Author: Trashed Jubaer Iknan – Bangladesh – PROMPT! Cohort #1

Introduction

Imagine a future where parents can ensure their children are born free of hereditary diseases – or even select traits like height, intelligence, or eye color. Advances in genome editing, especially CRISPR-Cas9¹, suggest this future may not be pure science fiction. Since its development in the 2010s, CRISPR has revolutionized biology with the power to “edit” genes precisely. Researchers are already using CRISPR in experimental therapies to cure genetic disorders, offering hope that we might one day end genetic diseases. At the same time, the very idea of Using CRISPR to create “designer babies” or enhance humans beyond natural limits raises profound ethical questions. This blog will explore both sides of the debate – the scientific promise of CRISPR for eliminating diseases, and the controversial prospect of engineering “superhuman” traits – with a focus on the implications of designing our future children. We’ll blend the science with the ethics, grounded in current research and expert opinions, to ask: Can CRISPR end genetic diseases without leading us down the path of creating superhumans? 

CRISPR: A Revolutionary Gene-Editing Tool 

CRISPR, short for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, is often described as a pair of molecular scissors. It was originally discovered as part of a microbial immune system that bacteria use to cut up invading virus DNA. In 2012, scientists (including Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, who won the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry) showed that this system could be repurposed to cut and edit DNA in virtually any organism, including humans. The CRISPR technique uses a guide RNA to target a specific DNA sequence and an enzyme (commonly Cas9) to cut the DNA at that spot². This allows researchers to remove or replace genes with unprecedented ease and precision.

Such precision gene editing was possible before CRISPR using older tools like zinc-finger nucleases, but those were expensive and time-consuming. CRISPR changed the game by being cheaper, faster, and easier to use, meaning even a standard molecular biology lab can now edit genes. In just a decade, CRISPR has taken biomedical science by storm: it’s used to engineer plants and animals, to study gene functions, and increasingly to develop human gene therapies. It’s no exaggeration to call CRISPR a revolutionary tool – one that brings with it both great promise and great responsibility.

The Promise: Ending Genetic Diseases

One of the most compelling hopes for CRISPR is its potential to cure genetic diseases at the source. Traditional medicine often manages symptoms, but gene editing aims to fix the root cause – a faulty gene. In recent years, CRISPR-based treatments have already shown remarkable success against diseases once thought incurable. For example, sickle cell anemia, a painful hereditary blood disorder, has seen breakthrough results in experimental CRISPR trials. In 2019, a patient named Victoria Gray became the first person in the U.S. to receive a CRISPR therapy for sickle cell disease³, and it effectively relieved her symptoms. By 2023, the dramatic improvements in CRISPR treatments for sickle cell were held up as proof that genome editing “can cure once incurable diseases”. Encouraged by such outcomes, scientists have launched dozens of clinical trials using CRISPR to treat other conditions – from blood disorders to certain kinds of blindness and even cancers. 

Importantly, most of these medical applications involve somatic gene editing, meaning edits are made in non-reproductive cells of a patient (like blood cells) to treat or cure a disease in that individual. Somatic edits are not passed to the person’s children⁴. For instance, in sickle cell therapy, doctors edit the patient’s bone marrow stem cells to correct the mutation, but this change stays within the patient’s body and isn’t heritable. Somatic CRISPR therapies thus offer a way to end genetic diseases in patients who have them, without affecting the next generation. Researchers and ethicists largely find such uses acceptable – even inspiring – as they align with the fundamental medical ethic of healing. As a 2023 international summit noted, “remarkable progress has been made in somatic genome editing” and it “offers hope for patients”⁵ with diseases like sickle. 

Where things get more complicated is the prospect of heritable genome editing – using CRISPR on embryos or reproductive cells to prevent a genetic disease from being passed on in a family line. In theory, this could eradicate certain inherited diseases entirely. For example, a couple who knows their embryo has the gene for cystic fibrosis might use CRISPR to correct that mutation, so the child (and their descendants) would be free of the disease. Indeed, some ethicists argue that if we have a safe and effective way to remove disease genes, it could be morally obligatory to use it. Professor Julian Savulescu of Oxford contends that parents have a duty to keep their children healthy, just as we vaccinate against illness. “If CRISPR were safe and not excessively costly, we have a moral obligation to use it to prevent and treat disease,” Savulescu says⁶. Other bioethicists concur that using gene editing to eliminate serious genetic disorders – like the gene for Huntington’s disease, or lethal metabolic conditions – could be an ethical good, even a responsibility. The reasoning is straightforward: if we can spare future generations the suffering of a disease, why shouldn’t we?

