Knowledge At The Service Of Humanity

What's the point, doctor? I'm dying regardless, aren't I? This was Brian Madeux’s (49) leading dispute with doctors at the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital in Oakland, California, a few days before getting injected with gene editing tools to treat a metabolic inherited disease called Hunter Syndrome. For decades, he experienced a life filled with despondency and trepidation due to a single defective chromosome that triggered organ failure, brain damage, and developmental delays inside his body. Finally, on November 13th, 2017, CRISPR-Cas9, the world's preeminent genome editing machine, was utilized to implant a vast amount of the corrective gene in the patient, which resulted in a slow yet effective amelioration of his condition. Undoubtedly, this technology is relatively new and is in its experimental stages, but disregarding such futuristic machinery out of fear undervalues the substantial effect on others.

The first sightings of gene editing date back to the late 1900s. In 2009, scientists had a breakthrough with CRISPR-Cas9, which outperformed previous methods in terms of speed, simplicity, cost, and accuracy. Incipiently, this idea was deemed meaningful, but as the research progressed, many were scared of its outcome. Due to ethical concerns, the United States, Japan, Norway, China, and India determined that continuing this trail would be precarious and therefore proclaimed it illegal to perform. In addition, they believed that genome modification amounted to playing God, which relies on the outlook that everything natural is favorable. However, if replicated, we would be unable to use antibiotics, practice medicine, combat famine, or tackle diseases that kill millions of humans yearly; yet, this is all perfectly natural. In other words, why use religion to paint the study as immoral when, in reality, we overlook the possibility of eliminating numerous conditions that cause others unimaginable pain?

Nevertheless, despite the widespread concern for mosaicism and the unknowingness towards genome editing, this is not the first time that society has questioned a medical discovery. In 1847, Idnaz Semmelweis conducted research on puerperal fever. It revealed that when doctors performed autopsies, cadaverous particles would adhere to their skin, thus transmitting the virus. Although he faced criticism, hand hygiene now ranks among the best infection prevention methods. To quote German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, “To live is to suffer; to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering.” The Bible extends this idea in Philippians 2:4 by stating, “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” As a result, it is unjust to enact legislation prohibiting the discovery of cures to diseases that afflict humans daily when the technology to assist and revolutionize their lives for the better exists.

Gene editing is controversial, but whether it is ethical or not, the answer is a heartfelt yes. From a moral standpoint, it is only righteous to allow others to experience life without suffering and find their meaning. As Socrates once wrote, “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”

However, is it immoral to disregard the variegated interpretations that ethics possesses and their veracious repercussions? Ever since the dawn of time, human beings have never established a universally accepted definition for such a term. Given that everyone is distinct, there are various justifications for our moral compass, which defines what is virtuously right or wrong. Additionally, our opinions on whether a subject is ethical or unethical are not valued because they develop in a governmental setting where arbitrary and prejudiced evaluations occur, which is beyond our control. For instance, a pregnant woman had heard that her son would most likely be affected by her family's long-term experience with cancer. Afraid of the life he might lead, she decides to undergo the gene-editing procedure, depriving him of a saddening lifestyle. Nevertheless, the young boy, who is now an adult, considers the challenges and issues he faced as having played a role in shaping his identity. The mother in this storyline views the approach as ethical because she understands it would significantly deteriorate her financial situation and mental health if he acquired this disease. On the other hand, her child would not grow up to be the same individual, which debates the unethical side of the concept. If gene editing were legal, regardless of the risks, the mother could go against her hypothetical son's wishes without knowing what could have happened. As a whole, ethicality has always been a two-way street regarding the difficulties millions of humans endure daily. Without a doubt, the lack of a clear meaning of the word ethical leaves us all in doubt that the solutions to many worldwide problems, such as dangerous inherited conditions, are more complex to solve without considering every perspective.

