Is Gattaca a warning against society modified by CRISPR or a signal to prepare better?
by Madiha Akhtar
Gene-editing is the inevitable future.
There is no doubt about the fact that the gene-editing technology named CRISPR [Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats] will only continue to progress. So no matter how right or wrong either of us find the idea, getting to the depths of this debate is essential - because it has become a reality.
Gattaca can be classified as one of the initial exposures of gene-editing consequences to the general public. But actual, ethical debate in the science sphere around the consequences of gene-editing were only recently sparked in 2018 by the controversial announcement in the ‘Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing’ of He Jiankui, a Chinese researcher, having used the technology on two human embryos to cut out the gene responsible for HIV inheritance (Robertson). Furthermore, a study by UCLA researchers also concluded that the specific gene could also have potentially increased cognition and memory which comes under the category of ‘human enhancement’ and not ‘disease prevention’. (Robertson) The major questions raised in this discourse range from potential issues in ‘equity’, ‘safety’, ‘consent’ to whether denying progress is ‘unfair’ to people suffering from genetic conditions.
But first, let’s look into how the ground-breaking technology works, below ↓
CRISPR-Cas9 is the technology that gives scientists the ability to change an organism's DNA. It was adapted from the genome-editing system of bacteria; to fight against viruses, bacteria capture a snippet of the invader’s DNA and add it to their own to remember the virus. Next time when the virus attacks, that snippet forms RNA and bacteria uses it to target the virus’s DNA and then it’s Cas-9 enzyme cuts the virus’s DNA into fragments consequently ‘deactivating’ it. (MedlinePlus) CRISPR can now be used on human cells to alter and remove parts from their genome. It is revolutionary because now this process has been made cheaper and more efficient.
Scientifically, CRISPR has more pros than cons. The risks lie more in it’s ethical implications for society.
EQUITY
The problem of inequality implied by genetic-modification is perfectly summed up in the dystopian depiction of Gattaca. The protagonist, Vincent, was a ‘naturally’ concieved child in a world of children commonly born through eugenics by genetically-modified embryos. Coupled with high probabilities of disorders, Vincent was termed as an ‘invalid’. The contrast between valid and invalid signifies the inequality CRISPR would create. Such technologies would most likely be available to the elite, at first. Their opportunities are already vastly greater than the opposite end of the spectrum. Once they are exposed to GM technology, their designer babies would only have more opportunities hence expanding the barrier between rich and poor.
On the other hand, the debate of equity raises the idea of CRISPR with regards to children suffering from genetic diseases. Instead of seeing their child suffer through a difficult life, parents would get the opportunity to modify their child’s genes to treat their condition. So not accepting the progress of this revolutionary technology would be unfair to those who are in pain due to inherited defects. Or could benefit if CRISPR modifies or even eliminates life-threatening illnesses like cancer.
SAFETY
One major issue in it’s current progress is that genetic-modification (GM) is not entirely safe. Maybe it will never be 100% safe like all other medical treatments. Such an option runs the risk of ‘off-target effects’ (NIH) that could cause harmful genetic mutations. Unwanted genetic variations would be improbable if the child hadn’t been genetically altered; so this aspect would be cruel to children who face the brunt of an error in GM. Alterations in genes performed in labs are still prone to error, already conducting such changes in humans should be out of question until it is perfected. As Caplan, founding director of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU School of Medicine, puts it:
“A deep understanding of the mechanisms and potential side-effects of embryo editing is an absolute pre-requisite to any further discussion of its implementation. At present, human embryonic editing, particularly in regard to how DNA is repaired, following an induced break, is poorly understood.”
In Gattaca, one of the fallacies was the absence of such errors. These potential situations are also to be considered if society needs to take an objective approach and make a decision about GM.
CONSENT & FREEDOM
If we are to suppose, like in Gattaca, parents choose everything about their future child. Then they also get to choose the purpose their child will fulfill. Like in the case of Jerome Morrow, an individual who has only known athletic perfection would be expected to conform to fields where their enhancements prosper. What if a child does not want to follow those expectations? Is it even appropriate to regard expectations to them because their parents chose what they excel in? Similarly, Vincent did not exactly prefer being an ‘invalid’. In a society where GM is common, a child born without would face excessive marginalization, but that debate does not apply to current circumstances of society.
CONCLUSION
The most suitable balance between all the conflicts would likely be choosing somatic gene-editing effects over germline editing effects. Somatic gene therapies only affect the patient being treated but germline gene therapies alter human embryo genome hence affecting every cell of that person and those affects being passed on to their descendants. (Bergman) The majority of risks lie in the germline version. Rejecting somatic gene therapies would be unfair to the millions of people it could save. It reduces ethical dangers including consent [as a patient is involved and not an embryo] and societal discrimination [if it becomes an accepted treatment for diseases].
Research & progress into this advancement is unpreventable. We must, accordingly, come together as a global society and decide regulations in order to make better, informed decisions and prevent the repurcussions of such a revolutionary change as depicted by Gattaca. Taking it as a sign to prepare for a better future, rather than warning of an unjust one.
Bergman, Mary Todd. “Harvard researchers share views on future, ethics of gene editing.” Harvard Gazette, 9 January 2019, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/perspectives-on-gene-editing/. Accessed 26 November 2021.
MedlinePlus. “What are genome editing and CRISPR-Cas9?” MedlinePlus, 18 September 2020, https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/genomicresearch/genomeediting/. Accessed 26 November 2021.
NIH. “What are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing?” National Human Genome Research Institute, 3 August 2017, https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns. Accessed 26 November 2021.
Comments
Post a Comment