Yet, even within the pro-CRISPR camp, there’s caution. These heritable changes affect not just one baby but all their future offspring. As Dr. Barbara Koenig, a bioethicist at UCSF, explains, germline editing is “the last frontier” because “if you make a mistake, it will be a mistake for all future generations”. A DNA edit in an embryo could have unintended effects that might only become apparent years later in the child, or even in that child’s children. Unlike a drug that leaves the body, a genetic change is permanent and hereditary – you can’t easily take it back. For this reason, leading scientific bodies have urged extreme restraint. In fact, there is an international consensus (at least for now) against using heritable genome editing in human reproduction. In 2018, following the first CRISPR baby scandal (discussed below), organizations worldwide called for a moratorium on such. As of 2023, an expert summit reaffirmed that heritable human genome editing remains unacceptable until we resolve safety and ethical. In short, CRISPR might end some diseases without changing human evolution – for example, by treating patients alive today. But using it to permanently alter the human gene pool is another question entirely, leading us into the next part of our discussion: designer babies and superhuman enhancements.

The ‘Designer Baby’ Debate: From Curing to Enhancing.

When we talk about “designer babies,” we refer to using genetic techniques like CRISPR to select or alter traits in embryos – not just to prevent disease, but possibly to enhance desired qualities. This concept leaped from science fiction to reality in November 2018, when Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced the birth of the world’s first gene-edited babies. He claimed to have used CRISPR on two embryos (twin girls) to disable a gene called CCR5, in hopes of making them resistant to HIV. The reaction was swift and overwhelmingly negative. The scientific community condemned the experiment for violating ethical norms and safety protocols. He Jiankui had acted in secret, without adequate oversight or medical necessity – the parents’ situation did not warrant such an extreme step, since other safe methods (like IVF screening) could have been used to prevent HIV infection. More disturbingly, he flouted the global agreement that editing embryos for reproduction was premature and irresponsible⁷. In the end, the researcher was fired from his university and even served a prison sentence for violating medical regulations. The CRISPR babies’ scandal was a stark warning that the technology, if misused, could outrun our ethical guardrails.

This case crystallized the fears around designer babies. One major concern is safety: CRISPR is precise but not perfect. Off-target edits (cutting DNA in the wrong place) can occur, potentially causing new mutations or cancers. In embryo editing, there’s also the problem of mosaicism – not every cell in the growing embryo may get the edit, leading to a child whose body is a patchwork of edited and unedited cell. These risks are difficult to detect and control when you’re editing an embryo that will develop into a baby. As Dr. Koenig noted, a mistake in germline editing could propagate through future generations. The twins in China, for instance, may carry unforeseen mutations; any health issues might not become evident for years (and will be watched closely by doctors, if follow-ups continue). The bottom line: the science isn’t ready to ensure embryo editing is safe, and therefore many experts feel it is unethical to proceed, even for disease prevention.

Another set of concerns is ethical and societal. If curing disease is the redemptive side of gene editing, enhancement is the more dystopian side. Where do we draw the line between a therapy and an enhancement? Preventing a fatal illness is one thing, but what about editing genes to try to improve memory, height, or appearance? In bioethicist Stanley Qi’s view (Stanford University), the ethical acceptability of gene editing falls into three tiers: cure, prevention, and enhancement. Curing someone’s illness is clearly beneficial. Preventing a likely disease (for example, editing a gene in someone with a high genetic risk for cancer) is a gray area – it could be justified if no other options exist. However, the last category, enhancement, veers into problematic territory. “People talk about targeting a gene to grow more muscle or make people smarter or better looking,” Dr. Qi says, “But if research goes into this category, only some people may be able to afford it. This could amplify the imbalance of socioeconomic status”. In other words, superhuman upgrades could create a new form of inequality – a division between the genetically enhanced and the natural.

