Gene therapy, a medical treatment involving the alteration or replacement of genes, has the potential to revolutionize cancer treatment, cure hereditary diseases, and even end lactose intolerance. Scientists are working to develop treatments using CRISPR-Cas9 and other gene-editing methods that have already demonstrated successes. Yet, despite the potential that these technologies have to make our lives easier and safer, there’s a catch. Or rather, there are a few catches.
Let’s start with the most obvious. Gene modification is hazardous. That’s why most of these studies are being conducted ex vivo—outside of the people whose cells are being experimented on. We have reason to be scared. About twenty years ago, one patient died due to the immune system attacking the viruses used to deliver payloads of genes to human cells in gene therapy. In all fairness, there is reason to believe that new viruses developed for gene therapy are much safer, the immune reaction is still a large worry for scientists currently working in the field. But the danger doesn’t stop when the DNA is delivered. If something like CRISPR is used to modify one’s genome, problems could arise where certain edits are made incorrectly or even randomly, causing cancer. This cancer, even if subjected to round after round of treatment, will not be curable due to the permanence of the genome modification. Researchers are working to create technologies that minimize these risks, of course, but the risks are still there.
What might be scarier, though, is how gene therapy doesn’t stop at one generation. Gene modification has the potential to permanently modify sperm and egg cells, passing these dangers on through generations. While some of these changes might be positive, they may also reify harmful perspectives. For example, there are genes that have been associated with a higher IQ, but does modifying the genetic material of the unborn to ensure that they meet conventional societal standards of intelligence not reinforce that those with lower IQ values are somehow inferior? And will these technologies be used to ensure that future children meet our beauty standards, similarly to the thousands of people who receive plastic surgery to give themselves double eyelids to meet western standards of what a woman ought to look like?
These are valid concerns raised by advocates who, while acknowledging the potential for genetic modification to revolutionize healthcare, also believe that it could come at a cost. At what point, if any, will this medical advancement do more harm than good?
*The author of this article has family members that have worked for companies developing products using gene modification technology for medical treatment purposes
Comments