CRISPR-Cas9: Recap of March 2022 Discussion

Dream of a future in which physical traits are customizable, illness is ‘curable,’ and the biosphere is strengthened against climatic changes. With CRISPR-Cas9, this future may not be as distant as you’re imagining. Linked to this post is the complete discussion outline for our March 7th discussion on CRISPR-Cas9 at the North Hill Retirement Community. Excerpts have been copied from the document, including the list of articles distributed to the residents prior to the discussion and a list of some of the questions we discussed together. To learn more about my thoughts and takeaways from this topic, feel free to refer to my research paper “The Promise and Perils and CRISPR-Cas9” that is also linked to this post.

A curriculum is created for each discussion, which includes articles to distribute to the residents beforehand, a lesson to introduce the topic at the start of the discussion, and discussion questions to facilitate resident participation and engagement. Linked to this post is the complete discussion outline for our March 7th discussion on CRISPR at the North Hill Retirement Community. Below are excerpts from the document, including the list of articles distributed to the residents prior to the discussion and a list of some of the questions we discussed together.

Articles distributed in advance to residents:

Once Science Fiction, Gene Editing Is Now a Looming Reality

Is Crispr the Next Antibiotic?

W.H.O. Experts Seek Limits on Human Gene-Editing Experiments

Discussion questions:

1. Is germline editing sparing future generations from suffering or is it morally wrong to alter their genome without their consent?

2. How do we decide when genetic editing crosses the border from healthcare/therapy to eugenics?

3. Regulations on germline editing will eventually differ from country to country, so what do we do about CRISPR tourism, i.e. citizens traveling to other countries for treatment?

4. Would the editing of certain diseases or disabilities lead to stigmatization of people who are living with those conditions/illnesses? Example: open trials evaluating gene therapy to reverse cochlear damage.

5. Who should decide which diseases or disabilities can or should be edited?

6. Most people agree that we should balance the risk against the reward when deciding whether to employ CRISPR. However, as technology progresses and the risks of using CRISPR lessen, the threshold for using CRISPR will also lessen, making it almost inevitable that society will inch closer to genetic enhancement and eugenics. How do we create a robust set of guidelines in order to avoid this outcome?

7. Scientists around the world are calling for a moratorium on germline modifications, during which the distinction between correction and genetic enhancement could be debated. In this context, a correction is defined as an edit that addresses a specific mutation strictly for therapeutic medical purposes, while an enhancement improves an individual’s “memory or muscles, or [confers] entirely new biological functions, such as the ability to see infrared light or break down certain toxins." Do you agree or disagree with this distinction? If you disagree, how would you adjust it?

8. How do we prevent genome editing from being accessible primarily to the wealthy and from widening existing disparities in health care?

Refer to our "resources" page to find relevant books, videos, documentaries, and more related to this topic!

Full discussion outline document:

CRISPR Discussion.odt

Download ODT • 25KB