It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
CRISPR Invented in 2012, the genetic engineering technique, which is capable of quickly, easily and inexpensively performing precise changes in DNA, saw dramatically increased interest in 2015, and shows no signs of a slowdown as we enter 2016.
The main concern with CRISPR is that it can be used to perform germline genetic modifications, which means making changes in a human egg, sperm or embryo. These modifications would be passed down for generations, impacting an entire lineage rather than just one person.Will removing one disease give rise to a different disease? Could a brand new disease spring up? What will changes and splices in DNA mean for the overall human genome?
Another concern is this technology could open the door to what is called “designer babies,” or genetically engineered children. For example, someone could use CRISPR to “make” a highly intelligent, brown-haired, blue-eyed child, or one that is given both height and athletic ability. The possibilities are endless—as are the ethical implications.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
CRISPR is not a perfect technology. Much as it is highly specific, tests done in animals have yielded about an 80% success rate. That's really good for research studies, and if we're doing screening of embryos for implantation, it might be sufficient for humans undergoing in vitro fertilization as yet another means of screening through genetic abnormalities. Some families might not want to take the risk of failure, though, and that's understandable. CRISPR can cleave in the wrong location, but if there's a screening step to check the location at which a new gene is inserted, I don't see a reason to believe that it could cause a new disease or have any substantive effects downstream. Our genome is full of movable elements, including virus genomes and transposons. Much as many would like to believe that our genomes are immutable, they're actually pretty malleable in this regard, and while there are certainly reasonable concerns about interrupting certain necessary genes that may prevent a certain kind of cancer or maintain immune responses, those are likely to become more and more minor as the technology improves.
As for the ethical concerns... honestly, I don't know why this is an issue. It sounds a lot like the issue people have with genetically modified foods, the idea that there's something inherently "good" about the natural process of segregating genes and something inherently "bad" about site-specific changes. In many ways, we already try to "design" our children, often based on the mates we choose, the genetic counseling we receive (particularly for those with genetic diseases or a propensity for them), and any screening that goes on pre- and post-implantation. There are limits to what this can produce, of course, but I don't see why expanding beyond those limitations suddenly makes it ethically suspect. Why shouldn't parents try to ensure that their children have the best possible genetic code when so much of what they will go through in life is subject to chaos and uncertainty? And why does going through this process, as @AmericanFurryBoy puts it, "treat them like products rather than humans"? Is wanting the best for your child and actively seeking it through genetic engineering dehumanizing, and if so, how? It seems to me that being so focused on their well-being shows a desire to do what is best for the child.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
Is making them taller or giving them other, atributes the best for them? I just don’t think its right to be able to choose stuff like that. If you wanted genes for those, you should’ve chosen a better mate.
Also, I thin I’m GMOs are perfectly fine.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
I suppose where I take the greatest issue with your argument, though, is this line: "If you wanted genes for those, you should’ve chosen a better mate." If I'm reading you right, then what you're saying is that parents who want to have children with certain genetic characteristics should find someone who is genetically capable of providing those traits. So, essentially, parents can ethically select for specific traits, so long as they're doing it the old-fashioned way: find someone who has those traits and hope they segregate well. I'm not sure what your position is on in vitro fertilization, where embryos are screened for specific problems before implantation, but that is essentially doing the same thing except with more trials in rapid succession. If both of these are ethical (and I'm assuming that you believe they are), then why is the specific selection of certain traits before they are used to form an actual or potential person unethical? If you're fine with GMOs, which are essentially doing the same thing (the alternative is cross-breeding, which is a lot like in vitro fertilization in this regard), why can/should it not apply to humans?
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
That said, I personally would be more interested in modification of my own genes (which should not be much more difficult technologically, than modification of an embryo's genes), since I am not planning on having children, and I would like to live for centuries - which should become realistic and affordable within my lifetime.
Genetic engineering and cyber-enhancement is how we move forward as a species.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra