Modern Eugenics: “The revolution of our evolution?”

Forty-five years ago, in a research facility in Japan’s prestigious Osaka School of Science, first-year student Yoshizumi Ishino came across a peculiar pattern in the DNA sequence of the E. coli microbe. Confused to its purpose, he simply noted the anomaly. Though unbeknownst to him at the time, Ishino had at that moment discovered a sequence of nucleotides capable of editing any genetic sequence on Earth; and thus, had become a pioneer of modern eugenics.

Eugenics, simply put, is the study of desirable genes. Researchers of this topic, dubbed ‘eugenicists’, for decades had to navigate challenges posed by a controversial past, ethical restraints and technological limitations. However, with the recent advances in the gene-editing technology CRISPR, eugenicists have the chance to not only implement their ideas and advance our society, but to also re-define their field entirely.

CRISPR, or Clustered-Regularly-Interspaced-Short-Palindromic-Repeats, is the flagship piece of technology leading the modern eugenics revolution. Explained by biotechnology engineer Zhang Feng, CRSIPR “acts as a molecular ‘scissor’”, producing enzymes that detect specific genetic patterns within our DNA. This allows it to ‘cut’ unwanted genes out of our genetic sequence. 

But perhaps the most exciting - and contentious - possibilities that CRISPR provides comes from its ability to add to an individual's genetic sequence. Through its ‘Cas9 protein’, CRISPR can ‘copy-and-paste’ specific traits and characteristics into our DNA. From genes for blue eyes and height, to genes for disease immunity and high aerobic capacity, nearly every physical aspect of the human character can be implanted within a person's genetic capacity.

Proponents are quick to point out that this technology has ground-breaking ramifications for today's society. High resilience and immunity to diseases would extend lives by decades, saving perhaps millions of disadvantaged people who might not have ready access to healthcare. Consequently, it would also take a great burden off the global healthcare system, allowing funding to be diverted to other necessary causes. In fact, already, the United States National Institute in Health has used CRISPR to successfully eliminate muscular dystrophy in mice, allowing them to live twice as long.

Moreover, modern eugenics and CRISPR’s main benefit to society may be its ability to promote equality. If everyone has the genetic potential to be faster, stronger, and healthier, then the inherent differences that separate individuals would become minimal. As put by Australian philosopher and bioethicist Julian Savulescu, genome editing would “stop the genetic lottery”, saving those who would have otherwise “drawn the [genetic] short straw”. Though perhaps not capable of creating a perfectly equal society, modern eugenics could partially level the playing field, giving the previously disadvantaged a better shot at success. 

However, in a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre, most participants voted against using CRISPR in medicine. Religious beliefs aside, these results reflect a cultural mistrust of eugenics, most likely rooted in Nazi Germany’s appalling usage of this ideology to justify forced sterilisations of disabled people; and further perpetuated today by its dystopian portrayal within pop culture. Though rooted in events that are decades in the past, the cultural antipathy towards eugenics presents a major obstacle to the progression of the study.

Nevertheless, opponents argue that not all concerns regarding CRISPR are outdated. When considering eugenics and the implementation of gene modification, it is important to understand that certain characteristics and traits would be considered ‘desirable’, while others considered ‘undesirable’. Therefore, if more and more of the next generation possess similar ‘desirable’ genes, the human gene pool would inevitably shrink. In fact, in eliminating ‘undesirable’ genes, we may accidentally create a less genetically diverse species, vulnerable to inbreeding and unknown diseases. Moreover, many ‘undesirable’ genes may have unknown benefits. Take UBE3A: a risk gene for autism. Though UBE3A has been long known to cause this developmental disability, recent study in the early 2000s revealed that the gene also played an essential role in processing information. Thus, removing it would have caused severe unforeseen consequences. As Jim Kozubek, author of Modern Prometheus: Editing the Human Genome puts it, “you don’t get an advantage [in gene editing] without risking a disadvantage.” 