This scenario of genetic haves and have-nots is often compared to the film Gattaca, which portrayed a society stratified by genetic perfection. Ethicists like Marcy Darnovsky caution that pursuing genetic enhancements would effectively inscribe social biases into biology. For example, if society values tall, fair-skinned people (due to social prejudices), wealthy parents might seek those traits for their children, exacerbating discrimination in a very literal way. Darnovsky notes we’d enter “very troubled waters” as a society once we start down that road. A special committee of the U.S. National Academies of Science and Medicine also concluded in 2017 that while gene editing might be permissible in the future to prevent serious diseases (when no alternatives exist), it should not be used for enhancement of healthy individuals. The message: “By all means, correct diseases,” but don’t tinker with non-health-related traits.

There are also concerns about the psychological and human impact of designing babies. Children might grow up with immense pressure if their parents “optimized” their genes – what if they don’t live up to the expected potential? Josephine Johnston, a bioethicist, worries that parent–child dynamics could be distorted if we treat children as products of design. Parents might be disappointed if a “designer baby” isn’t as smart or attractive as intended. These issues echo long-standing fears about eugenics – the attempt to improve the human species by selective breeding or genetics. Many see a direct line from designer baby proposals to discredited eugenic ideologies of the past, raising the specter of new forms of discrimination and loss of human diversity.

On the other hand, some argue that the slope from curing diseases to trivial enhancements might not be so slippery if guided by proper regulation. Savulescu and others suggest that it’s possible to draw ethical boundaries: for instance, use CRISPR to prevent suffering but not to confer competitive advantages. They even envision scenarios where genetic enhancements, if ever proven safe and beneficial, could be offered equitably (e.g. through public healthcare) to avoid exacerbating inequality. These proponents emphasize individual autonomy – that parents, not governments, might ultimately decide whether to edit their embryos once the technology matures. Indeed, as public familiarity with gene editing grows, legal barriers could eventually fall. The crux of the debate is who gets to decide and on what basis: Should society outlaw certain genetic modifications as a matter of principle? Or should we allow parents to make choices, trusting that few would venture into frivolous enhancements?

Conclusion

CRISPR technology stands at the delicate intersection of awe-inspiring science and profound ethical dilemmas. On one side is the vision of ending genetic diseases – a world where conditions like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, or Huntington’s are effectively cured by editing DNA. This vision is no longer theoretical; CRISPR therapies are already giving patients a new lease on life⁸. The potential humanitarian benefits are enormous, and continuing research into CRISPR-based cures carries a strong moral imperative. On the other side is the slippery slope toward creating “superhumans” or bespoke babies engineered to taste. Here, the consensus is that we must proceed with extreme caution, if at all. Leading scientists and ethicists agree that germline editing for enhancement is off-limits for now – it remains unsafe, and it challenges our fundamental values. The designer baby question forces us to confront what we value about human life: Is it our health and freedom from disease? Certainly. But is it also our diversity, unpredictability, and equality? Many argue these too must be protected from an uncritical embrace of genetic engineering.

In conclusion, CRISPR can be both a cure and a temptation. It can end genetic diseases – and this goal is within sight, deserving of support and sensible regulation. But CRISPR could also be misused to create so-called superhumans, a path fraught with ethical perils. The challenge for our generation, especially for young people who will shape the future (the very audience of this blog), is to engage in informed, thoughtful debate about where to draw the line. We must ask ourselves difficult questions: if we can edit humanity, should we, and to what extent? By blending scientific understanding with ethical reflection, we can strive to maximize CRISPR’s benefits while respecting the values that make us human. In the end, the story of CRISPR will not just be about what the technology can do, but about the choices we make in using it.

References: 

¹https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4975809/

²Stanford Medicine News (2020). How does 2020 Nobel Prize-winning CRISPR technology work?
https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2020/10/how-does-2020-nobel-prize-winning-crispr-technology-work.html

³https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Gray

⁴ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK447271/

⁵Organising Committee. (2023, March 8). Statement from the Organising Committee of the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing. The Royal Society.
https://royalsociety.org/news/2023/03/statement-third-international-summit-human-genome-editing/

⁶Saey, T. H. (2017, November 28). Parents may one day be morally obligated to edit their baby’s genes.
Science News.
🔗 https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-the-public/ethics-gene-editing-babies-crispr

⁷UCSF News (2018). What’s so controversial about the first gene-edited babies?
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2018/11/412461/whats-so-controversial-about-first-gene-edited-babies-experts-explain

⁸https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/31/1067400512/first-sickle-cell-patient-treated-with-crispr-gene-editing-still-thriving