The idea of gene editing, wherein an individual’s genetic material is altered, is technology that existed only in human imagination several decades prior. It has now, however, truly entered our reality, allowing humanity to play the role of a god. CRISPR technology has made gene editing a simpler and more inexpensive process than ever before (What is gene editing, 2019). As of October 2021, neither a price nor a date has been set for the release of CRISPR as a gene therapy option available to the general public; nevertheless, interest in the development of this technology has led to much debate over ethical questions related to the use of the technology. This article will analyze the reasons for and the impacts of the ethical concerns surrounding gene editing, including the widening of the socioeconomic gap and the loss of human uniqueness.
The Socioeconomic Divide
The introduction of new technology has almost always established a price barrier to low-income individuals. Even technologies that have existed in the market for several years still create a strong socioeconomic division. According to the Pew Research Center, approximately 24% of Americans that earn less than $30,000 a year don’t have a smartphone, and 41% of Americans in that income range own a computer. In contrast, individuals belonging to a higher income bracket often own several of such devices (Vogels, 2021) In regard to the field of genetic analysis, depending on the complexity of the test, genetic testing can cost between $100 to over $2000 (What is the cost, 2021). Although the price of gene editing is uncertain, it likely wouldn’t be as low as $100, and those of low income bracket would likely not be willing to pay for gene editing services when there is rent and groceries to pay for.
The primary concern surrounding gene editing technology is the deepening of the disparity between the rich and poor. If gene-editing technology can only be afforded by the rich, then those are individuals who are able to reap the benefits that the technology has to offer. In other words, the rich would have the resources to edit for “superior” genes: curing genetic diseases, selecting for “perfect” and unique characteristics. This phenomenon would ultimately be a more extreme form of how clothes identify a person. Gene-editing technology would therefore provide another aspect in which the rich would benefit in terms of healthcare and luxury, while those of lower income are unable to easily access such technology.
Take, for example, a typical school hallway filled with students walking to and from classes. Identifying a student that comes from high-income families can be easily done through the high-end brands that the student wears and the devices that the student possesses. In contrast, students from low-income families would not possess the expensive branded clothing or the newest device model. This stark differentiation establishes a hierarchy among the student body, wherein wealthier students are viewed as superior to the poorer students. The superiority complex that arises would also promote bullying; students from low income brackets are more likely to be ridiculed and intimidated by their peers because they are less likely to be able to adhere to social trends.
The Disabled and Impaired
The excitement behind gene-editing technology often revolves around the ability to cure severe genetic illnesses like sickle cell anemia. The less talked about potential use for gene-editing is the ability to allow the blind to see and the deaf to hear (Ball, 2021). This outcome would, of course, be good news. The visually impaired would be able to enjoy films, books, and the beauty of the landscape, and those hard of hearing would be able to enjoy listening to music and the everyday symphony that surrounds us all. Society still struggles to accommodate the impaired in regard to the design of cosmetics and other everyday commodities to the safety of the impaired when in the streets.
Although the outcome sounds wonderful, how would gene-editing impact human perception of “disability” once such technology becomes normalized? If society is currently unable to be accommodating to the impaired, how will our attitudes towards them change? It is likely that once gene-editing becomes normalized and the number of those visually impaired and hard of hearing decrease, society will begin to view those individuals as peculiar and defective. Our tolerance towards anything less than normal and perfect will disintegrate.
Gene editing may not be welcomed news to the deaf and blind communities. There are thriving cultures surrounding these communities. Individuals gather together in support and joy, to share their experiences and be as human as everyone else. Deaf Culture, for instance, emphasizes that the deaf have a language that is rich in culture and history just like any spoken language. Gene editing, consequently, could lead to the dismantling of these communities and a loss of both culture and language.
Customizing the Self
The rise of social media and the Internet has exacerbated the issue of personal self-esteem.
“I’m too fat”
“You’re so skinny”
“I wish I was prettier”
“You’re so smart”
“I wish I was taller”
“They’re so talented”
“I wish I was like that”
What if people could be “perfect” from birth? What if a person could be born with great intelligence, the ideal height and weight, and a beautiful appearance? Gene-editing could make that a reality. So, what’s wrong with making people this way? To have the power to select the traits a human would have is much like creating an avatar online. The concept of individual uniqueness would be lost, considering how beauty is a subjective descriptor. More and more people would fit a certain description. Essentially, we would be practicing eugenics, minus the death; we’d be curating perfect people that align with society’s preference. Considering how American society is currently already facing discrimination towards people of color due to their skin color and ethnic background, having such power would likely worsen the situation.
Societal trends flow in and out of style at an incredible rate. Just look at the fast fashion industry, wherein there are twenty seasons in a year. Each season, there is something new. Will that same tendency be how people are edited, such that we are able to identify traits characteristic of a certain generation, much like how we are able to differentiate between the 70s and 90s attire? Additionally, there is also the matter of who is making these edits. It is the role of the parent to be responsible for their child’s upbringing, but is editing their appearance and genetics the kind of power we would want our parents to wield, before we are even able to interject and object?
Gene-editing’s Impact
The integration of gene-editing technology into society will result in many changes to the status quo. The socioeconomic disparity that currently plagues our society will be further complicated as gene-editing becomes another luxury afforded only by the wealthy. Society’s tolerance towards the imperfect and unique will diminish, as individuals that don’t adhere to the societal image will be ostracized. The question of human uniqueness will also come into question, as parents would have access to technology that will change their children at the cellular level. In light of these issues, while we should anticipate the introduction of gene-editing into the market with bright hope for gene therapy and medicine, we should also be cautious of how this technology is utilized, primarily what policies should be set in place to ensure the ethical utilization of this technology.
References
Ball, P. (2021, February 21). After the Nobel, what next for CRISPR gene-editing therapies? The Guardian. Retrieved October 19, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/feb/21/after-the-nobel-what-next-for-crispr-gene-editing-therapies.
Vogels, E. A. (2021, September 10). Digital divide persists even as Americans with lower incomes make gains in tech adoption. Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 19, 2021, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/22/digital-divide-persists-even-as-americans-with-lower-incomes-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/.
What is genome editing? National Human Genome Research Institute. (2019). Retrieved October 19, 2021, from https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/what-is-Genome-Editing.
What is the cost of genetic testing, and how long does it take to get the results? Medline Plus. U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2021, 28 July). Retrieved October 29, 2021, from https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/testing/costresults/.