Hypothetical: Would altering the DNA of an embryo to prevent disease be moral?

[Luke_K]

Let’s say that in the future, medical technology has developed to where scientists can decode a human’s genome when he/she is still a zygote or embryo. They then p(name removed by moderator)oint sections of the genome which cause genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, autism, or predispositions to other diseases. Then, they send in an engineered virus to fix that portion of the person’s DNA so they become healthy. The procedure is very safe, with incredibly rare instances of death of the zygote/embryo.

Is there anything morally wrong with this as a method to cure genetic diseases? Would it be okay if it was used to prevent myopia, or what about baldness? Or would it only be okay for life-threatening conditions, because there is an extremely small chance of killing the person?

 

[Chris258]

This is something I have wondered and argued about before.

On the one hand, sure it’s a great idea to be able to prevent genetic diseases soundly and with very little risk of harm. I have a hard time finding an argument from moral theology on why such an act would be immoral.

And on the other hand, I am not particularly optimistic about the prospect of the human race having the moral maturity to stop this concept from subtly creeping into shadier areas. I wouldn’t be surprised if, over enough decades, people eventually had little qualms over using such genome-altering procedures in a much more cosmetic fashion (increasing chances of higher intelligence, greater responsiveness to physical conditioning, etc).

Unhindered, this development certainly gives me the shivers. There is even a philosophical school called Transhumanism that embraces this development. They hope and argue for a golden age of humanity brought about by technology that can artificially alter human characteristics for the better. I’m not terribly comfortable with such a disregard for the reality of Original Sin.

 

[edwest2]

A careful reading of Church documents shows that ethical and life saving treatments are moral, provided that another life is not harmed.

Current technology for manipulating DNA is primitive but it appears possible that portions of genes will be identified in disease and that these specific genetic sections could be repaired without the use of a virus, which is currently a problem. The scenario I see is snipping out the bad length of DNA and inserting the correct code, or rewriting the correct code by moving the individual parts into their correct positions.

This would happen prior to the embryo phase. It may be possible that a newly fertilized egg could be scanned remotely, looking for out of place sequences. This would require a very rapid process to repair any defects before major division takes place in the soon to be embryo.

Peace,
Ed

 

[GEddie]

I’m all for it, “cosmetic” applications notwithstanding.

Human beings are already risking their life and wellbeing to improve relatively minor conditions. Surgical procedures always risk infection and/or anesthetic complications. Lasers for myopia risk messing up the eyes. Etc, etc, etc.

I see no moral difference between altering the human body by surgical means to improve life, and altering that body’s DNA for the same purpose; indeed, the DNA alteration might be safer and more effective.

DNA is not morally sacrosanct over the body as a whole, except in its generational function. If the hypothetical treatment is applied to somatic (body) cells and not to gonadal cells, this issue would not arise at all.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[Luke_K]

And on the other hand, I am not particularly optimistic about the prospect of the human race having the moral maturity to stop this concept from subtly creeping into shadier areas. I wouldn’t be surprised if, over enough decades, people eventually had little qualms over using such genome-altering procedures in a much more cosmetic fashion (increasing chances of higher intelligence, greater responsiveness to physical conditioning, etc).

Sure, but development in technology always leads to new ways of sinning. Should we not have the internet because it’s a haven for pornography? Should we not have invented synthetic polymers because they’re used in condoms and vanity cosmetic implants? Should we not have developed metallurgy because it’s used to make weapons? Etc.

That being said, I agree that development in the field of genetic engineering has issues on a whole new level.

 

[Alix1912]

I guess this would not be that different from surgeries already done in utero to fix life threatening conditions.

I also agree that there would be a huge temptation to go beyond curing dieseases to tailor making the ideal baby.

 

[GEddie]

I guess this would not be that different from surgeries already done in utero to fix life threatening conditions.

I also agree that there would be a huge temptation to go beyond curing dieseases to tailor making the ideal baby.

Even if they did; if the child’s physical wellbeing is not harmed, why not?

EVERYBODY lives life with a bodyful of physical attributes that they had absolutely no part in choosing. Does it really matter if these attributes are the result of Nature, or the choosing of the parents?

Presumably parents have the child’s future wellbeing in mind. Nature, definitely, does not.

ICXC NIKA.