Undoubtedly, ethics have always been a part of history, whether it was to avoid bloodshed in wars or to keep the world balanced and fair, as shown at the conference in Paris that set the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. While arguing over morality, French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas once defined its necessity as a way to save oneself from violence and terror and apply infinite responsibility to others. In other words, it is a way to reflect on specific issues and avoid conflict if necessary. Unfortunately, the intricacy linked to the matter is often undervalued under certain circumstances, which creates a path for citizens to follow politicians or the country's jurisdiction mindlessly and exploitatively while concealing their true objectives. Even though it might not seem accomplishable, genome editing is not far off from being utilized only to benefit certain people recognized by their money and influence over social media. The concept of immortality has been assumed to be unreachable by humans. It is considered impossible due to highly reactive molecules that initiate chemical changes, ultimately leading to death. Nevertheless, what if there was a way to stay alive forever? What if gene modification is the answer to a mystery most of our ancestors fantasized about solving? Realistically, all of these doubts matter, but the most crucial question is: do we want to find out? Not only would wealthy individuals subsidize and eventually misuse the technology, but the outlook that life is not endless inspires others to take risks and follow their dreams. After all, we must establish limitations for this machine to prevent the future of medicine from leading to society's downfall.

Overall, genome editing has one of the best chances of becoming a cure that not only heals but also provides guidance to humans worldwide that need support. There are many people that forget the importance of caring for others and help them achieve happiness since not everyone is born with the same qualities. Without this, the world would become unjust and no one would understand the true meaning of helping others. There should never be a time where we have to choose between the interest of others and what we believe is morally correct. Our time living is not limitless, which means that we should not take every minute that counts for granted. It's better to live, than to die regretting not fighting for a cause. However, we can only focus on the dangers and disadvantages that CRISPR-Cas9 could bring. It is inhuman that we give up and watch as our friends, colleagues, and fellow citizens suffer from the continued prejudice and injustice they did not choose or deserve. More often than not, ethical and unethical describe specific projects or ideas but only partially reflect what they represent. Typically people forget that there is never a black-and-white scenario. We should not let others' mischievous intentions disregard our true objective: to improve the lives of many people around the globe. Through the continued effort and compromisation of citizens and the open-mindedness regarding newer technologies, we shall overcome such unethical arguments and grant other Brians the possibility to step into a future greatly prophesied about and only observed in fiction. 

References:

Wilber, David. “The Messiah’s Preexistence and Divinity in Philippians 2:5-11 — David Wilber.” David Wilber, 18 Jan. 2023, www.davidwilber.com/articles/the-messiahs-preexistence-and-divinity-in-philippians2v5-11.

“A Human Has Been Injected With Gene-editing Tools to Cure His Disabling Disease. Here’s What You Need to Know.” Science | AAAS, 18 Feb. 2023, www.science.org/content/article/human-has-been-injected-gene-editing-tools-cure-his-disabling-disease-here-s-what-you.

Associated Press. “Second Man Undergoes Gene Editing; Therapy Has No Safety Flags so Far.” VOA, 7 Feb. 2018, 

www.voanews.com/a/second-man-undergoes-gene-editing/4242428.html.

Associated Press. “Newer Methods May Boost Gene Therapy’s Use for More Diseases.” New York Post, 2 June 2021, www.nypost.com/2021/06/02/newer-methods-may-boost-gene-therapys-use-for-more-diseases.

Gyngell, Christopher, et al. “Moral Reasons to Edit the Human Genome: Picking up From the Nuffield Report.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 45, no. 8, BMJ, Aug. 2019, pp. 514–23. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105084.

Ethical Issues: Germline Gene Editing | ASGCT - American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy |. www.patienteducation.asgct.org/patient-journey/ethical-issues-germline-gene-editing.

Nhgri. “What Are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing?” Genome.gov, 13 Mar. 2019, www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns.

What Are the Ethical Issues Surrounding Gene Therapy?: MedlinePlus Genetics. www.medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/ethics.

What Are the Ethical Issues Surrounding Gene Therapy?: MedlinePlus Genetics. www.medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/ethics.

“Pro And Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos?” Magazine, 3 May 2021, www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/human-gene-editing-pro-con-opinions.

Bergman, Mary Todd. “Harvard Researchers Share Views on Future, Ethics of Gene Editing.” Harvard Gazette, 8 Nov. 2022, www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/perspectives-on-gene-editing.

“What Are Some Medical Breakthroughs That Were Initially Ridiculed or Rejected?” Quora, www.quora.com/What-are-some-medical-breakthroughs-that-were-initially-ridiculed-or-rejected.

“Hunter Syndrome: Causes, Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment and Outlook.” Cleveland Clinic, www.my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/17932-hunter-syndrome.

“Inherited Metabolic Disorders - Symptoms and Causes - Mayo Clinic.” Mayo Clinic, 12 July 2017, www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/inherited-metabolic-disorders/symptoms-causes/syc-20352590.