Abel Lockhart

City College of New York

Brenna Crowe

November 14, 2023

 

Gene Editing and its Moral Complications

An awfully pungent introduction entailed to be absurd. I don’t know how to start this research paper, but what I do know is that we can start with steering away from a dystopia by ensuring a responsible use of gene editing technology. We start off with a quick look at our past history of pseudoscience giving rise to racial hierarchies. Then I follow up with our modern day problems by suggesting modern day solutions. But then our solutions are tested by the philosophical exploration of suffering through the works of Friedrich Nietzsche’s. Buckle up, cause we are gonna be diving into the complex interplay between genetic technologies, morality, and the historic lessons from the disparity of eugenics. In other words, let’s explore gene-editing and its moral complications.

 The introduction of eugenics can be seen as early as the late 19th century. During the Victorian Era, the British Empire was the first to become a global industrial power through its imperialistic ideals. This had prompted a rise of pseudo-scientific theories that were used to justify racial hierarchies. In 1883, Francis Galton, the Author of the book “Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development” gave birth to the term Eugenics. Proposing claims that only “higher races” could be successful, his writings had been that of a reflection of prejudiceness based on race, class, and the power of heredity. Galtons use of Pseudoscience can be seen as a way to give justification to his claims. “Energy is an attribute of the higher races, being favored beyond all other qualities by natural selection. In any scheme of eugenics, energy is the most important quality to favor; it is, as we have seen, the basis of living action, and it is eminently transmissible by descent.”(Galton, section 17-18 ) By asserting a higher power in race it marginalizes others by protruding a sense of superiority. Writings like this during an imperialistic time is what made way for Eugenics to be adopted by western culture at the start of the 20th century. Germany had begun installing Euthanasia programs on people with hereditary defects in 1905, people wouldn’t have to be in pain to be euthanized but was rather a part of the Eugenics campaign to clear out undesired citizens of society. America on the other hand had its first state pass a sterilization law in 1907, this made sterilization mandatory for criminals, the mentally impaired, and rapists in the state of custody in Indiana. Soon after there were about 30 states that had also adopted sterilization laws by the 1930’s. The support for Eugenics became national, with families from all around the country participating in Eugenic research funded events such as “Fitter Family contest”, where young children will be tested for their “Eugenical worth” through physiology and physicality. The Ideals of eugenics had become a staple in America and had only begun to engross racial disparity.

But alas with the start of World War II, a brutalization of sterilizing Jews and persecuted minorities was demonstrated by Nazi Germany, Americans from diverse backgrounds came together as a whole to fight against the common enemy. The public alongside the scientific community had come to a disliking of eugenics. With the help of democracy and an unbiased constitution, states began to repeal their sterilization laws. 1974 marked Oregon as being the last state to repeal. This became a triumph for strengthening core values in human rights. By understanding Eugenics, you can understand how society could fall into a state of favoring a set of qualities instilled in humans. And with this we can make a comparison to how we value those same set of principles in the modern age.

Founded in 2017, Genomic Prediction had begun conducting PGT-P tests in 2020. PGT-P, preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic risk, gives parents the ability to do health screenings for their embryos. In 2023, VICE News came out with a video surrounding the controversies of genetic testing. It featured two families with a different outlook on the use of genetic testing. The Cassidy family, Jamie and Brennan, had been emotionally impacted by their decision to terminate an embryo due to testing for a rare disease that won’t let the child live very  long. Brennan follows this up with not wanting to instill a negative impact to his germline “I have type 1 diabetes and I would do anything to not pass that burden along” (Brennan). There is a lack of data when it comes to identifying an acceptable life for someone that is living with a disease. There is also a lack of data for euthanizations caused by rare diseases, indicating that there are more major concerns as to what causes most infant mortality. The World Health Organization contains a database of neonatal mortality [newborn mortality], reflecting the number of deaths that occur within the first 28 days.  “A child born in sub-Saharan Africa is 10 times more likely to die in the first month than a child born in a high-income country . . . From the end of the neonatal period and through the first 5 years of life, the main causes of death are pneumonia, diarrhea, birth defects and malaria. Malnutrition is the underlying contributing factor, making children even more vulnerable to severe diseases.” (World Health Organization, 2022) This is an instance where you would have to consider an underdeveloped environment with unhealthy living practices as the main contributor to the cause of newborn mortality.

On the other hand, you have the Simones, Simone and Malcolm, who are excited to conduct embryonic tests for the sake of producing a child with the most desired traits. With my further research conducted on this couple, I find out that they are pragmatists. Being pragmatic is a matter of being practical, Pragmatism isn’t inherently bad, it’s what allows for efficient ways to be consistent, which in return grants a lot of progress. But when taken to the extreme it can cross the moral boundaries we set ourselves. Such as when taking eugenics as an example of seeking progress by removing an entire group of people with undesirable traits. Luckily, Nathan Treff, the scientific director at Genomic Prediction, stated that they would never go testing for traits beyond disease.