Furthermore, it is also important to consider how CRISPR would be distributed. Currently, the technology is estimated to cost well over two million dollars per patient, a figure that grants it virtually inaccessible to anyone but the super-rich. If only the upper class has the financial ability to purchase this technology, only their children would benefit. Thus, CRISPR would entrench the division between social classes. However, even if CRISPR technology is made commercially available to the general public, there will still be individuals who choose not to use it. The problem arises when genetically ‘superior’ humans occupy all the positions of power in society, while individuals who did not undergo genome editing are pushed to the side. Australian philosopher Matthew MacDonald even goes as far as to draw links with science fiction film ‘Gattaca’, where genetics alone determine an individual's future.

On the other hand, as a wider variety of genomes becomes commercially available, the limits of ‘human’ characteristics and traits may be challenged. Imagine parents of a human embryo, given free rein to modify his or her genetics. Naturally, most typical parents would eliminate genetic diseases and susceptibility to disease. More ambitious parents may even add to their child's genome, perhaps preferring one eye colour over the other. However, a problem may arise when irresponsible parents are given this full authority. From an extra finger to an extra eye, from an extra inch in height to an extra thirty, CRISPR may be abused, significantly affecting the child's future ability to function in society.

Before CRISPR progresses any further, it is imperative that eugenicists set firm boundaries to its implementation. We should consider an international moratorium until further research into possible dangers is satisfied. Regulations should be agreed upon and enforced, with a limit to the degree of gene modification and subject consent especially important. Furthermore, we should place sanctions on unscrupulous individuals and corporations to deter abuse and exploitation. What’s more, if CRISPR technology is approved, steps should be taken so that the technology is equally accessible to all socio-economic backgrounds, and not monopolised by just the wealthy. Moreover, we should educate the general public regarding the risks of CRISPR, so that decisions made in the future will be informed and ethically responsible. Finally, with the current progression of CRSIPR into ‘germline’ editing (genes that can be inherited by the subject's offspring), the future of the human gene pool is open to manipulation. Therefore, we should also reach a global consensus concerning our direction as a species before any further steps are taken.

Ultimately, questions that were once the realm of science fiction now need to be seriously debated by governments and professional bodies. In the past unregulated, inaccurate and immoral applications of eugenic science led society to disastrous conclusions. However, with recent advancements, it is becoming clear that this science could be giving humanity control over its future evolution. As the limits to CRISPRs applications in health and science are still relatively unknown, who knows how far the boundaries of our evolution can be pushed? If we are to take this genetic leap as a species, how different will humans and society look, act and function, one, two, or ten generations into the future? While the questions regarding CRISPR are difficult and the answers unclear, they can no longer be ignored.

Agar N. (2019). Why We Should Defend Gene Editing as Eugenics. Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees, 28(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180118000336

Bergman, M. (2022, November 08). Harvard researchers share views on future, ethics of gene editing. Retrieved March 5, 2023, from https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/perspectives-on-gene-editing/

CRISPR helps heal mice with muscular dystrophy. (n.d.). Retrieved March 5, 2023, from https://www.science.org/content/article/crispr-helps-heal-mice-muscular-dystrophy

Genome editing pros and cons. (2023, February 27). Retrieved March 4, 2023, from https://www.leopoldina.org/en/topics/genome-editing/genome-editing-pros-and-cons/

Kozubek, J., & Modern Prometheus: Editing the Human Genome with Crispr-Cas9. (2017, January 09). HOW CRISPR and gene editing could ruin human evolution. Retrieved March 4, 2023, from https://time.com/4626571/crispr-gene-modification-evolution/

Sufian, S. (2021, February 16). The Dark Side of CRISPR. Retrieved February 16, 2023, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dark-side-of-crispr/

Questions and answers about CRISPR. (2023, January 18). Retrieved February 15, 2023, from https://www.broadinstitute.org/what-broad/areas-focus/project-spotlight/questions-and-answers-about-crispr

Watson, B. (2022, June 24). Is there gene therapy for autism? Retrieved March 4, 2023, from https://www.xcode.life/genes-and-health/gene-therapy-for-autism/#:~:text=The%20main%20focus%20of%20gene,spectrum%20of%20disorders%20is%20challenging.