Germline editing (GGE) via CRISPR promises to eradicate heritable diseases like cystic fibrosis by modifying embryos, but evokes profound ethical dilemmas. Consent issues arise as edits affect future generations without their input, potentially violating autonomy; yet, preventing suffering expands reproductive choices. Equity concerns highlight “genetic divides,” where access favors the wealthy, exacerbating inequalities akin to IVF disparities.
Unintended consequences include off-target mutations risking novel disorders, though declining error rates (e.g., <0.1%) and pre-implantation screening mitigate this. "Slippery slope" to enhancement (e.g., intelligence boosts) blurs therapy-enhancement lines, prompting calls for international moratoriums like the 2018 He Jiankui scandal. Benefits: person-affecting cures for untreatable conditions, population-level disease reduction, and research insights into embryogenesis.
Regulatory responses: WHO frameworks emphasize equity, safety trials on non-viable embryos. Moral verdict: permissible under strict oversight if benefits outweigh harms.
Sources: PMC (2017) for ethics, PMC (2020) for risks. Word count: 224.
Leave a Reply