The Ethics of Gene Editing

Understanding the line between curing disease and designing humans.

When I first heard about gene editing in biology class, I thought it was science fiction. The idea that humans could actually edit DNA—change the very code that makes us—felt unreal. Then I learned about CRISPR, this weird-sounding technology scientists now use to cut and paste genes like text in a Word document. And that’s when I started thinking: if we can fix genes before a baby is even born, should we?

That question sounds simple, but it’s actually one of the hardest questions in modern science. Because the line between curing a disease and designing a baby is thinner than most people assume.

What Is Genetic Engineering?

Every cell in our body contains DNA, which holds the instructions for how we grow and function. Genes are sections of DNA that tell our cells which proteins to make. When a gene changes or mutates, those proteins can stop working properly, leading to disorders like cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, or sickle cell anemia.

Gene editing means using tools to change that DNA sequence. The most famous tool is CRISPR-Cas9, developed around 2012. According to Nature (2012), CRISPR lets scientists “cut” DNA at a chosen spot and then “repair” or replace it. It’s cheap, fast, and shockingly precise.

Here’s the twist though: there are two main kinds of genetic editing in humans.

• Somatic editing changes genes in the cells of one person. Think of it as treating a disease in an adult or child—it doesn’t pass to their kids.

• Germline editing changes genes in sperm, eggs, or embryos. That means the change is heritable. Every generation after carries the same edit.
  

The germline one is the real ethical storm. Once you edit a future child’s genes, you’re editing the future of humanity in a tiny way.

CRISPR is powerful, but it’s not perfect. Scientists warn about off-target effects, where CRISPR accidentally cuts the wrong part of DNA, and mosaicism, where some cells get edited and others don’t. There’s also the bigger question: we still don’t understand how every gene interacts with others. So a “fix” for one thing could create a new problem decades later.

In 2024, a Springer Ethics in Biology article called CRISPR “a technology with enormous potential and equally enormous uncertainty.” I think that sums it up perfectly.

Why Scientists Want to Use It

Let’s be honest, gene editing can save lives. Imagine a world without inherited diseases. No more cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, or Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Take cystic fibrosis for example. It affects around 40,000 people in the United States alone (Cystic Fibrosis Foundation). The disease causes chronic coughing, shortness of breath, and constant lung infections. Many patients need hours of therapy every day just to clear their airways. Some need lung transplants before age 30.

Now imagine using CRISPR to fix that gene before a baby is born. The child could breathe normally. No more hospital visits. No daily chest therapy. Because the fix is in their DNA, their children would inherit healthy genes too. One precise change could end cystic fibrosis in that family line forever.

Right now, scientists are testing gene editing to prevent diseases that are caused by single-gene mutations. For example, if both parents carry the gene for cystic fibrosis, every child has a 25% chance of inheriting it. Editing that embryo before birth could mean the child never develops it—and neither will their future kids.

This isn’t something that is happening in the future, it is happening right now. In 2023, researchers in the UK used CRISPR to fix a rare blood disorder in embryos in a lab (they weren’t implanted). Studies from the Broad Institute show potential cures for over 6,000 single-gene disorders if CRISPR becomes reliable enough.

This is the part where ethics starts to take over. Because once you can fix something deadly, how do you stop people from fixing something they just don’t like?

When It Crosses the Line

There’s a difference between treating and enhancing. Treating means fixing something broken. Enhancing means changing something that works fine, just not “perfectly.”

When scientists talk about treating genetic disorders, most people agree it’s ethical—if it’s safe. But when people talk about changing height, eye color, or intelligence? That’s where it gets messy.

Some people imagine “designer babies.” You could, theoretically, make a baby taller, stronger, or smarter by editing certain genes. The problem? Those traits aren’t simple. Intelligence alone involves hundreds of genes and tons of environmental factors—nutrition, education, childhood care, etc.

Even worse, it could create social inequality. A 2022 Pew Research survey found that 71% of Americans support gene editing to prevent disease, but only 5% support it for cosmetic or performance reasons.

That’s because it feels unfair. What if only rich families could afford to make “genetically superior” kids? What happens to people born naturally? It sounds like the start of a dystopian movie, but it’s actually a real concern.

And it’s not hypothetical. We’ve already crossed that line once.

The CRISPR Babies

In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui claimed he’d created the first genetically edited babies. Two twin girls—nicknamed Lulu and Nana—were born with altered DNA. He said he edited their embryos to make them resistant to HIV by disabling a gene called CCR5.

The scientific world went crazy.

Turns out, He Jiankui had faked approval documents, misled the parents, and didn’t follow safety protocols. Later studies showed the edits were incomplete and might have caused new mutations. No one even knew if the girls would actually be resistant to HIV.

In 2019, Science Magazine reported that He Jiankui was sentenced to 3 years in prison for illegal medical practices. China immediately passed stricter laws banning reproductive gene editing.

That case changed everything. It made the scientific community realize that the line between “helping” and “experimenting” was much blurrier than anyone wanted to admit.

It’s kind of tragic too. Those twins didn’t choose this. They became global experiments without consent. That’s where ethics hit hardest—because in germline editing, the person affected can’t agree to it.

