The Promise of CRISPR for Human Germline Editing and the Perils of “Playing God”

Abstract

In the midst of the media and professional exuberance regarding the potential benefits of CRISPR technology, voices of criticism and caution have also arisen. One of the thorniest such cautions has been the common objection that CRISPR allows bioscientists to ''play God,'' particularly when it comes to potentially editing the human germline. Many in the biotechnology field are unsure how to address this concern. What does it mean, particularly for bioscientists who may not have any rational or rhetorical categories for God? In this article, I explore possible meanings of ''playing God'' and the arguments for how those meanings might be applied in the utilization of CRISPR technology for human germline editing. I then test the validity of those arguments and explore potential counterarguments. Finally, I discuss how members of the bioscience community might respond to the objection of ''playing God'' and contribute to that dialogue in ways that could impact the future of CRISPR development and applications.

You can't keep a bad idea down: Dark history, death, and potential rebirth of eugenics

“…Despite the general lack of coercive methods in modern western medicine, the slippery‐slope from ideas of human improvement to a new era of eugenics is not theoretical, we have seen it play out before, as the >6.5 million dead in the Holocaust attests. The initial shock and fear of He's 'CRISPR babies' was short‐lived and though human GGE is still not currently accepted practice, it is only a matter of time; the details of technical delivery, safety, ethics, access and equity, oversite and regulation, as well as other issues are currently being discussed, debated, and decided (Adashi & Cohen, 2020a, 2020b; Adashi et al, 2020; Arguedas‐Ramírez, 2020; Baylis et al, 2020; Charo, 2019; Davies, 2019; J. H. Evans, 2021; Friedmann, 2019; Gabel & Moreno, 2019; Greely, 2019; Hildebrandt & Marron, 2018; Howell et al, 2020; Isa et al, 2020; Jasanoff & Hurlbut, 2018; Jasanoff et al, 2019; Locke, 2020; Marchant, 2021; Peters, 2019; Ranisch, 2019; Townsend, 2020; Turocy et al, 2021; Wolf et al, 2019). Will we continue to pursue the Asilomar‐style discussions and debates, even expanded to include a broader assemblage of stakeholders (i.e., representatives of all of humanity!)?…”

Novel CRISPR–Cas Systems: An Updated Review of the Current Achievements, Applications, and Future Research Perspectives

“…In this unalluring scenario, a future society is divided into two main groups: the rich and healthy, and the poor and sick. Even if the uncertainty and risk associated with human genome editing could be minimized to an acceptable level, there are still several questions about whether it is ethically and legally justified to transfer these genetic modifications to future generations [ 257 , 258 , 259 ].…”

CRISPR-Cas and Its Wide-Ranging Applications: From Human Genome Editing to Environmental Implications, Technical Limitations, Hazards and Bioethical Issues

“…Critics have expressed concerns that this approach would generate the need for a reflection on the ethical, social and legal implications of these techniques and their implementation in society. Fears that scientists may one day start “playing God” are not new after all: decades ago, in vitro fertilization (IVF) has been harshly criticized by many as “unnatural” or taking on prerogatives that do not belong to men [ 139 , 140 , 141 ]. IVF techniques are still morally and ethically controversial and often restricted, as are fertility preservation procedures capable of prolonging the time frame in which parenthood is achievable [ 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 ].…”