In seventh grade English class, we were each given a metaphorical sum of $100 and the metaphorical task of choosing traits for metaphorical designer babies. A list of ten generalized traits screamed up at us from the assignment sheets, along with the caveats that spending $10 on one trait would ensure our metaphorical baby’s “average condition” of that trait and that spending above a certain amount on one trait was not allowed.

“I want my baby to be crazy attractive,” said some, pooling money into the appearance category. “I want my baby to be super healthy,” chimed others. Others still declared, “I want a genius baby!”

After etching math into the margins of our papers and divvying up metaphorical money among the traits we most valued, we began a discussion. Amidst various arguments in favor of certain traits, one girl raised her hand and said that she had paid for her child to be average in everything.

“But why?” one boy scoffed. “That’s kind of stupid–no offense.”

“But everyone else’s baby is going to be super talented at stuff,” said another girl. “Don’t you want to help your kid?”

The first girl shrugged. “What if I make my kid really artistic, but they grow up and they hate art, and they think they actually like music more, but they suck at it so badly because I only paid $2 on it and put all my money in the art category? Maybe I shouldn’t get to choose who my kid grows up to be. Maybe my kid should decide that.”

I am sure that like me, you, dear reader, don’t remember why we did the metaphorical designer baby assignment in seventh grade English class, and that you, like me, don’t remember what the metaphor was. But when discussing CRISPR, I think it is important that we remember at least doing it.

CRISPR enables humans to edit genetic information quickly and cheaply. It involves an enzyme that can cut genes out from a piece of RNA and put new ones in their place. With the development of this technology comes much excitement; CRISPR might provide humanity with the ability to correct genetic defects or inhibit the transfer of inherited diseases that can so hamper a life. And yet, with this development, there also come voices of concern regarding ethics.

The rise of CRISPR—slow, yet gradual—brings with it many implications, possibilities, and questions—questions we need to discuss as a species before it becomes a Bigger Thing.

Why? Because while CRISPR offers humanity the indispensable opportunity to develop therapies for the likes of HIV and Alzheimer’s, a more distant possibility is the one we so flippantly paid our metaphorical $100 for back in seventh grade: designer babies. This possibility, however far away in our future, already poses pressing questions.

Here at Ridge, Alicia Jen ‘16, aptly dubbed “the Bio Goddess” by her friends, echoes this sentiment. “The recent advancements in gene modification are a huge step in finding treatments for previously incurable genetic conditions,” Jen acknowledges. “However, being as new as it is, there are a lot of issues that researchers, doctors, and the government should consider. I personally hope that the technology won’t be limited to people who can pay a steeper price.”

She brings up a good point. Say the optimal trait combination for Sally’s beautiful, ultra-intelligent, ridiculously talented dream child would cost that metaphorical $100, but Sally doesn’t have nearly enough money to pay for that. Better yet, say that any baby designing at all would cost Sally more than she can afford. And elsewhere, the richer and more fortunate with their scads of metaphorical hundreds can very easily pay for The Perfect Child, resulting in a widening rift between socioeconomic classes.

And then, of course, there’s the philosophy that I-paid-for-my-baby-to-be-average girl set forth in my English class all those years ago: Maybe I shouldn’t get to choose who my kid grows up to be. Maybe my kid should decide that.

I have not yet moved past the “maybe” stage of philosophical musings over the unique ethical dilemmas that CRISPR has presented us with. I hope that we can all soon move past “maybe” before we are faced with the brunt of living within the very ethical dilemma I now write of in the hypothetical.

That being said, such ethical dilemmas should not overshadow the benefits CRISPR brings us, nor should it hinder its further development. As Tim Chen ‘17 explains, “CRISPR is revolutionary. It completely alters the scientific world and makes treatment of the impossible possible.”

CRISPR, if developed right, if used wisely, if wielded by humanity with care, can give many longer, healthier, and overall better lives. And that certainly is revolutionary.

Bibliography:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21661651-new-technique-manipulating-genes-holds-great-promisebut-rules-are-needed-govern-its The Economist article

http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-the-disruptor-1.17673 Nature article