Teaching

 A couple of years ago, I led an undergrad class discussion on the ethics of CRISPR genome editing. This required considerable research effort on my part, and I decided to amortize that effort by publishing a manuscript that covered the same content. That paper, "In Our Image: The Ethics of CRISPR Genome Editing," came out last January.

Yesterday, a senior biology major at St. Mary's College of Maryland emailed me some questions about the paper as part of his senior project on the ethics of CRISPR human germline editing. While I relish the attention of peers, I also get considerable gratification from engaging with the lay public. Here are his questions and my answers:

1. So in your paper, you describe how CRISPR germline editing right now is not morally urgent because of other safer methods to select embryos with or without certain traits. If CRISPR germline technology advances to the point that it is possible to edit for non-mendelian diseases, so it is able to account for more than just what something like PGD is able to do, would you consider testing for the safety of the technology, and then potentially using the technology on humans?

I also make the point that CRISPR germline editing is not morally urgent because it isn’t therapy. There are other options for people to have healthy children besides risking the human gene pool. The same argument applies to multifactorial traits. I see no compelling ethical argument for germline editing for either single gene or multifactorial traits.

2. CRISPR, as you alluded to, is a very powerful technology, and with great power comes great responsibility. If CRISPR is used extensively in the future, do you see any risk in the stigmatization of people who still have genetic diseases, either because they did not want to get edited or they didn't have the financial resources to get edited?

Excellent question. My guess is that such stigmatizing will occur in some cases. One analogy would be to hereditary deafness. There is a substantial deaf community that regards deafness not as a disability but just as differently able. This community rejects treatments such as cochlear implants and stigmatizes those who get them. On the other hand, the choice to forgo implants can be itself stigmatizing in a hearing world. It is worth examining the assumption that there is a single standard for “normal.” That said, there are substantial societal financial burdens to accommodate many disabilities. Who pays?

3. How important is getting more of the public and policymakers to understand what CRISPR is and the various applications of the technology, and what are some things that scientists and others can do to bridge that gap?

The word “understand” is doing a lot of work in that question. Like many or most technologies (e.g., the internet, fusion energy, carbon capture, AI), a genuine understanding by the public and policymakers is beyond reach. Only about 30% of Americans have graduated from a four-year college or university. That said, it is incumbent on those of us who do “understand” to communicate both the benefits and risks of technology in terms the lay public can grasp. It isn’t as easy as it appears.

It’s not limited to technology; there is an acute need for historians and economists, for example, to inform the public and policymakers in their fields as well. To bridge that gap, professional societies should recruit and support experts who can effectively communicate by publishing editorials and meeting with lawmakers.