CRISPR CAS-9 is one of the many revolutionary breakthroughs in the scientific community in the past decade in the field of biology itself. This was one such discovery or invention per se that was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2012. In layman’s language, this can be simply explained as using external RNA molecules to replace or alter some part of the DNA present in an organism. 

Genome editing, as it was subsequently called was developed while studying how bacteria save themselves from viral infections and led to the development of this technology. The main application of this technology is to eliminate genetic diseases like Sickle Cell Amenia, Cystic Fibrosis, and even Huntington's disease.

This has been considered a very useful way to deal with these diseases as a whole, especially in adults. In grown-ups or adults, the procedure for this only affects the individual and not his/her future generations. Thus it can be seen as a viable option in near future, although human embryos cannot. Let’s put that on hold for now.

Keeping aside the scientific improvements this could bring, this technology or technique raised quite a lot of ethical concerns. It divided the whole world into two halves. Even the inventors of this technology agreed to a moratorium on the clinical usage of the same. This in my opinion is enough evidence to show that the ethical concerns prove to have some girth here. 

To clear my opinion up front, I feel the ethical issues outweigh the advantages at this particular moment, although for the other factors, science is developing at a speed that is bare quantifiable, every day there is a new product on the shelves aimed to make your life more convenient. Who knows what the future may prevail, we may be able to harness its potential while keeping the ethical problems at bay. In a decade or so, its commercialization could be strongly considered. 

This has been tested on a couple of different types of animals from rats to monkeys and it has gotten promising results, although it was tried on human embryos too which received strong backlash. One such example is a Chinese scientist He Jiankui who was sent to 3 years in prison for his cooperation in making genetically engineered babies. 

Let’s elaborate on the ethical problems and bring back the topic of modified embryos in humans. 

Even though we have tested on animals, we still do not completely understand the mechanics of the human genome to be experimenting on it and no other animal can completely replicate the situations in a human body, so it will become essential to test on some or the other humans before clinical use. The biggest concern here would be that we would not know the results of any mishaps that may occur unless they are experienced by the person. Either it be a disease like cancer or something far worse. 

On similar lines, the off-target effects ( the genes acting on the places where they were not meant to ), could also have severe consequences one of which could be replacing the necessary genes for several biochemical processes. 

The long-term effects if any of this practice will not and cannot be known unless we witness them ourselves. It could be a new genetic disease or a one already known. This would in fact require more genetic replacements and thus would turn into an endless loop. Not to mention the people who may use this for making and/or developing dangerous pathogens and harming innocent people. 

An article stated, “This will affect highly coordinated mitochondria-nuclear allelic interactions that have become optimized over evolutionary time.” 

In short no one can predict how this will play out in the future.

Laws and regulations are also a concern to me if not for many. This is a technology in which it is very difficult to reach a global consensus on how this should be regulated. As a result, if a decision is made in a hurry, it is likely to leave some loopholes in the system which can be very easily used by people who want no good. Thus for proper regulation, we need time to discuss different views and then reach a common consensus. 

Coming to the unethical nature of the genetic engineering of human embryos. Firstly, every change we make to a human embryo that eventually grows and turns into a child will pass on these genetic changes to his/her descendants. So if we make a change, it will go on for quite some time. Although a bigger concern is, as correctly stated by renowned scientist Arthur L. Caplan,

 “The risk if you create a child with a birth defect or that dies prematurely is enormous, it will take no more than 1 death to bring the whole area of human genetic engineering to a screeching halt.” 

The risks in this situation surely outweigh the benefits that we hope to achieve. 

An important fact is that this method is to be used to prevent genetic diseases by changing genomes in embryos but we already have trusted methods to do this since as far as the 1980s. One such method is Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis. In this different embryos are taken and the ones not affected can be implanted in the womb. It is a far better option than taking a chance with the CRISPR method. 

Let us now go a little further into this topic and assume that it is being used for treating genetic diseases in embryos. We cannot control the transfer of this technology being shifted from essential use to preferences and choices. Analytics suggest that it is very probable that this technique can be used to manipulate physical as well as mental factors in children before birth, this may include higher IQ, being taller, stronger bones, and many other things. 

It would be like bringing the idea of X-Men to real life. Well jokes apart, it would lead to every human nearing a form of genetic ideal which would also lead to the loss of individuality of our species as a whole. Not to mention the new kinds of inequalities that may add up on this and may cause discrimination on grounds never imaginable. This would impact the social fronts very harshly. 

Affordability can also be considered an ally to the same. Apart from the social impacts mentioned above, this would also increase the gap between the economical classes. The rich will have enough money to use this technology several times but the same cannot be said for the poor or the middle class.

I would like to conclude by saying that I am not against this technology, but I do feel that the ethical implications and other problems that follow are far greater than the overall gain at present. Using this on adults can be seen in the near future, but for embryos, much better technology, agreed-upon guidelines and different methods to deal with differences have yet to develop.  In a decade or so, this discussion would be completely different. 

Jennifer Doudna ( the co-inventor ) herself agreed that it is not ready to be clinically used in today’s time and I do completely agree with that notion. We would not want to make a mistake in a rush and receive consequences for years ahead of us. 

I feel that the bigger question yet to be answered is

Is there anything that if you had the money or will, that the medicines will say no to? 

References-
genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns
academic.oup.com/bmb/article/122/1/17/3045812?login=true
link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40592-018-0091-0.pdf
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-60684-2_12
youtube.com/watch?v=8Ijr1ccYPtI