The Public's Response
The Public's Verdict
The debate on CRISPR ethics, particularly as concerns genetic testing and diagnosis, highlights a variety of issues that echo through the scientific community and wider society. Various journalists, bloggers and editorial writers are focused on the transformative potential of CRISPR but struggle with deeply rooted ethical questions associated with its use.
Despite this, many seem to be hopeful of the technology CT is developing without too much discussion about the implications it might present. It is the job of the governments to keep an eye on things like this even when a threat doesn’t currently stand. The United States Government Accountability Office released an article highlighting opportunities the tch brings but also highlights the challenges and concerns. They state their concerns include “whether CRISPR would be used for enhanced human characteristics, such as increased muscle mass, learning aptitude, and memory.” Another real concern that I feel is not spoken about enough that the G.A.O. highlights here is whether there would be equitable access to all populations for this technology. I think that all of their concerns are clear. One might argue that they are planning for something that is impossible or far far in the future, but being prepared for the impossible is their job and potentially necessary in this uncharted territory. Especially if you consider how fast this technology is progressing with a lack of regulations.
A US national health authority the National Institute of Health (NIH) made a youtube video in 2019 highlighting their concerns with gene editing and DR. Francis Collins explained how he feels that the technology has not yet reached a point where it can be used comfortably. There are not enough laws and restrictions in place to decide what should be done if something goes wrong down the line. He expresses that this procedure of gene editing is “changing our very essence” and that we would be tinkering with the fundamental structure of our biology and who we are. I also agree with his point but it is quite cynical compared to some others, certainly compared to the opinions and concerns of the creators Doudna and Charpentier that have been vocalized. He likely has a lot of insight on the issue but his age (73) may affect his judgment and commentary on new experimental technology.
Overall through, many seem to be optimistic about CT technology without any discussion about what it might entail. These kinds of open commentary and discussion however reveal the need for a balanced approach that will maximize benefits from CRISPR technology while minimizing unintended consequences. This means that scientists have to collaborate with regulators in order to come up with ethical guidelines when using CRISPR responsibly. The ongoing development of CRISPR technology requires many deeper ethical conversations. To continue on, dialogue among scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and the public is necessary for navigating the moral complexities.
Your concern about who will have access to this technology is extremely valid. According to the National Library of Medicine, "...gene therapies cost between $450,000 to $2 million per treatment, with the gene therapies Hemgenix and Zolgensma costing $3.5 million and $2.1 million, respectively, per 1-time treatment." Only the extremely wealthy would be able to benefit from this technology. While technological breakthroughs have the potential to improve people's lives, the ethical implications must be carefully explored, particularly in terms of accessibility. Providing fair access to transformational technologies such as CRISPR is critical to sustaining ideals of justice, human rights, and social cohesion.
ReplyDeletesource:
Deletehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10323846/#:~:text=Far%20from%20being%20a%20theoretical,%2C%20per%201%2Dtime%20treatment.
CRISPR technology sheds light on the mixed sentiments surrounding its transformative potential and ethical implications. While many express hope for the advancements CT is developing, there's a notable absence of thorough discussion on the potential implications of this technology. The concerns raised by entities like the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding the possibility of enhanced human characteristics and equitable access to CRISPR technology underscore the need for proactive measures and ethical guidelines in this rapidly evolving field.
ReplyDeleteOne question that emerges from this discussion is how policymakers and regulators can effectively address the ethical concerns surrounding CRISPR technology while fostering innovation and maximizing its benefits. Additionally, considering the varied perspectives, such as those of Dr. Francis Collins from the National Institute of Health (NIH), how can stakeholders ensure a balanced approach that considers both the potential risks and rewards of gene editing? Engaging in ongoing dialogue among scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and the public will be essential for navigating the moral complexities and developing responsible guidelines for the use of CRISPR technology.
The CRISPR ethics debate, focusing on genetic testing and diagnosis, highlights significant concerns within the scientific community and broader society. While optimism surrounds CRISPR's potential, there's a lack of discussion on its ethical implications. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has raised questions about potential human enhancements and equitable access. Similarly, the NIH, through Dr. Francis Collins, emphasizes the need for regulatory frameworks to address gene editing risks. To address these concerns, collaboration between scientists and regulators is crucial to establish ethical guidelines and promote ongoing dialogue among stakeholders.
ReplyDeleteHow do you think the company should work with outside scientists and the government in order to create fair usage and safe experiments?
That's a great question that I don't think many have the answer to yet. Even within the science communities and governments everyone has varying opinions and extremities on those opinions. There needs to be some sort of structural rubric that is a compromise when it comes to experimenting and fair usage. In this compromise no one side should win or be happy over others, that way you know it could work.
Delete