The idea that we can pre-select humans’ characteristics before they are born is thrilling to doctors and parents alike. Genetic engineering has been around for a long time, however, so far it has been an extremely expensive, inaccurate and unscalable process. With the emergence of technologies like CRISPR, genetic engineering has the power to change the world as we know it, in a way that we think will be a net negative for society. In a world where people already compete with unequal opportunities, we believe that genetically engineering babies will create an unequal start that will further increase inequality to unsalvageable levels.
Assessment of Impact on Society
Genetic engineering is not an evil field. By deleting mutations before birth, it has the power to eliminate potentially fatal and debilitating illnesses, saving and improving many people’s lives. The case for wanting our children to be healthy is indisputable. Beyond improving lives, it would have positive ripple effects on society, easing the strain on the healthcare system, increasing productivity, and creating more equal opportunities for people by removing the physical, emotional, and financial obstacles of illness.
However, gene editing now allows us to easily cross the line from disease prevention to human enhancement. Our advanced knowledge of the genome sequence now allows us to identify genes such as height, eye and skin color, predictors of IQ, physical fitness, and personality traits. Meanwhile, CRISPR Cas9 allows us to recognize and target any piece of DNA and to make precise changes accurately and inexpensively. This means we can now easily pre-select non-health characteristics of unborn babies.
Parents inherently want the best for their kids, not just in terms of health. They want their kids to be smart, talented, creative, kind etc., primarily because these are traits that our society values and rewards. As happens with most technological innovations, in the next 10 years, gene editing will be expensive and thus only available to a small segment of the population, i.e. the current elite. If left unregulated, for at least several years some people will be able to have genetically “superior” kids that will be competing with an unfair advantage in a society that rewards and promotes the best. This structure of society also creates a disincentive to democratize this technology, because people inherently want to have an advantage over others.
Gene Editing Will Exacerbate Inequality
We believe that the ability to pick such traits is problematic for society because it exacerbates inequality. Firstly, today we assume that were it not for unequal opportunities, all people are genetically equally able to succeed in life. What separates social classes today are historical and systemic inequalities, which with a certain level of effort and luck can be overcome. However, with gene editing social mobility will be impossible, as extreme differences, e.g. in strength and IQ, will be impossible to overcome with effort. Secondly, certain groups will not only have a harder time climbing up but will also be marginalized. Beyond good health there is no universal agreement over which traits are “desirable.” We favor certain traits because of biases. For instance, there is no scientific reason why being taller is more desirable, yet many people would prefer a taller child if given the option. In this example, shorter people would be marginalized and the same could happen with people with lower IQ, certain skin colors, etc. In its extreme form, this marginalization could create a new wave of racism and social marginalization. Historically, regulation has always lagged technology as we have seen in plenty of examples of businesses we interact with daily. Uber has opened many debates on labor laws, Airbnb is challenging governments on city zoning and property taxes, and blockchain requires regulators to draw a fine line between innovation and inclusion in the financial system, and the risk inherent in decentralization and deregulation.
Additionally, corporations usually command vast resources to draft regulation in their favor through lobbying and industry associations that have access to regulatory bodies and governmental organizations. It is human nature to fight for self-interest, and the current economic system is designed based on this assumption.
If we make the parallel between industries that exist today, and gene editing, it is easy to conclude that regulation will also lag. The people who got a head start will reap the advantages of the technology and be incentivized to influence regulations in their favor, exacerbating the social divide that already exists. The probability of such a dystopian outcome depends on what actions society will take today. We believe that unless some overarching principles, and enforceable mechanisms are defined fast, there is a high chance of a societal system similar to the caste system that prevailed in India for more than 3,000 years.
Historically, social mobility in caste systems has been difficult to achieve because of a virtual subjective divide that categorizes each person from birth. However, under a “gene editing caste system”, social mobility would be impossible because the generic characteristics and abilities of each class would be objectively different, and each individual would be “designed” to perform tasks specific to his/her caste.
Mitigation
To mitigate these risks, regulation needs to precede technology this time. Some overarching principles need to be designed on the following three fronts:
- Access needs to be guaranteed for everyone to avoid the problems with inequality and marginalization mentioned through this document.
- Usage needs to be authorized only for disease prevention and not for human enhancement, but to do this, we must establish a robust scheme to assess what area each “modification” falls under, potentially through a special panel of doctors, judges, sociologists etc.
- Repercussions must be enforced to curb bad behavior. Here we are proposing criminal charges to all parties involved (parents, doctors, people with knowledge of the situation, etc.) that cannot be settled via fines, so that most people comply with the law.
If we can lay out such a regulation, we could reap the benefits of the technology and have a society of healthy individuals, while minimizing the risks of extreme inequality.
0 Comments