Is there an ethical issue with the elimination of genetic abnormalities?

[Voltaire2]

What are the clinical implications of this technique? Could you highlight a few specific conditions that this could prevent in the future?

Aneuploidy is a human genetic disorder related to the addition or deletion of a chromosome, leading to significant morbidity and mortality during infancy or childhood, including Down’s syndrome (an extra 21), Klinefelter Syndrome (an extra X) or XYY syndrome. Using CRISPR/Cas9 – mediated targeted chromosome elimination, an extra chromosome could be selectively eliminated in cultured cells, embryos, and, more importantly, tissues in vivo, providing a potential therapeutic approach for aneuploidy diseases. However, when one of two homologous X chromosome was deleted by this approach, we found that the remaining X chromosome was also mutated. We believe these mutations in the remaining one (XXY and XYY syndrome) or two chromosomes (Down’s syndrome) could be avoided by using sgRNAs that target only one of the two or one of the three homologous chromosomes, based on single nucleotide polymorphism. Aneuploidy is also a hallmark of cancer. CRISPR/Cas9 – mediated targeted chromosome elimination offers a new approach for studying aneuploidy in tumorigenesis and a potential treatment strategy against a broad spectrum of human tumors.

http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-medicine/2017/12/04/crisprcas9-gene-editing-can-be-used-to-eliminate-entire-chromosomes-a-qa/

Down syndrome is just one example.

As gene editing tech like CRISPR become more precise widespread and available our ability to directly manipulate our genes will be put into use.

Is there an ethical issue with eliminating unwanted mutations from our genes?

[bitterross]

1. This is a fantastic question. I'm glad you posted it. Not that I have a good answer.

I'm very interested in hearing the opinions of people on this topic. I can't say I've formed a solid one yet. I have very mixed feelings on the topic. The thing that I have difficulty with is, how does one define an abnormality and decide it is okay to eliminate one over another?

As the very imperfect humans we are, we've done a poor job in the past on the subject.

[tblue37]

2. It would depend on what gets defined as an "abnormality," I think, and who gets to

make that decision. I think that if they could develop a safe and certain way to correct any genetic abnormality that would handicap a person, that would be a good thing. But what if such a technique is developed for, say, eliminating some harmless but unpopular trait. For example, "gingers" are often looked down on in England. (BTW, I am a redhead.) Using such methods to fiddle with personal qualities that are neither handicaps nor genetic conditions that lead to disease would be stupid and, in my opinion, wrong.

However, as a person with a severe hearing impairment that runs in the female line of my family, I certainly would be happy if my genetically rooted deafness could have been corrected before I was born. But of course no technique is likely ever to be that precise or capable of accomplishing such a correction.

[Voltaire2]

4. There are people within the deaf community who would object to this.

They object to the characterization of deafness as a handicap. They consider the deaf community almost like a subspecies of humanity.

But lets put that case aside. Down syndrome is a great example. Yes there are wonderful people with this syndrome. The technology could possibly eliminate the mutation from the gene pool entirely through the use of gene drive mechanisms to propagate the change. Should we do this?

I think the answer is contingent. In some cases yes, in others probably no.

[HopeAgain]

3. Evolution

Works on genetic abnormalities. Without them we would all still be amoebas.

[Voltaire2]

5. Yes. I'm likely missing your point.

We would not be eliminating all mutations. Just the adverse ones we know about and know how to repair.

[Nitram]

9. Actually, Hope, natural selection is not longer putting significant pressure on the human genome

to eliminate genes that would have been fatal at the time homo sapiens first evolved. For example, poor eyesight that would have left someone unable to gather food or detect danger is now corrected with eyeglasses (and the elimination of all predators on our environment that could present a danger to man). Another example is the use of insulin to extend the life of diabetics. Life expectancy is so long now that most people will have a chance to reproduce without being exposed to natural selection except in the case of fatal congenital issues or genetic diseases that kill us before sexual maturity. When I was a kid we were told that evolution would eventually eliminate our little toes and other relatively non-functional parts of our bodies. Actually, that won't happen because no one dies because they have a little toe.

[MineralMan]

6. There is no doubt that some religious groups will protest this.

Any manipulation of "God's Embryos" is blasphemous to them. They will say, "If it is God's will that someone is born with genetic defects, who are we to bicker with the Lord." I guarantee that some such argument will be brought.

They may think that their cruel deity is testing the parents for some reason. Or, they may simply posit that anything that changes natural, god-given events, is wrong. Or, some might even tie such a thing to the sins of the parents.

As foolish and dimwitted as that sounds, it will be argued vehemently by some.

[shraby]

7. If they can eliminate unintended consequences, and just eliminate the part that

renders a person capable of living a life without the handicap, I say go for it.
Life is hard enough without have the full range of one's capabilities, such as with Downs or Spina bifida or any other
problem that makes life harder than it should be.

[Pope George Ringo II]

8. Paging Khan Noonien Singh.

There's a good argument that genetic manipulation and cybernetic enhancement represent the next step of evolution. What scares me is that the wolf is the product of natural selection, while "intelligent design" has produced domesticated breeds which can barely breathe. As with so many other areas, our inability to foresee the problems we create has a bad history here. Altering genes, together with turning them on and off, has lots of potential both for raising the floor and raising the ceiling, but I'm just hoping our understanding keeps up with our technical prowess.

I think ultimately we are going to have to do it to thrive as a species with declining birth rates in an ever more challenging environment. Therefore we will do it, and we'll eventually get pretty good at it, but there are going to be some truly horrific tragedies along the way.

[Nitram]

10. True. It is the danger of unintended consequences that we have to be wary of.

For example, China's one-child policy led to a huge imbalance between the number of men and women in the population because parents had to many female embryos aborted.

[Pope George Ringo II]

12. Those 4-2-1 families are going to make a mess.

The long-term implications of a very male-heavy population are a big part of China trying to steal every scrap of land and water they can now while their demographics are relatively favorable, before they have to worry about funding the world's largest retirement home. It's as good a poster child for unintended consequences as anything.

[Mariana]

13. The consequences of just letting the population grow in China

rather than trying to slow down the growth or reduce the population would probably have been just as devastating as the problems they face now. They might have been worse. There just weren't any good options available to them.

[Pope George Ringo II]

14. Oh, the disease was horrible and borderline insurmountable, no question.

And doing nothing was never an option. But they overlooked making any serious attempt to balance genders in their cure and it's that one failure which is their biggest looming problem. That oversight is a good reminder not to get cocky because it really is going to hurt them before all is said and done.

[Nitram]

15. The government could have provided incentives not to abort girls, for one.

[Voltaire2]

11. yup.

It is not like we are going to stop this. Well Fucknutistan might, but the rest of the world will move on as we drift into kleptocratic/theocratic dystopia.