Genes, they got two legs and lots of bad holes.

Editing genes is fascinating with all that can be achieved by a successful edit and this both exhilarating and terrifying. The example I used was about designing CRISPR packages that could delete a natural gene from wild mosquitoes and in a few weeks could have many different diseases totally erased from the face of the earth. This is exhilarating because the possibilities of positive uses getting rid of diseases that have potential for large outbreak in places all of the world such as zika in Brazil, everything in Africa and potentially any animal and any form of disease in the world. This could cause a huge increase in human life which could and most likely would boost economies and allow potential to be turned into something real. The terrifying part of this would be the increase of population which is not always positive (overpopulation) but there is something much worse. The worst part of this would be the potential to turn it negatively and input diseases that could be spread like wild fire and do serious damage to the country or world population.

I feel gene editing should be allowed in moderation and very carefully. When it comes to deleting genes that would keep HIV, cancer, AIDS, and other forms of awfully deadly and spreadable diseases I think it is an amazing thing to introduce to the world. Imputing it though should be moderated in the sense that it should only be used to stop serious disease, not to make the perfect child or person with super human smarts or strength, it should be used to stop disease not overly enhance humans.

1 thought on “Genes, they got two legs and lots of bad holes.”

  1. When I comment on someone else’s blog I try to find the one area where they had some unique insight they brought to the table or at least an insight that had yet to occur to me. In this case, the key insight you brought to the table was that of economics. I found it very interesting you chose to relate gene editing and CRISPR technology to economics and what effect it might have on the global economy. In terms of you argument of overpopulation however, I’m afraid I disagree. For many years the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been asked the following question: “If you’re trying to improve the world by improve global health, are you not concerned that you are just contributing to overpopulation?” Their official response to this question is that research has shown that when the odds of survival increase, the average number of children born in that region decrease. This is why I disagree that CRISPR technology and gene editing will lead to overpopulation. If this technology helps to improve the survival rates of children in developing countries, the rate of childbirth in those countries will significantly decrease.

Comments are closed.