MORAL DECISIONS ABOUT HUMAN GERM-LINE MODIFICATION

Technologies for human germ-line modification may soon enable humanity to create new types of human beings. Decisions about use of this power entail an unprecedented combination of difficulties: the stakes are immense, the unknowns are daunting, and moral principles are called into question. Evolved morality is not a sure basis for these decisions, both because of its inherent imperfections and because genetic engineering could eventually change humans’ innate cognitive mechanisms. Nevertheless, consensus is needed on moral values relevant to germ-line modification. These values could be based on characteristics of human beings that would remain constant regardless of revised genomes.     

Flashing the Yellow Traffic Light: Choices Forced Upon Us by Gene Editing Technologies

The 2018 birth of two designer babies in China has sparked an immediate global controversy over the ethics of gene editing. For the longer range future, however, we must assess how CRISPR/Cas9, like so many other new bio-technologies, is forcing choice—moral choice—on a large scale. Gene editing for purposes of medical therapy, human enhancement, engineering of future children, and even creating a posthuman species, confront our society with the inescapable necessity of making moral choices. The task for churches in partnership with universities is not to decide in advance what is right or wrong. Rather, it is to prepare our people to make responsible choices.     

“Editing” Genes: A Case Study About How Language Matters in Bioethics

Metaphors used to describe new technologies mediate public understanding of the innovations. Analyzing the linguistic, rhetorical, and affective aspects of these metaphors opens the range of issues available for bioethical scrutiny and increases public accountability. This article shows how such a multidisciplinary approach can be useful by looking at a set of texts about one issue, the use of a newly developed technique for genetic modification, CRISPRcas9.     

Germline Manipulation and Our Future Worlds

Two genetic technologies capable of making heritable changes to the human genome have revived interest in, and in some quarters a very familiar panic concerning, so-called germline interventions. These technologies are: most recently the use of CRISPR/Cas9 to edit genes in non-viable IVF zygotes and Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy (MRT) the use of which was approved in principle in a landmark vote earlier this year by the United Kingdom Parliament. The possibility of using either of these techniques in humans has encountered the most violent hostility and suspicion. However it is important to be aware that much of this hostility dates back to the fears associated with In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and other reproductive technologies and by cloning; fears which were baseless at the time concerning both IVF and cloning the use of both of which have proved to be highly beneficial to humanity and which have been effectively regulated and controlled. This paper argues that CRISPR should by pursued through researh until it is safe enough for use in humans but there is no reason to suppose at this stage that such use will be unsafe or unethical (Collins 2015).     

NAVIGATING THE FUTURE IN A SEA OF CRISPR UNCERTAINTY

Humanity's toolkit for altering the world we live in now includes CRISPR. Through an evolutionary process, bacteria acquired a way to protect themselves from an invading virus, making their immediate future more secure. In human hands, this powerful genome-editing tool offers the potential to impact, at a breathtaking rate, not only our own evolutionary future, but the future of other life on this planet. Ethical concerns about altering genomes are not new, but the birth of two CRISPR gene-edited babies last year created a renewed urgency around navigating the future and the lack of an agreed-upon map to guide us is distressing. The goal of this article is not to provide that map but to suggest two essential questions, drawn from the context of events surrounding CRISPR to date, that should guide its drafting—“Who do we trust?” and “When is it time to act?”—and to consider what Unitarian Universalism might contribute to answering those questions.     

THE CRISPR APPLE ON THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS: CRISPR IN SCIENCE,ETHICS, AND RELIGION

The Institute on Religion in the Age of Science (IRAS) asked Ted Peters, an eminent theologian and bioethicist who was at the forefront of the cloning and stem cell debates in the past few decades, and myself, a molecular biologist, to invite scholars from various fields to brainstorm the religious and ethical implications of the CRISPR revolution. We invited keynote speakers, whose talks will be covered here, as well as other speakers and poster presentations. The conference also hosted question and answer sessions, chaplain sessions, and discussions throughout the week at the beautiful Star Island in the summer of 2019. The purpose of this paper is to highlight and sample the discussions and presentations from that conference. I will organize them into three broad topics: CRISPR in science, ethics, and religion. For readers unfamiliar with CRISPR technology, this overview can also serve as an introduction to the field, and a stepping stone for future ideas for CRISPR discussions.     

Can We Genetically Engineer Virtue and Deification?

In this article we ask: could we speed up the attainment of religious goals such as virtuous living or even deification through genetic engineering? After reviewing current scientific knowledge gained from genetic engineering, it is difficult to answer affirmatively. Because virtuous living is complex and difficult to define, it makes searching for relevant genes difficult. To date, such genes do not appear in the geneticist’s inventory. An additional unknown is the role of free will. Even more important, theologically, is the role of God in leading to our sanctification. This present negative conclusion, however, does not preclude possible future advances in the science of virtue.     

ARE WE CLOSER TO FREE MARKET EUGENICS? THE CRISPR CONTROVERSY

Might the 2018 birth of two designer babies in China write the opening paragraph for the next chapter in the history of eugenics? The worldwide scientific community has tacitly put a moratorium on human clinical application of CRISPR gene editing, waiting until unknown risks can become known. But this ethical agreement has been breached, and calls are now being heard for more rigorous regulations. Perhaps religious and spiritual leaders can join the bioethical chant: the yellow light of caution is flashing.     

Yesterday’s Child: How Gene Editing for Enhancement Will Produce Obsolescence—and Why It Matters

Despite the advent of CRISPR, safe and effective gene editing for human enhancement remains well beyond our current technological capabilities. For the discussion about enhancing human beings to be worth having, then, we must assume that gene-editing technology will improve rapidly. However, rapid progress in the development and application of any technology comes at a price: obsolescence. If the genetic enhancements we can provide children get better and better each year, then the enhancements granted to children born in any given year will rapidly go out of date. Sooner or later, every modified child will find him- or herself to be “yesterday’s child.” The impacts of such obsolescence on our individual, social, and philosophical self-understanding constitute an underexplored set of considerations relevant to the ethics of genome editing.