Is it ethical to interfere with nature?
Gene editing is considered unreligious and even unlawful in many countries! Even many scientists are opposed to genetic modifications in humans as cascading effects would be unpredictable in their view. Many are not opposed genetically modified crops that would be resistant to pests with higher yields. Still even in this domain last word is not pronounced yet as these GM crops could fare miserably with least resistance to newer pests that evolve equally efficiently! Famine would befall the humanity in such a scenario!
That being the public opinion even in organisms other than humans, the time has not arrived for gene editing as a curative therapy. At best it is left to individual’s choice when no other recourse to treatment in the traditional system. Targeted immune therapy in cancer is one such, which is increasingly gaining acceptance. Cures for many types of cancers such as the deadly leukaemia are in anvil through gene editing.
Should gene editing as a therapy be shunned as one against nature? While an argument for treatment for any disease could anyway be distilled as interference to natural evolution, it is only time that opinion in its favour would ultimately converge! Did It not take five long decades to accept contraceptives and even medical termination of pregnancies, that were once considered highly unethical if not unnatural?
Man is known to manipulate nature for his better living – such as his habitats for comfort (by air conditioning) or various culinary habits to suit his tongue for a better life. By this he has forced pressures on evolution by his fast changing habits. And the fact he has come out reasonably successful, could suggest, even acceptance of gene editing is not far way to become a branch of therapeutic discipline!
The scientific field for gene therapy products is fast-paced and rapidly evolving – ushering in a new approach to the treatment of vision loss, cancer, and other serious and rare diseases. In the future, genetic therapies may be used to prevent, treat, or cure certain inherited disorders, such as cystic fibrosis, alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, hemophilia, beta thalassemia, and sickle cell disease. They also may be used to treat cancers or infections, including HIV.
Here is a case of a Chinese researcher, He Jiankui, who stunned the world recently by announcing he had helped produce genetically edited babies, has been found guilty of conducting “illegal medical practices” and sentenced to 3 years in prison.
In November 2018, he announced that he had modified a key gene in a number of human embryos in a way thought to confer resistance to HIV. The modification might be passed on to the descendants of children born with it. He recruited couples in which the father was infected with HIV and the mother was not. In a talk at the International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong, China, He said he wanted to spare the babies the possibility of becoming infected with HIV later in life.The technique could be used to reduce the HIV/AIDS disease burden in much of Africa, he argued, where those infected often face severe discrimination. Isn’t it a yeoman service to the mankind? But as of now, it is illegal.
As scientists continue to make great strides in this therapy, the regulatory authorities need be committed to helping speed up development by interacting with those developing products and through prompt review of groundbreaking treatments that have the potential to save lives. We have done chosen this approach to beat the covid pandemic.
The other arena of genetic editing is cosmetic in nature – “why should I not look younger, fairer, taller”….. at the extreme it could be even preference for ‘designer babies’ – genetic editing at embryonic level. It is not impossible to visualise a world with ‘only’ intellectuals, well built, living healthy for hundreds of years! Hmmmm… Would a human race without variety be monotonous? It is scientifically not infeasible but would it be desirable?
But for now – Gene therapy for ‘incurables’ is no doubt an option, but a risk that is worth it – but have we not taken riskier option in our evolution??
Why not make it legal and fast track for wide spread research to assure a healthy future?



