Genetic editing is like playing God – and what´s wrong with that? 12.05.2022
Emma Krebs, 12a
writing a letter to the editor
To whom it might concern,
In Johnjoe McFaddens article ´´Gene editing is like playing God – and what´s wrong with
that? ´´ is genetic editing considered as a revolutionary and universal remedy that can
prevent many diseases and eliminate human suffering. The possibility of easily switching on
or off desirable genes can be a good thing, but is it up to humans to handle all that
almightiness?
I oppose genetic engineering because I regard it as a first step to a dystopian society.
I absolutely agree with the argument that this scientific breakthrough can eliminate human
suffering. The question is if it only will be disease curing. McFadden himself wondered if this
is the slippery slope to a dystopia. I can´t take the approach that it is only necessary to worry
about the consequences when the time has come. Imagining what our children could´ve look
like or what they would be able to if we only gave them our best features is a promising but
also frightening outlook of gene editing. Soon it will be an easy to do that. And that will be
the first step to a dystopian society. Messing around with nature when not even scientists
know what consequences will occur by intervening in the human genome might not be the
best idea.
Moreover, it has always been the case that only the fittest survived through the process of
evolution.
To my mind, our DNA, in contrast with McFadden, is indeed something special that shouldn´t
be played around with by the ignorant.
Furthermore, what makes us unique is our family and what evolution inherited us.
In McFaddens example of the number of babies born with birth defects it is said that this will
cause misery for the child and their family. In comparison to how many people will be
affected by miserably designed baby is this number low.
Most important, just like McFadden mentioned, humans are never flawless, and I think there
´s no need to change that. It might even happen that by genetic editing there will be more
problems and consequences we cannot foresee yet.
We as humans have no right to intervene with nature and our God-given features that last in
our DNA. The creation is not supposed to create. It is proven that one´s DNA is not
unalterable, and it does naturally mutate during one´s life, so there´s no need trying to
change it on purpose during unknown procedures.
To my mind, there´s absolutely no reason to blindly swim through the human gene pool. And
trying to delete the right genes that cause diseases when scientists could do more research
on the treatment of common diseases that affect many people on the whole planet is
definitely not an universal remedy. A pill to swallow is certainly more convincing for society
and more convertible than undergoing a difficult and costly procedure I cannot even imagine
looks like.
Nevertheless, if science was already able to change every gene and, that might be the case
sooner or later, it would do no good due to the creation of a place where only people that
can pay for the procedure can reproduce and decide which features should be passed on
further generations. That would drastically reduce the human diversity and stoke the gap
between rich and poor unimaginable, leading to inequality and discrimination. Who decides
what is ethically acceptable?
Emma Krebs, 12a
writing a letter to the editor
To whom it might concern,
In Johnjoe McFaddens article ´´Gene editing is like playing God – and what´s wrong with
that? ´´ is genetic editing considered as a revolutionary and universal remedy that can
prevent many diseases and eliminate human suffering. The possibility of easily switching on
or off desirable genes can be a good thing, but is it up to humans to handle all that
almightiness?
I oppose genetic engineering because I regard it as a first step to a dystopian society.
I absolutely agree with the argument that this scientific breakthrough can eliminate human
suffering. The question is if it only will be disease curing. McFadden himself wondered if this
is the slippery slope to a dystopia. I can´t take the approach that it is only necessary to worry
about the consequences when the time has come. Imagining what our children could´ve look
like or what they would be able to if we only gave them our best features is a promising but
also frightening outlook of gene editing. Soon it will be an easy to do that. And that will be
the first step to a dystopian society. Messing around with nature when not even scientists
know what consequences will occur by intervening in the human genome might not be the
best idea.
Moreover, it has always been the case that only the fittest survived through the process of
evolution.
To my mind, our DNA, in contrast with McFadden, is indeed something special that shouldn´t
be played around with by the ignorant.
Furthermore, what makes us unique is our family and what evolution inherited us.
In McFaddens example of the number of babies born with birth defects it is said that this will
cause misery for the child and their family. In comparison to how many people will be
affected by miserably designed baby is this number low.
Most important, just like McFadden mentioned, humans are never flawless, and I think there
´s no need to change that. It might even happen that by genetic editing there will be more
problems and consequences we cannot foresee yet.
We as humans have no right to intervene with nature and our God-given features that last in
our DNA. The creation is not supposed to create. It is proven that one´s DNA is not
unalterable, and it does naturally mutate during one´s life, so there´s no need trying to
change it on purpose during unknown procedures.
To my mind, there´s absolutely no reason to blindly swim through the human gene pool. And
trying to delete the right genes that cause diseases when scientists could do more research
on the treatment of common diseases that affect many people on the whole planet is
definitely not an universal remedy. A pill to swallow is certainly more convincing for society
and more convertible than undergoing a difficult and costly procedure I cannot even imagine
looks like.
Nevertheless, if science was already able to change every gene and, that might be the case
sooner or later, it would do no good due to the creation of a place where only people that
can pay for the procedure can reproduce and decide which features should be passed on
further generations. That would drastically reduce the human diversity and stoke the gap
between rich and poor unimaginable, leading to inequality and discrimination. Who decides
what is ethically acceptable?
