According to the Dickey-Wicker Amendment of 1996 [1], the genetic engineering of the human embryo is heavily restricted and essentially made impossible and outlawed due to possible moral and ethical concerns. Although this law is extremely out of date and should not be considered relevant anymore, they still stand as the arbiters on genetic engineering. Therefore, maintaining these laws would be immoral.
First, we have to understand why this law is no longer relevant. CRISPR, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, is a tool used for genetic engineering. Although originally created in 1987, CRISPR didn’t take off until 2012 when its full ability was discovered by Jennifer Doudna. She discovered that CRISPR can be used for genetic engineering when accompanied by a protein enzyme called “Cas-9.” By employing the Cas-9, an event known as gene splicing occurs. More specifically, the enzyme targets and locates specific DNA. Once the DNA is found, the Cas9 binds to it and cuts it off, thereby shutting off the targeted gene. This process allows biological engineers to pick and choose certain genes to add or remove from the genome as a whole. For example, scientists have been able to make see-through frogs, glow-in-the-dark fish, and even a pig consisting of nearly pure muscle [2], [3], [4].
Now, why does this matter? It matters because the human genome can also be altered. One might immediately think of a world where humans can create and customize their children, but this is currently science fiction. However, it is possible to eradicate most, if not all, genetic diseases. Specifically, Down syndrome, albinism, cystic fibrosis, and many more illnesses could all disappear.
This is due to the fact that these disabilities and diseases are caused by unintentional errors in the human DNA. If parents are prevented from passing on their genetic abnormalities to their children, then subsequent generations can become healthier than their predecessors. I personally suffer from asthma and eczema, both of which were caused by a bad genome. These diseases have multiple domains of my life, ranging from sports to school; however, others experience much worse. And some would-be children don’t even receive a chance to live at all. According to the American Journal of Medical Genetics, 30% of fetuses that are diagnosed with Down syndrome via fetal genetic testing are aborted [5]. Why must we sit back and sacrifice lives for outdated rules when things like this can be prevented?
These rules were established in the United States because of an anachronistic approach to genetic engineering and testing. Originally, when these laws were created, the act of modifying human DNA would’ve been extremely expensive and difficult to achieve. However, nowadays, a few simple tests, followed by a quick procedure involving CRISPR-Cas9, could quickly and effectively accomplish the same goal. Some people recognize the fact that the law is too slow in adapting to current technology. These people, dubbed “biohackers” have already begun pushing the limits of both science and the law.
For example, Josiah Zayner has publicly streamed and recorded himself being injected with CRISPR on numerous occasions. Josiah Zayner originally attended Southern Illinois University and Appalachian State University before getting a Ph.D in biophysics in 2013 from the University of Chicago. He now spends his time creating DIY CRISPR kits for the general public and sells them on his website. This abnormal approach to biotech has sparked outrage and support across the nation. Some believe that people like Josiah are allowing for the potential downfall of our nation however, others believe he is just making science more available to the general public.
Some may argue and question the logistics of making the ability to change your DNA available to everyone and how this would actually be possible, as well as how we could effectively distribute the genes. First, the law in the United States would need to be changed. This is because, as stated, genetic engineering of embryos and public gene augmentation is currently illegal. Next, government testing and trials would be required in order to create an initial understanding of the technology and how it should be applied. This can be as simple as seeking FDA regulation for genetic engineering treatments or as advanced as creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to manage this new area of medicine. Finally, to get publicly available DNA splicing off the ground, the government could create incentives for private companies to step in and start producing solutions.
Then, patient-specific therapies could be sold as simple medicine, such as insulin, or administered by doctors as part of a vaccination process. As we have seen with the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine rollout, individuals that support genetic engineering could be free of abnormalities in a very short time. However, like any standard treatment, these treatments would be entirely optional.
The opportunities provided by up-to-date laws on genetic engineering would not only make the economy stronger but also would create better lives for both currently living people and those yet to be born. Although contemporary technology cannot cure individuals who already have genetic diseases, it is possible for the next generation to be immune to numerous life-threatening diseases, if society is able to mobilize and work together.
[1] Kearl, M. (2010, August 27). Dickey-Wicker Amendment, 1996 | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia. The Embryo Project Encyclopedia. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/dickey-wicker-amendment-1996
[2] The first see-through frog created by breeding: description, inheritance patterns, and dermal chromatophore structure. (2016, April 15). NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4832234/
[3] McCarthy, C. (2016, April 29). The History and Science Behind GloFish. PetMD. https://www.petmd.com/fish/what-are-glofish
[4] Cyranoski, D. (2015, June 30). Super-Muscular Pigs Created by Small Genetic Tweak. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/super-muscular-pigs-created-by-small-genetic-tweak/
[5] Lozier, C., & Plaster, G. (2015, April 21). New Study: Abortion after Prenatal Diagnosis of Down Syndrome Reduces Down Syndrome Community by Thirty Percent. Charlotte Lozier Institute. https://lozierinstitute.org/new-study-abortion-after-prenatal-diagnosis-of-down-syndrome-reduces-down-syndrome-community-by-thirty-percent/