The Widespread Ethical Disagreement of CRISPR-Cas9

Abstract

In the early 21st century, gene therapy, specifically CRISPR-Cas9, was developed as a viable option to prevent heritable diseases and treat genetic disorders in somatic and germline cells. However, the advancement of this technology has led to misuse, as genetic “engineers” aim to alter the DNA of future generations to conform to an idealistic set of standards. The abuse of technology, coupled with the ability to reconstruct an individual’s genetic makeup, leads to the societal question about the best way to regulate this software. This paper addresses three key factors in preventing misuse while maximizing medical benefits: the public’s role, physician-patient relationships, and diversity in healthcare. This paper analyzes how the public should engage with national organizations and participate in formal discussions to express their views regarding CRISPR-Cas9 governance; without explicit expression of their views, their beliefs will likely be undermined by professionals. Furthermore, this paper emphasizes transparency and communication within physician-patient relationships: physicians must offer the comprehensive health benefits and drawbacks of gene editing to ensure patients considering gene editing operations are aware of its implications. Additionally, this paper asserts the need to bridge the socioeconomic gap within healthcare to extend access to gene editing to a larger group and also gain deeper insight into CRISPR-Cas9’s long-term impacts on people of various backgrounds. This paper states that the resolution of these three components is essential to reach a societal consensus of the appropriate regulations on gene editing, thereby halting the temporary ban on the technology.