The CRISPR technology has come under question over the past thirty years or so. There are many different stances for and against using CRISPR technologies on human genes because human lives are at risk whether those CRISPR technologies are used or not. Using CRISPR technologies can be very exciting for the future generations because the technology can cut out pieces of the human DNA and genes for benefit of the future generations of humans. CRISPR technology can cut genetic diseases from future generations’ genes and prevent those generations of modified humans from ever having to seek medical help for the diseases that were cut out. (Harris, 1, 2). Cutting out diseases would help the general human population to be healthier because certain diseases could not be contracted but cutting out and modifying human genes could have a very large amount of consequences that are not yet known. Cutting out disease genes would help eliminate that certain disease, but the modified gene may somehow malfunction in the future due to lack of information known to scientists researching CRISPR technologies at the time of gene cutting. The malfunctions could also be fatal in the case that the effects are not human like and unidentifiable. (Darnovsky, 2-4). (Specter, 2, 3, 5, 6).
Gene editing is a very risky technology and could possibly benefit future human generations and prevent humans from contracting deadly diseases, but I think that the consequences of gene editing outweigh the pros. There are many consequences that are completely unknown in terms of gene editing and I do not wish to find those consequences out through trial and error experimentation on humans. The opening of “Pandora’s Box” with gene editing, I’m assuming, would cause many scientists, without realizing, to use CRISPR and gene editing to make humans who become less human with each generation. (Darnovsky, 2-4).