Gene editing already has a bewildering array of human benefits: re-creating genetic diseases in animals which help create new drugs; making hardier crops, designing human cells that are resistant to HIV, and creating genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes that cannot spread malaria.

On February 1st it was announced that the Crick Institute would be licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority (HFEA) to experiment on gene editing of human embryos. Recall that wasted embryos are discarded after IVF treatment – and so they exist for potential experimentation. The Times leader today comments: “the decision has the potential to reveal the mysteries of the first hours of human life’ with beneficial results, for example, in the research into the causes of miscarriage (suffered by 25% of women) or multiple miscarriages (suffered by 1% of mothers).

The technique known as CRISPR/Cas9 was first pioneered on mice in the USA. In the licence the HFEA specifies that only wasted embryos in IVF treatment may be used, and that they can only live for the 7 days during which 250 cells are generated. We are talking therefore about very early human life and the aim is to see whether gene editing actually works in human form. There are four moral arguments we need to assess.

1. Slippery Slope

Christian Action on research and Education (CARE) CEO Nola Leach writes: “This decision opens the door to full blown eugenics and you have to wonder where it will stop”. The argument here is that even though the creation of a genetically modified baby is outlawed, it is inevitable that it will occur one day.

Slippery slope is actually an empirical argument about consequences. Its says in effect that once the slide happens (one thing is legalised) it is inevitable that some thing awful will happen (designer babies). But presented thus the argument is itself a fallacy. Just because I like a drink it doesn’t follow I will end up as an alcoholic.

2. Unintended consequences

This is an argument about probabilities and the likelihood of the unforeseen. All scientific advances have unintended consequences. The question is: is the risk worth the likely benefit?
Jennifer Doudna, the inventor Crispr-Cas9, concedes this is an important question: “It’s a very exciting time, but as with any powerful technology, there is always the risk that something will be done either intentionally or unintentionally that somehow has ill effects.”

Is the argument a strong one? I don’t think so: as long as we have strong regulatory authorities and harsh penalties for those who transgress, then the unintended consequences (especially with early embryo research) are likely to be mild.

3. The sanctity of human life

Two verses are normally quoted from the Bible: Genesis 1:26 and Psalm 139:16. We are made in God’s image and we are fearfully and wonderfully made. Sometimes the fact that God ‘ordains our days’ seems to be used to argue that we should have hands off policy to all medical research. But this is I think philosophically absurd: just because God ordains our days doesn’t mean we don’t fight hard to eliminate the ZIKA virus now deforming babies in Brazil.

Again CARE makes a slightly different point from these verses:

“There are numerous challenges facing us in a culture in which medical advances are constant and a desire for autonomy and championing of individualism take the place of togetherness and dependence upon one another”.

So they appeal to a two moral values: the ‘good’ of togetherness and the ‘good’ of depending on one another. But surely the medical researcher can be inspired by just those same values as they edit a gene trying to find insights into the horror of multiple miscarriages?

4. Discrimination issues

The argument goes that gene editing opens the way to further discrimination against those with disabilities, who will increasingly be seen as second class human beings. I quote CARE again: “Editing the human gene also gives the impression to people with disabilities that they should not have been born which is a highly disturbing signal to send to anyone in a civilised society. We have the utmost sympathy for those who struggle with infertility but we would encourage alternative options such as adoption rather than editing human embryos.”

Now we can agree that having gradations of moral worth is intrinsically evil without accepting that gene editing will head in this direction. As an empirical fact: the modification of malarial mosquitoes does not mean we look down on those with malaria, nor does the prospect of eliminating miscarriages mean we look down on the miscarrying mother. Rather, we are motivated by compassion for them and even empathy for their plight.

As it happens, I am against genetic editing of embryos but for a quite different reason. I believe that the obsession with perfectionism is ruining our quest for fulfilment and wasting huge amounts of public money that could be much better spent elsewhere. My argument against is one of moral pragmatism and against the mythology of progress. We are children of the Enlightenment and sometimes the worldview we inhabit is morally flawed and makes us all deeply miserable. Please add your own comments below to this highly relevant subject for your exam!

Further:

On Miscarriages

CARE website