One Big Bummer

This week’s readings entertain many of the highly controversial debates surrounding the topic of gene editing and if it should be allowed for human use. I believe the readings arguments for CRISPR technology being used for disease control were the most intriguing in both positive and negative aspects. As Harris states “two-thirds of human embryos fail to develop successfully” and “6 percent of total births worldwide-are born with a serious defect of genetic or partially genetic origin” (Harris 2). It is incredibly hard not to have a heavy heart for those who have miscarriages or have to face a life full of hardship. While it does seem, we are somewhat obligated to go after the “…terrible single-gene disorders…” (Harris 2). Others such as Marcy Darnovsky believe it is highly necessary to consider the many unexpected results which could come from this type of gene editing. What Darnovsky really stresses mostly is the fact that “…germline gene editing would not treat any existing person’s medical needs” (Darnovsky 3). Further she explains off-target mutations, issues of fetal development, and persistent editing effects may only be a few of the many unintended consequences of using this technology.

As we reflect on history and the cycles of life and death, I do not believe gene editing should be done on humans. Especially right now with so much stress already on the world for space for people to live, food and a place in the work force it doesn’t seem we need to avoid the natural illnesses and disasters which exist. All systems in the world move at their own paces and at different scales. It is when these different systems happen to conflict with each other that a rebalance must take place. Disease has shaped the world we know today and is clearly still affecting us which is difficult to stand but death highly unavoidable and I don’t see the sustainability in the natural systems which cause it.