CRISPR: Gene-Editing as Modern Eugenics

Let’s begin with the first question regarding how has CRISPR-Cas9 manifested as a modern form of eugenics? And well, technological advancements are not inherently bad – except in cases where they wouldn’t assist people to live their lives but would, instead, exclude them. And well, the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology, for which biochemists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, has the potential to do just that. In fact, so do other forms of scientific technologies – thus creating a categorical imperative to always be aware of the ethical choices these technologies can pose.
In the case of CRISPR, those choices are complex. CRISPR has many functions; one of these is the far-reaching, more fraught promise of this technology—one about which scientists seem at once excited and cautious—lies in its ability to eliminate from the gene pool what medical science identifies as faulty or abnormal genes that cause difference in individual people. Certainly, goes the logic of CRISPR’s promise, the goal of ridding future generations of terrible diseases that cause suffering and death and deplete resources, seems an unquestionable enterprise. But Doudna herself has recognized that CRISPR carries with it “great risk.” In a New York Times interview on October 22, 2020, she warned of the unknown consequences of embryo editing, cautioning researchers to wait to use CRISPR for these ends.
Furthermore, a number of disabled individuals and women with genetic differences, in thinking about the consequences that this technology will have for actual human beings, have expressed concerns that the use of these “genetic scissors” will, in the future, cut people like them out of existence without others even noticing. In essence, scientists who use CRISPR could see editing genes such as ours out of the gene pool as entirely uncontroversial. AND, this is where gene-editing is exposed as modern eugenics!
This attitude, inspired by CRISPR, of cutting out genes that are seen to be disadvantageous to the human species, in fact, would be consistent with wider eugenicist views. Their idea that ridding society of genetic differences that count as disease or defect is an undeniable so-called “good” continues to be pervasive in parts of society. For instance, a number of Americans generally see no problem with editing genes linked to broad swaths of people like those with disabillities; after all, supporters of this view may argue, editing out a gene-linked condition is different from editing out a person, and curing disease is an indisputably good thing.
But the genetic conditions of people with disabilities are not simply entities that can be clipped away from them as if they were some kind of a misspelled word or an awkward sentence in a document. But, many Americans—including medical providers and even some people with genetic differences—consider lives such as those of individuals who suffer disabilities as not worth living as they are. This, however, is not compassion – this is establishing a hierarchy among humans, in order to justify calling others a so-called useless or inferior class, and even altering the genes of others. But, here is Jenny Powell, MD exposing that gene editing is merely a rebranded version of eugenics.
GENE-EDITING AS A FALSE PANACEA TO SICKNESS
And now onto the second question on how has gene editing been falsely marketed as a medical panacea? Well, despite these permanent and irreversible threats to a person’s genes, genetic editing is still being falsely marketed as a medical panacea! More specifically, CRISPR-based gene-editing tools are being developed to allegedly correct specific defective sections of the genome to cure inherited genetic diseases, with some applications already in clinical trials.
HOWEVER, there is a catch: under certain conditions, the repair can lead to large-scale deletions and rearrangements of DNA — as in the case of targeting the NCF1 gene in chronic granulomatous disease (CGD). This was reported by a team of researchers and physicians from the ImmuGene clinical research program at the University of Zurich. Their findings have important implications not just for gene editing-based therapy, but also for CRISPR-mediated gene editing of animals and plants, where the same types of large-scale genetic damage could be triggered.
Indeed, because such editing is carried out with much less caution in non-human organisms, the likelihood of such large-scale damage occurring is hugely increased (see below on multiplexing). The study also shows that attempts to avoid these problems by using adaptations of CRISPR gene editing technologies, such as prime and base editing, may not succeed.
For example, research on CGD is among the latest in a series of studies that have repeatedly shown that different types of unintended mutations resulting from gene editing can affect the functioning of multiple gene systems, with potentially damaging consequences. CGD is a rare hereditary disease that affects about one in 120,000 people. The disease impairs the component of the immune system responsible for fighting off infections, which can be life-threatening to the patient. One variant of CGD is caused by the absence of two letters in the DNA base unit gene sequence which codes for the NCF1 protein. This error results in the inability of blood cells known as neutrophils to produce an enzyme complex that plays an essential role in the immune defense against bacterial, yeast, and fungal infections.
Now, in the new study, the research team succeeded in using the CRISPR gene editing system to insert the missing DNA base unit letters in the right place in the NCF1 gene — thereby repairing the genetic defect. Initially, they performed experiments in cultures of human cells containing the defective NCF1 gene. The authors then progressed to experiments using the natural cellular targets for CGD gene therapy — bone marrow stem and progenitor parent cells from CGD patients harboring the defect in the NCF1 gene. (Bone marrow stem cells are the parental cells from which all types of blood cells are produced. This includes red blood cells and immune system cells — for example, T cells, B cells and neutrophils).
HOWEVER, some of the repaired cells now showed new genetic defects affecting large regions of DNA. Entire sections of the chromosome around where the gene editing repair had taken place were missing. These missing sections in some cases stretched over millions of DNA base units, resulting in the loss of many genes – 17 in one instance! There clearly is a significant cost to the use of CRISPR or genetic editing as a medical panacea!
BIBLICAL EUGENICS: 1 PETER 2:9 AND 2 CORINTHIANS 5:17
This brings us to the final question regarding whether there is a good manifestation of eugenics? And for this portion of our discussion, we have to look at the Word of the being who first defined something as good- being God Almighty. And in light of this, there are references to eugenics in the Bible that show us a good manifestation of eugenics. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 5:17, the Apostle Paul provides a critical revelation concerning being a born again Christian; he says “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new”. If you read the book, ‘Now That You’re Born Again’ by the President of Loveworld Incorporated, the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD., you’ll discover that he explains further what this Scripture means.
He writes that (quote) “Now that you have given your life to Jesus Christ, you have made Him the Lord of your life. You are no longer what you used to be. You may still look the same outwardly, but inwardly you are a new person altogether. That is what the Bible says. You are not “one like a new creature”, but “a new creation” – a new species of being that never existed before. You are NOT reformed, refurbished, or renovated; you are a new creation – a new person altogether.” (end quote).
In addition, the Greek word kainos is used in 2 Corinthians 5:17 to describe the concept of “new creation” means “fresh, of a new kind, unused, unworn, unprecedented, novel, unheard of”. This means, through the new birth in Christ, God effectively creates a new spiritual species.
Then secondly, this is also further evidenced in 1 Peter 2:9, where the Apostle Peter says concerning the Church “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light…” What is also emphasised here is a peculiar race of people belonging to God” – showing once again, GOOD eugenics, as orchestrated by God. And this is the fundamental difference that must ne highlighted between worldly practices of eugenics and what God has done through the new birth in Christ: the former is trying to play God, while harming others and propagating an evil agenda – while the latter is God-Himself giving newness in life in Christ.
But, ultimately, despite much legislation that tries to prevent against gene discrimination where genetic editing is practised, there is an ethical, medial and (above spiritual) issue with worldly practises of eugenics – and its history testifies of this.