Genetic Engineering and CRISPR

Before discussing ethics, we must understand the technology. CRISPR-Cas9 is a molecular tool that acts like 'genetic scissors,' allowing scientists to cut and edit specific sequences of DNA. In bioethics, the most critical distinction is where the edit happens. Somatic modification targets non-reproductive cells (like lung or blood cells). These changes affect only the individual patient and are not passed to offspring. In contrast, germline modification edits embryos, sperm, or eggs. These changes become a permanent part of the human gene pool, affecting every future generation of that person's lineage. While somatic therapy is widely accepted as a medical breakthrough, germline editing remains highly controversial because it alters the 'biological heritage' of humanity without the consent of those affected.

Bioethicists often use the Therapy-Enhancement Distinction to set moral boundaries. Therapy aims to restore 'normal' human functioning by treating diseases (e.g., curing muscular dystrophy). Enhancement aims to improve human traits beyond the healthy norm (e.g., increasing height, memory, or lifespan). Critics argue that 'normal' is a subjective social construct. For example, if we use CRISPR to make someone resistant to malaria, is that a therapy (preventing disease) or an enhancement (improving the natural immune system)? The 'slippery slope' argument suggests that once we allow therapy, we will inevitably slide into creating designer babies, where children are treated as 'products' designed to meet parental preferences rather than autonomous individuals.

Perhaps the most pressing ethical concern is distributive justice. CRISPR technology is expensive. If genetic enhancement becomes a commodity, only the wealthy will afford 'superior' traits for their children. This could create a biological caste system, where the gap between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' is no longer just about bank accounts, but about actual DNA. Imagine a world where $P_{access} < 1$, where $P$ represents the probability of a citizen accessing the technology. If access is tied to wealth, we risk creating a 'genetic underclass' that can never catch up because their disadvantages are encoded in their biology. This challenges the democratic ideal that all people are created equal.