen that a human embryo, which was initially created to be implanted and therefore to develop into a human being, ceases to fulfil its initial aim. In this case, the embryo could neither 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 can be drawn with recycled elements. For example, destroying a used empty glass bottle for entertainment purposes makes more sense than producing a new bottle just to destroy it. If it is not allowed to destroy human embryos, the unused ones (due to a change in the parents’ decision or a parent’s death) could be used for scientific research. This would be considered the most cost-efficient way to utilize human embryos for utilitarians. Moreover, one could argue that communitarian theory would also support this cause.
Destroying implanted human embryos through the abortion procedure is allowed and is a right in the European Union. In this case, the embryo may conflict with someone’s right not to become a parent. Therefore, it is possible to destroy a human embryo when it affects someone else’s rights. However, embryos that are not implanted may not be destroyed in some countries. The European Court of Human Rights stated in the Parrillo ruling that each country can decide when the embryo will start to “exist” within its legal system. According to the Court, a human embryo is not a thing; it is a subject of law. This status does not guarantee rights to the human embryo but prevents it from being treated as a disposable object. The human embryo does not really have a proper legal status.
If destruction is not the best option, allowing frozen embryos to perish and be wasted would go against the bioethical triangle. For liberal 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 that have lost their original purpose seems to be the most ethical option, both in maximizing utility and respecting core human 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 will be discussed in the second part of this essay.
Lifting the 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 future generations . However, there is a fine line between medical purposes and human enhancement .
The Benefits of Germline Editing for Medical Purposes
The Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, in its Chapter IV, allows gene editing on fetuses only if such edits do not affect the germline—meaning they are not passed on to the next generation. CRISPR/Cas9 is a new technology which is not yet authorized, 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. In those situations, where the only solution is to stop the propagation by eliminating the germline, germline editing would be beneficial for purely medical purposes.
The bioethical triangle would likely all be in favor of germline editing for medical purposes. Having healthy future generations is important to both communitarianism and utilitarianism. Liberalism would argue that it is necessary for this option to be available to all, ensuring that everyone has the right to be born healthy. An example can be taken from the modification performed by Chinese geneticist He Jiankui, which resulted in disabling the doorway used by HIV on a pair of twins. It appears that lifting the ban on germline editing for medical purposes is the best course of action for future generations. Nonetheless, there remains 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 germline editing of the leg muscles go? Could it also be possible to scale the strength of the leg muscles if the solution is to reinforce them?
Human dignity is an inseparable value tied to the human condition. Each born individual possesses human dignity; however, gene editing could deprive future-born babies of that dignity by creating enhanced humans who may be rejected by society. Being born human automatically grants human dignity. These elements are indivisible. Germline editing could result in enhanced humans who do not fall into the category of the human species, and therefore the baby could be deprived of human dignity. What are the rights of a 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 the lifting of 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.