Although, through a philosophical thought experiment, the logic surrounding suffering will begin to crumble when taken into questioning the morality of rejecting an embryo’s existence. Isn’t living in it of itself with or without an illness still suffering? When taken into the perspective from the Philosophy of “Beyond, Good and Evil” by Friedrich Nietzsche, Nietzsche views it as a fundamental aspect of existence all the while serving as a potential source for growth. 

“Of  suffering  ”for  the  truth’s  sake”! even  in  your  own  defense!  It  spoils  all  the  innocence  and fine  neutrality  of  your  conscience;  it  makes  you  headstrong against  objections  and  red  rags;  it  stupefies,  animalises,  and brutalizes”(Nitschke, page 25)

Nietzsche emphasizes that suffering is something that will always inherently be in life and that by embracing suffering you grow as a person. By associating an illness as a prospect of a desired life; it contains no assurance, no assurance that they will live a desired life because that can only be decided by the child later on in life, as well as taking into account how experience may play into one’s development. Taking Brendan, the father with diabetes, as an example, who has managed to live a fulfilled life with diabetes, are you suffering if you’ve managed to cope under the conditions provided?  I can understand not wanting your son to have an illness, but it seems as if you’re simply not bringing someone into existence as a means of not having to deal with the cost that comes with their elevated state of suffering. We are critiquing how much more elevated their suffering is compared to the average human. It’s almost as if you are barring the entry into our realm of existence because it is believed that they are too weak to handle it.

It makes it hard to truly define what suffering is considering that the mere presence of hardships during our existence indicates that all humans are suffering. One can also make the argument that there are others who have had a poorer quality of life without an illness than those who have. So who are we to revoke their existence based on a conceived notion, a notion where we can’t predict the future outcome as to whether or not they will have a fulfilling life. But then again, you can counter this by saying that the embryo would have never had to have endured our rejection of their life. An embryo is living, but it does not have consciousness. So if compared to the slaughtering of a Jellyfish, which is a living organism with no brain to form a sense of perception nor thought, then it’s safe to say that the embryo never experienced any horror in being euthanized. 

When you have barred an Embryo from experiencing life, where do they go afterwards? In philosophy there are the two metaphysics of death. Dualism, being that there is some form of continuation beyond the physical body. Versus materialism, the end of consciousness and existence. The answers to what occurs after mortality can go as far as the imagination can go. And to speak of imagination, Religion can be seen as an example of containing dualistic ideals where there is a preconceived notion of an afterlife. The idea that existence doesn’t end after death provides a sense of ease knowing there is more beyond mortality. The tricky situation revolved around this argument is that we don’t have any accounts of what happens after death. It’s a dilemma of constantly questioning our mortality while we as humans are doing the best to surpass the longevity of our lifespan. Without concrete information of our destiny beyond death, we can only fabricate meaning out of the meaningless through our imaginations as a tool for constructing hope.

Even though PGT-P has the power to predict future genome illnesses, it can lead to decisions of eliminating the host due to the upbringing of health problems. Genome editing, on the other hand, simply removes this issue of denying entry to existence. Compared to the traditional way of sacrificing faulty embryos, you can now remove the illness. Chase Duncan, a current CCNY scholar, advocates for the use of genome editing through the use of CRISPR. Duncans research paper “Should Humans Alter Genes . . . Yes” brings up many points as to how gene editing can be a great benefit to society, from outright removing abortions, to enhancing human traits?

“Additionally, gene editing could enable humans to push the boundaries of their genetic potential. Opening doors to enhancing traits related to intelligence, athleticism, or creativity, potentially allowing humanity to evolve and adapt in ways that were previously unthinkable. Potentially leading to breakthroughs in various fields and elevating human capabilities to new heights.” (Duncan, page 4)

Due to the social implications, Editing traits is where I would draw the line. Access to gene editing technology may not be available to everyone, this can lead to more social and economic disparity. You begin to enforce traits that the embryo did not ask for; A widespread use of gene enhancement can begin to homogenize the species, this takes away the diversity required to be susceptible to certain challenges from the environment. Rather than editing traits, it is important to recognize that it is the environment that leads to the attainment of intelligence. To assume that intelligence is shaped through genetic editing may be a dangerous misunderstanding as to what intelligence is. We ourselves cant truly define intelligence; As the value of intelligence in ideas are only truly defined in a time of need. Is it safe to say that intelligence is equated to adapting to your circumstances as time goes by? To fabricate new methods of survival, that is the basic premise that can be seen through evolution.

When thought of from the perspective of a dualist, Gene Editing has great potential, but without the right regulations set in place, this can very much go south. The worst that can happen is if a mandate enforced the use of Genome editing intended to only acquire desired traits. But I see no reason for such a thing to be lobbied by the rich as there wouldn’t be any financial incentive. As seen in Nazi Germany, Only such a mandate would exist if under a regime that promotes an intense form of nationalism that emphasizes the superiority of its race. Fortunately, under the dualistic approach, I have faith that the human race will use the mistakes of its past as a lesson to ensure the benefit of this technology won’t go into harm.