Carter 1

Sophie Carter

Professor Frances McCue

Honors 205

25 October 2017

In Search of the Perfect Genome

July 26, 2017: Researchers at Oregon Health and Science University complete the first

attempt to alter the genome of a human embryo in American history. This comes mere months

after the first baby was born with three genetic parents, two years after scientists in China

attempted the genetic alteration of a human embryo, and six years after CRISPR, the bacterial

“scissors” used to piece together all of the aforementioned genes, was discovered. The speed at

which this technology is progressing outpaces the process of government regulation, leaving a

dangerous amount of responsibility in the hands of the scientists developing it. Regulation of

human genetic alteration and delineation of its place in society are critical to controlling the

trajectory of this science and of established social and economic systems themselves. Gene

editing, both for cosmetic and for non-life-threatening medical purposes, should be nationally

banned on the basis of its potential socioeconomic impacts.

Where does the story of human genetic modification begin and end? In the case of a

genetically-edited embryo, it begins with selection for ideal characteristics. Parents want a child

free of genetic disabilities and mental health conditions, optimized for maximum physical and

cognitive development, and of course, beautiful. The child is optimized to these standards, and

grows up healthy, the fittest and brightest in her class, and of course, the most classically

beautiful. She is afforded the opportunity to compete in cross-country, becoming the captain of
 Carter 2

her team, maintains an impeccable GPA, maintains strong friendships, and is lauded and

respected by her peers and teachers.

In all likelihood, however, this is not an opportunity available to all prospective parents;

the wealthiest class will be able to afford the alteration of their child or children, granting them

an advantage over the unaltered-- the middle-class and the poor. These socioeconomic groups

would be genetically predisposed to be less cognitively and physically inclined to succeed,

resulting in a class of high physical and cognitive disability rates, high stigma, and lower average

achievement relative to their wealthier counterparts. Unlike in evolutionary history, modern

humans have a class-status structure that prevents much genetic crossover (inter-partnering)

between individuals of the upper, genetically-enhanced class and the lower, genetically-natural

class(es), resulting in continued polarization between the genomes of these two dichotomous

“geno-economic” groups.

In the scheme of a capitalist system, “products” (in this case, genetic alterations) would

generally lose value until they were accessible to the majority of consumers, over which time

new products would be introduced and the cycle would continue. In this case, however, those

granted genetic modifications would be highly advantaged: they, like the cross-country-star in

the earlier example, would be chosen from birth to have more opportunities in elementary school

and high school, leading to better college choices and thus higher-paying job prospects, thereby

maintaining or increasing their class status. The disadvantaged, unmodified child, meanwhile, is

outperformed no matter their inherent talent for sports or their determination in school, destined

from birth to be stationary, or even plummet down our prized socioeconomic ladder. The

unregulated expansion of human genetic-editing technologies would establish a “GenRich”1

1
Athanasiou, Tom and Marcy Darnovsky. "The Genome as a Commons." World Watch, vol. 15, no. 4, Jul/Aug
2002, p. 33. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7198353&site=ehost-live.
 Carter 3

class that would be inherently dominant over others, making the further stratification of the

upper-class from the middle and lower socioeconomic classes inevitable and permanent. At this

time, the kind of advances necessary to make targeted genetic modifications available for

widespread consumer use are still pending, but this capitalist market won’t let developments in

human genome editing go unmonetized forever.

Taking a more individualistic perspective, it would seem as though banning genetic

modifications would be inhibitory to maximizing the quality of one’s life: if science is able to

reduce the stigma a person will face in daily life, then it is difficult to argue that they should have

to suffer for the benefit of society, especially in a culture as individualistic as that of the United

States. However, recalling that parents would have to be able to afford “gene therapy”, as it is

known for medical conditions, the freedom to eradicate an embryo’s negative genetic

predispositions only exists for the wealthy; the freedom to choose health would only exist for the

upper-class, and that is not adequate. If it is morally irresponsible to withhold a scientific cure

from the wealthy, then it is morally irresponsible to withhold it from the poor. Therefore, it is

morally irresponsible to view and capitalize on gene alteration as a product.

Further, though it is argued that gene alteration prevents stigma and other hardships faced

by those with physical or cognitive health conditions, the implications of eradicating disability

and health conditions for only one individual or one class does not target the root of the problem;

that is, if the goal is shielding people from social and cultural stigmas because they inhibit a

person’s ability to persevere and achieve, we should be trying to eradicate those stigmas from

our culture rather than eradicate their victims. Arguably, however, we as a society may never be

able to fully alter the way that we perceive difference, especially in terms of disability or

deformity.
 Carter 4

Perhaps, despite the implications of creating public policy on the matter (the ensuing

debate regarding the expansion of government regulations), it seems as though the solution that

falls between the immorality of withholding available, life-altering technology and making said

technology exclusively available to those who can afford it is to nationalize the market. The

equalization of access to modification would be able to prevent “geno-economic” stratification

while allowing gene therapy, under which children could be born healthier and better shielded

from harsh stigmas, and the disabilities, health issues, and other predispositions would

presumably be eradicated as older generations are replaced with the younger. Though this is an

enticing possibility, it does not offer a solution to two ultimate consequences, the first being that

racial biases exist outside of class biases, meaning that even if all people have access to gene-

editing technology, it is likely that, in order to conform to social norms and avoid negative

stigma, parents may select for racially caucasian features. This outcome would perpetuate

stigmas and racial biases that Americans should be working to eliminate. Like I suggested earlier

regarding “unnattractive” characteristics or even deformities and disabilities, we as a society

should be actively working to alter their biased perceptions in order to see individuals beyond

those appearance-based judgements as opposed to eliminating the stigmatized feature, which

condones the behavior of stigmatization.

A nationalized and accessible system for genetic modification also fails to prevent the

uniformity to which gene-editing likely leads. Though ideally American culture would embrace

physical variations among people, standards of beauty exist, and similar standards would be

worked toward by a majority of parents if allowed to modify their future children. This would

alter the American genome to a majority of people fitting this standard; for example, many

parents may alter their children to a particular body type, and based on cultural standards of
 Carter 5

beauty, that type would likely be tall and slender. As these modifications progress, there will be

very little genetic variation in the genome. This, further, poses two issues: first, humans, like all

other species, need genetic variation. Genetic differences within a population allow humans to

survive and evolve through different environments over time and teach scientists how we can

cure and prevent disease and other hardships within our species. Secondly, variation among us as

individuals within a population is valuable in itself: it may be cliché, but variation among the

human population is what maintains creativity, the ability to step into differing perspectives that

you and I are able to do considering these arguments right now. Differences allow for progress

and innovation in art, science, and nearly every other discipline. Variation among our genes is

reflective of variations in our experience, our perspectives, and our abilities, and you cannot

maximize your personal reality or its value; in fact, personal and social reality can be enhanced

through variation and hardship and the infuriatingly slow process of individual and cultural

evolution. We cannot subject ourselves to innate methods of unification without subjecting

ourselves to the inherent devaluing of our contributions to others and our societies and ourselves

as individuals. Stop attempting to equalize by striving toward homogeneity, but value the

frustrating unpredictability and creative potential of diversity.