I have not updated my blog in way too long. It's not that I didn't have things I want to say but somehow when I try to get down to writing it, it just seems like I don't have the mood to do it, it ends up half assed and I scrap it. Plus it kinda feels like I was just talking about topics that I had already mentioned before and I didn't want to sound like I'm just super hung up on it so it's just better that I didn't write it. Was a hectic few weeks anyway, and spent most of my free time in League, which is taking up so much of my time that I might actually quit again. But that's not what I came here to talk about, so let's get to it.
So in case you don't know what the title means, it's CRISPR, which is basically a form of gene modification. What it does in simple terms is using an engineered virus, replace sections of your gene code with one that is desired. What that means is if you're at a genetic propensity for violent behaviours, cancers, obesity, mental illnesses, low IQ, anything that is considered a negative, you can cut those sections of your genes out and have them replaced with another section of DNA designed for you. This is a permanent change too. No need to keep taking drugs, no relapse. It's permanent. Done once, it's done forever. Sounds like a great thing right? You're able to design your own genetic code, change your destiny. Suddenly you can prevent the deaths of so many people. Scared to reproduce for fear of passing on your propensity for genetic diseases? Well now you don't have it (the propensity for genetic diseases, I mean, sucks if you already had it but I doubt it'll cure it if you already have it) and neither will your children, and their children's children.
Ah, but that's exactly the problem. Scientists are unwilling to allow CRISPR to be used on humans for that very reason. Who's to say that your children and your children's children would be accepting of the idea of CRISPR? Who's to say that they won't be some God fearing person that views your choice as blasphemy, defiling the creation of God? It's just one example, but the point is that they might not accept the effects of CRISPR, which lives on in your genetic code and that of all your offspring. You're making a choice that will potentially affect thousands, if not millions, of people. Which is why they're not allowing the use of CRISPR on humans on ethical grounds.
But is preventing us from preventing a now preventable genetic disease from affecting our progeny ethical? I am tempted to say that there are some situations where for the collective good, individual human rights can and should be thrown aside. If you think me a monster for harbouring such thoughts, think of vaccinations. Most every neonate is given a shot soon after they were birthed. Were they given choice in this? Could they have consented? No, they could not, and consent was given either by law or by its parents. What CRISPR could provide is a means to permanent vaccination against various genetic dispositions that could adversely affect the lives of our offspring. Is it ethical to indirectly allow them to die from something we could have easily prevented in our lifetime? CRISPR can not only save lives, it can help create them where none might have come.
Of course, CRISPR can also be used for cosmetic purposes, which is where I stop my support for it. Sure it's great to have beautiful people running around everywhere, but for people who can't afford such luxuries, what of them and their offspring? It creates a class boundary clearly defined by socioeconomic statuses and sexual appeal. The rich would be beautiful and the poor, well, mostly "ugly". Just one example of perhaps many such situations that could arise from the proliferation of CRISPR. Just watch Gataca to know what I mean.
Perhaps that's why they've decided not to allow it. It's not up to me to decide, but if it were, I'd only allow the use of CRISPR for altering genetic disabilities only.
