Morality of CRISPR-Cas 9

Last week the committee of Nobel Prize in chemistry announced the 2020 winners of the most prestigious scientific award.

2020 Nobel in Chemistry awarded to Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna for the discovery of gene technology's sharpest tools: the CRISPR-Cas9 genetic scissors.

CRISPR-Cas9 is one of the most powerful tools in gene editing. And It is a new field of technology. The first literature about this technique published in 2012., This is almost unprecedented that a scientific Nobel prize was awarded to such a young field of study. And like any new technology, this one also has a lot of debate around it.

One of the most controversial science stories of 2018 was about a Chinese scientist who has been claiming that he successfully has altered the DNA of twins using CRISPR-Cas9, a relativity new, powerful and cheap gene-editing tool.

There are many questions and doubts about the scientific and technical aspects of this claim. Many scientists and observers of the scientific community debunked the claim. Many others have been raising their concerns over the long-term effects of using CRISPR-Cas9 technology on humans.

Let's forget all about the validity of this claim for a moment. Even if this scientist lied to us, you could be sure that somewhere, some research groups are working on this issue right now, and we will have a CRISPR-Cas9 modified and verified baby very soon.

So let's talk about the moral aspect of this news.

Before jumping to the discussion, there is one other important issue that we should consider. The CRISPR-Cas 9 technology has the power to manipulate the germline DNA. In other words, when you make a change in these genes, these altered genes can be inherited by the next generations. So, it is not just about making a prefer changes for your baby, but you have the potential tool to create changes that will pass to all coming generations after your child too.

For example, you can make your child immune to a specific disease and make their children immune to that. But why stop there? You can potentially miniplate your unborn child's DNA to help her/him have a higher IQ, higher bones and muscle density and even choose their eye colour, height, colour skin, etc.

Is it ethical to decide your children's fate and even the next generations after her/him?

We can approach this question at least in two different ways.

Shame on those who are meddling with the natural way of things

Who are we to decide the fate and future of our children and even their children? Who says that we can play God for them? What will happen to the people of this planet if everyone has the power to design their next generations? Everybody will create a more intelligent, healthier, beautiful – whatever that socially accepted beauty in their time – and healthier child and grandchild. Soon enough – even if nothing goes wrong – we will kill all the diversities. People will converge toward the same shape and abilities. What is the point of living in a world that everybody will genetically have modified to their limits? We will be killing every aspect of our humanity by producing a generation that will converge toward one model.

This is just the best-case scenario. What if such technology will be limited to a rich and powerful class? There will be a minority with all the power and wealth who can afford to gain body and mind superiority. We will enter the new age of slavery.

And what if we screw something in the process? What if we create some unintentional and dangerous bio trends? Some illnesses, perhaps? What if we will destroy some new system in our body and make us vulnerable in future? We will be doomed.

So How can we remotely justify such an intervention in the natural course of the events? How could it be considered as an ethical endeavor?

Shame on those who are not meddling with the natural way of things

The second approach is putting the visors from a different angle.

What will you do, If I told you there is a way to make sure that your kid will never have dementia? There is a way that she is never going to get AIDS? If there is a way that your child will never get any known cancers?

Let's start with the immediate results of such a modification: your children. If you are a parent, probably the future of your children is one of your priorities. You are overworking to save money for their better education hoping that they will be more successful in future. You pay lots of money for their medical insurance to be sure that they will be healthy. If you can, you will expose your children to different arts, sports, skills and resources to guarantee their success and well to be in the future.

What will you do if I told you there is a way to make sure that your kid will never have dementia? There is a way that she is never going to get AIDS? If there is a way that your child will never get any known cancers? And you can guarantee it with a cheap and reasonably safe technique, and you can do it even before your kid born? More than that, you can be sure that all of her/his children also will be immune to all of these problems?

If you know you can immune your child, then is it ethical to not do that? This time the question changes a little. We are not asking more than if doing such intervention is moral or not; we are proposing not doing it could be considered unethical.

In the next step, let's widen the range of our questions. You will do whatever you can to equip your children with useful skills and increase their mind power. What if you have an option to be sure that your children will have a higher IQ and could be smarter? If you don't act, doesn't mean that you choose to ignore that possible better future for your kid? One day your child will ask you: "You could make me smarter so I would be more successful and happier. Why didn't you do that?" What would be your answer?

In this view, if we can do such a thing, the question is, "how not doing it will be justified ethically?"

There are arguments about more prolonged effects too. Some can argue that the role of education, society, and culture has such a substantial impact that even two of the same people would be diverse and use their talents in different ways. And even more, importantly having, for example, a higher IQ will not guarantee your success if you don't work hard. And even if all people reach the limit of their natural IQ, then the role of hard-working and willingness to use of this capability becomes more critical.

So not only using such technology is ethical but also not using it could be considered unethical.

What is the ethic?

Ok, I am not asking this question, and defiantly I am not going even to try to answer it. For centuries philosophers have been working on this subject.

Instead of coming up with a definition of ethics, maybe it would be an excellent way to remember that ethics – regardless of your interpretation of it – is a construct.

We construct our ethical values and ethical system based on our experiences and our cultural, geographical, spiritual, traditional and many other timely values. These values are changing through time and based on our experiences. There are many examples of how negative ethical values changed into positive and vice versa.

When we accuse the other side of the debate of being unethical, we probably will lose the possibility of rational discussion.

The gene editing and especially technologies like CRISPR-Cas 9, which makes these editing both cheap and inheritable, will add to our experience. It is a technology with incredible and colossal power (and yes, with high power should come great responsibility). There is no doubt that you can think about dozens and hundreds of applications of such a technology that right now categorized under the positive or negative columns.

We should discuss the pros and cons of every and each application. But it is a good idea that we don't use the 'Ethic' gun during this discussion. This is very subjective and timely and also – like gene editing – is a potent tool. When we accuse the other side of the debate of being unethical, we probably will lose the possibility of rational debate. We will enter the realm of ideologies, and each side will try to prove that their set of values are more 'valuable.'

Maybe it would be possible to discuss a technology's pros and cons – case by case – without villainizing the other side and using the power of 'ethics.' The debate about a new technology could exist between 'technophobia' and 'technophilia.'