Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Editorial - Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology (2024) Volume 7, Issue 5

Bioethics in the Age of CRISPR: Gene Editing and Its Societal Impacts

Klaus Müller*

Department of Biochemical Research, University of Heidelberg, Germany

*Corresponding Author:
Klaus Müller
Department of Biochemical Research
University of Heidelberg, Germany
E-mail: kmueller@uni-heidelberg.de

Received: 04-Oct-2024, Manuscript No. AABB-24-149582; Editor assigned: 05-Oct-2024, Pre QC No. AABB-24-149582 (PQ); Reviewed: 18-Oct-2024, QC No. AABB-24-149582; Revised: 24-Oct-2024, Manuscript No. AABB-24-149582 (R); Published: 30-Oct-2024, DOI:10.35841/aabb-7.5.224

Citation: Schneider M. Informed Consent in Clinical Research: Navigating Ethical Dilemmas. J Biochem Biotech 2024; 7(5):224

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology

Introduction

The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 technology has revolutionized the field of genetics, allowing for precise and efficient gene editing in various organisms, including plants, animals, and humans. This powerful tool has the potential to address pressing challenges in medicine, agriculture, and biotechnology. However, the rapid development of CRISPR technology raises significant bioethical questions regarding its implications for society, human identity, and the natural world [1].

CRISPR technology offers unprecedented opportunities for innovation in genetic engineering. In medicine, it holds the potential to cure genetic disorders, such as sickle cell disease and muscular dystrophy, by correcting mutations at their source. In agriculture, CRISPR can enhance crop resilience to climate change, pests, and diseases, contributing to food security. These applications underscore the promise of CRISPR technology to address some of the world's most pressing challenges while improving the quality of life for many individuals [2].

One of the most contentious issues surrounding CRISPR is its application in human germline editing, which involves modifying the genes of embryos. This raises ethical dilemmas about the potential for "designer babies" and the long-term consequences of altering human genetics. Critics argue that germline editing could exacerbate social inequalities and lead to unintended genetic consequences that may affect future generations. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that it offers the possibility of eradicating hereditary diseases, fundamentally altering the landscape of human health [3].

Informed consent is a crucial aspect of bioethics, particularly in the context of gene editing. Participants in research involving CRISPR technology must fully understand the risks, benefits, and ethical implications of their involvement. However, informed consent becomes complicated when considering germline editing, as future generations cannot consent to the changes made to their genetic makeup. This raises questions about parental rights, autonomy, and the ethical responsibilities of researchers in balancing potential benefits with the rights of future individuals [4].

The environmental implications of CRISPR technology are another significant concern. Gene editing in crops can lead to unintended ecological consequences, such as the potential for gene flow between modified and wild species. The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into ecosystems may disrupt existing ecological balances and threaten biodiversity. Ethical considerations must guide the use of CRISPR in agriculture, emphasizing the need for comprehensive environmental assessments before releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment [5].

The rapid advancement of CRISPR technology raises concerns about equity and access. As gene editing becomes more integrated into healthcare, disparities may arise between those who can afford access to these innovative treatments and those who cannot. This inequity could exacerbate existing health disparities, raising ethical questions about justice and fairness in the distribution of medical advancements. Policymakers must consider how to ensure equitable access to CRISPR-based therapies, particularly for marginalized and underserved populations [6].

Effective regulation and oversight are essential for ensuring the responsible use of CRISPR technology. National and international guidelines must be established to address the ethical implications of gene editing, particularly in human germline modifications. Regulatory frameworks should involve interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and the public to ensure that ethical considerations are integrated into research and clinical applications [7].

Public perception plays a vital role in shaping the ethical landscape of CRISPR technology. Misinformation and fear surrounding gene editing can hinder public acceptance and understanding of its potential benefits. Engaging the public in open dialogues about the implications of CRISPR is essential for fostering informed decision-making. Educational initiatives that address misconceptions and highlight the ethical considerations surrounding gene editing can empower individuals to participate in discussions about its societal impacts [8].

As CRISPR technology continues to advance, the field of bioethics must evolve to address emerging challenges. Ethical frameworks must be adaptable, reflecting the rapidly changing landscape of genetic engineering. Ongoing research and discussions about the ethical implications of gene editing will be necessary to ensure that technological advancements align with societal values and ethical principles. A proactive approach to bioethics in the age of CRISPR can help guide responsible innovation and promote the welfare of individuals and society as a whole [9].

Ongoing discussions about the boundaries of acceptable use are crucial to navigate the ethical landscape of CRISPR technology. This article explores the bioethical considerations associated with CRISPR and its societal impacts. By fostering open dialogue and collaboration among diverse stakeholders, society can harness the benefits of CRISPR while ensuring responsible practices that reflect our collective values [10].

Conclusion

The emergence of CRISPR technology has opened new frontiers in genetics, offering potential solutions to some of humanity's most pressing challenges. However, it also raises significant bioethical questions that must be carefully considered. Balancing the promise of gene editing with ethical considerations related to human rights, environmental impact, equity, and public perception is essential for navigating the complex landscape of CRISPR technology.

References

  1. Berg J. The e-health revolution and the necessary evolution of informed consent. Ind Health L Rev. 2014;11:589.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Lander ES. The heroes of CRISPR. Cell. 2016;164(1):18-28.

    3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Lewis MS. How Analogizing Socio-Legal Responses to Organ Transplantation Can Further the Legalization of Reproductive Genetic Innovation. SMU L Rev. 2021;74:665.

    4. Google Scholar

  4. Gupta D, Bhattacharjee O, Mandal D, et al. CRISPR-Cas9 system: A new-fangled dawn in gene editing. Life Sci. 2019;232:116636.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. National Academies of Sciences. Human genome editing: science, ethics, and governance. National Academies Press. 2017.

    6. Google Scholar

  6. Santas G. CRISPR and The Ethics of Gene Editing: A Modest Framework for Discussion. Int J Clin Res Trials. 2023;4(2).

    7. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. de Araujo M. Editing the Genome of Human Being: CRISPR-Cas9 and the Ethics of Genetic Enhancement. J Eth Emerg Tech. 2017;27(1):24-42.

    8. Google Scholar

  8. Gouw AM. Challenging the therapy/enhancement distinction in CRISPR gene Editing. 2018:493-508.

    9. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  9. Ormond KE, Mortlock DP, Scholes DT, et al. Human germline genome editing. Am J Hum Genet. 2017;101(2):167-76.

    10. Google Scholar

  10. Gusmano MK, Kaebnick GE, Maschke KJ, et al. Public deliberation about gene editing in the wild. Hastings Cent Rep. 2021;51:S2-10.

    11. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App