New methods for changing and editing the genome raise complicated moral questions
The rapid development of genetic engineering methods and DNA mapping have led to new and important insights regarding the eukaryotic and prokaryotic DNA sequence and the ability to manipulate the genome. The ability to relatively easily determine the sequence of the entire genome and not just parts of it, as was done in the past, made it possible to determine overall changes in the structure of the genome, and genetic changes that affect traits or characteristics of diseases. In bacteria, the technology makes it possible to map, among other things, antibiotic resistance. Despite the great knowledge obtained, the possibilities of using it to repair a defective gene were limited, and based mainly on trial and error, which in the past led to dramatic failures in human genetic engineering experiments. This limitation was removed after the development of a method for inserting foreign DNA into specific regions of the DNA, a method called CRISPR and based on the activity of a bacterial enzyme called Cas9.
This method, which is relatively simple and cheap, allows scientists to change the DNA or insert new DNA segments in precise locations in the genome. The method gained momentum very quickly, and many studies have already used it, including research on stem cells in which the changes introduced deliberately caused the development of cardiomyocytes (heart muscle cells) or nerve cells. Other studies have shown that changes in bacteria and reproductive cells can also be made just as easily.
But as with any technological progress, there is also a negative aspect. Indeed, in January 2015, a group of scientists gathered and discussed the scientific, medical, legal and ethical implications of the new technology in genome engineering. The purpose of the meeting was to identify the areas in which it is necessary to ensure that the use of the new technology is safe and ethical. The participants in the discussion held, including those who participated in the first discussion held in 1970 in Asilomer on the control of recombinant DNA research, focused mainly on the changes that can be made in reproductive cells with the help of the CRISPR method. The main concern that has been raised is that the free use of this technology will be a slippery slope where scientists will not be satisfied only with correcting genetic diseases, but there will be those who will also be willing to change features such as the sex of the fetus, eye color, hair, and the like.
The dilemma facing the scientists who gathered in Napa Valley in California, was whether there is no danger in this technology. There is no doubt that its ability will contribute a lot to the advancement of research, but when would it be right to use it? When is it right to replace the defective gene with a normal copy? Do we know and are familiar with all the processes involved in the onset of the genetic disease and its genetic therapy? In which processes will it be possible to intervene and in which not?
In 1999, the State of Israel enacted a law prohibiting genetic intervention (human cloning and genetic modification of reproductive cells): "The purpose of this law is to prevent cloning for reproductive purposes in humans so that no types of genetic intervention will be carried out in humans, and this in light of the moral, legal, social and scientific aspects of the prohibited types of intervention and their consequences for human dignity, and for a policy examination regarding the said types of intervention in light of these aspects, taking into account the freedom of scientific research for the advancement of medicine." It seems that the law also covers the modification of reproductive cells using the CRISPR method, even though the law basically deals with cloning technology. Therefore, it is necessary to start the discussion of the Crisper method and its future consequences in Israel as well.
on the notebook
Professor Bracha Reger, Emeritus Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at the Faculty of Health Sciences at Ben Gurion University, President of Ort Israel and Chairman of the Academic Council of Ort Israel. Served as the chief scientist of the Ministry of Health and was a member of the Council for Higher Education.
More on the subject
- Magic Lamp for Garden Repair, by Margaret Knox, Scientific American Israel, April-May 2015 issue, pages 16-20.
- Ethics should catch up with the pace of technological change, especially in biology
- A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification, Baltimore et al. Science, vol 348, pages 36-37.
7 תגובות
One of the most prominent mistakes people make when they come and claim to predict the future is the linearity mistake. pay attention! This approach (i.e.: what exists today will only get stronger; in 100 years we will be ……. a hundred times more than now) gave birth to the most ridiculous prophecies (examples: London will be covered by 3 meter high horses, all over the world 4-XNUMX computers are needed at most , the American woman is too busy in the kitchen, she won't have time to sit and watch the television set, and today: the coastal cities will sink in the water because of some kind of warming......) , no university soap from Muyonzi who doesn't even understand the current reality, certainly won't be able to foresee the future. And to conclude: linearity is good for the drawing table, for mathematics, for theoretical physics - the world of reality in general and the world of humanity in particular: as eighty.
No law will succeed in stopping the progress of science. Maybe they will be able to delay in certain countries. This technology has a lot of potential for positive use that no sane person would rule out, starting from correcting genetic defects that cause serious diseases by correcting the genome in the patient after she has fallen ill to correcting the genome in a carrier parent. Then it will be impossible to stop other uses.
It is very difficult to see how they will be able to stop the genetic competition as soon as it starts, it can make enormous changes in the human race, and there is also no moral attitude here at the moment, these are only what will probably be realized as soon as it becomes possible,
It could be even more extreme for a person to sue his parents and the state for not genetically modifying him in the first place and thus condemning him
to an inferior life in which he cannot integrate as part of any human group because his intelligence will be lower than the future social average in which he is supposed to integrate in the future
because his level of intelligence will be equivalent to today's average,
Whatever will be a serious lag in the future, imagine a human society whose minimum intelligence is Einstein or higher,
You can't be admitted to the university, you can't fit in the class, the pace and understanding of the people around you leave you far, far behind, you are condemned to severe loneliness, poverty, unchallenging jobs that lack adequate income, you are an outcast,
Of course, any changes that will be made will be inherited
So that if he finds a partner to give birth to his children, they will no longer suffer ostracism because they will undergo a genetic change,
The grotesqueness will begin not only with these external appearances but also with an artificial ability that may be at the expense of the physical ability to move outside under physiological pressures in different climate conditions and different movement needs, this will be a person who is able to act only in air-conditioned conditions and under minor physical pressures, it may no longer be possible to give birth in the natural way these only in caesarean section,
Man today is a kind of balance between those needs,
It can also lead to a change in the ethnic appearance of population groups that will prefer something from another group,
For example, with population groups that perceive themselves as weak in the social hierarchy, there is also a preference within their group to weaken the feature that establishes them in the same population group,
This means that within a few generations we can lose certain traits in the human race for the desire to realize a chance of success
Grown up to their children according to their parents' perception to the point where those unique qualities of theirs will disappear completely
And their appearance will be the same as that population group that is perceived in the high position of the social ladder,
And as already written here in another response, if he doesn't want to play the game, he will find himself behind very quickly,
If it is items in the population and if it is countries, the result is that they will lag far behind,
Every development, every invention will come from those countries that made these changes possible so that it will have an overwhelming economic impact
Those who will invent and produce and those who will only import and drag far behind.
The difference between changing the color of the eyes and adding another type of visual cells to the eye and eyes similar to an eagle's for the purpose of the eye is already a quantitative, technological issue as soon as you do genetic manipulation of an embryo, and you know what is going to change the eye and you should not put it in, it is already a moral matter, not an essential one. .
Enough with the moral bullshit, as long as changes are made in human characteristics (hair color, eyes, height...) there is no problem.
Of course, it is forbidden to carry out mutations such as adding wings or horns to humans (if they are, he is already an adult and decides for himself, like gender reassignment surgeries today).
You can't stop the progress. At first we may only change the gender of the baby, but very quickly also other traits such as intelligence. We are on the way to an accelerated evolutionary leap of the human race and if Europe and the USA do not want to play the game they will find themselves behind very quickly.