The Big Ethical Debate

Every major medical decision is supposed to follow four principles:

1. Autonomy – the right to make decisions about your own body.

2. Beneficence – doing good for others.

3. Non-maleficence – “do no harm.”

4. Justice – fairness and equality.

Germline editing clashes with all four.

Autonomy: Future children can’t consent. It’s like making a life-changing decision for someone who doesn’t even exist yet.

Beneficence: You might prevent disease, but if it causes new mutations, was it really “good”?

Non-maleficence: Scientists can’t promise safety yet. CRISPR errors might harm not just one person but generations.

Justice: Only wealthy families could afford genetic modification. That could create a new form of inequality—biological inequality.

And then there’s the disability rights argument. Some activists say trying to “remove” disabilities sends the message that disabled lives are less valuable. For instance, deafness or dwarfism aren’t always seen as illnesses—some see them as part of human diversity. Editing them out feels like erasing identities.

So yeah—it’s complicated.

The Slippery Slope and the Eugenics Shadow

This whole topic also reminds people of the past—especially the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. Back then, governments in the U.S. and Europe forced sterilization on people they considered “unfit,” trying to create a “better race.” That’s what happens when science loses ethics.

Now, even though CRISPR is voluntary, it could lead to a softer version of the same thing: people editing their kids to fit a social ideal. Blue eyes. High IQ. Perfect health. If enough people start doing that, diversity could shrink, and society might treat “unedited” people as less than.

I think this is why so many scientists say, just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.

The Two Sides

Let’s be fair. There are two sides.

The Case For Genetic Engineering

First, the positives.

It can prevent suffering. Around 300,000 babies are born each year with sickle cell disease worldwide (WHO, 2023). Many die before adulthood. If CRISPR could fix that gene safely, millions of lives could improve.

It could also reduce the burden of healthcare. The CDC estimates the lifetime cost of treating cystic fibrosis is over $800,000 per person. If gene editing removed the disease completely, it could save billions globally.

Then there’s the moral side. Some ethicists argue that if we have the power to stop pain and we don’t, we’re being irresponsible. This idea—called the beneficence obligation—suggests we actually have a duty to use gene editing, as long as it’s safe.

And finally, every medical technology starts risky. Heart transplants, in vitro fertilization (IVF), even vaccines—all faced backlash at first. IVF was banned in many places in the 1970s, and now millions of kids owe their existence to it. Maybe gene editing will follow a similar path.

The Case Against

Now, the other side.

The unknowns are massive. CRISPR cuts DNA, but our genome is insanely complex. There are over 20,000 genes, and many interact in ways we still don’t understand. A single change could cause cancer, immune disorders, or even mental illness years later.

Also, ethics moves slower than technology. In 2024, over 75 countries still had no clear regulations for human germline editing (UNESCO Bioethics Report, 2024). That means someone could easily repeat what He Jiankui did.

And then there’s inequality. Gene editing could easily become another way for rich people to buy advantages. If one generation of wealthy families edits their children to be smarter or healthier, that gap could grow exponentially.

As Dr. Jennifer Doudna, one of CRISPR’s inventors, said in her TED Talk: “We are at a point where humans can control evolution. That should terrify us a little.”

What I believe

In my opinion, gene editing is one of the most important and promising breakthroughs in modern science. If humanity can truly master it—and handle the ethical part—it could save millions of lives and completely change how we treat disease. I fully support that future. But I don’t think we’re ready yet.

We still don’t know what long-term effects editing can have, and the line between helping and harming can be crossed too easily. On top of that, most countries don’t have strong or consistent regulations. That makes me think this shouldn’t be a large-scale global experiment yet—it should start in limited, tightly monitored steps.

I think gene editing should be tested on a restricted number of cases—enough to study properly, but small enough to control and learn from safely. These studies should be regulated by an international committee, not by individual countries, so that decisions follow shared safety and ethics standards.

Every edited child should be monitored throughout their lifetime to track health, development, and any genetic effects. Because these are babies—they can’t consent, and one mistake could affect not just their life but their descendants too.

Starting small gives humanity time to create fair global rules and learn what works. If results are positive and consistent, then we can expand responsibly. But right now, patience and global cooperation matter more than speed.

I don’t think we should stop gene editing. I think we should work toward mastering it the right way. The potential is real, but so are the risks—and we can’t afford to get this one wrong.

What Comes Next

Right now, most countries ban germline editing for reproduction. The U.S. forbids it using federal funds. The UK allows embryo research but not implantation. China passed new bioethics laws after 2018.

Still, research continues fast. In 2023, the first CRISPR-based therapy for sickle cell disease (called Casgevy) was approved by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (BBC News, 2023). That’s a huge milestone—it’s not germline, but it proves the tech works.

Scientists are also exploring prime editing, an upgraded version of CRISPR that can “rewrite” DNA letters without cutting. It’s like the spellcheck of genetics. If that becomes reliable, it could reduce off-target risks even more.

But ethics will always need to play catch-up.

As Harvard geneticist George Church said, “We need to ask not only what’s possible, but what’s wise.”

The Final Question

At the end of the day, this debate isn’t really about CRISPR. It’s about us.

Every generation invents something that forces humans to redefine what it means to be human. Fire, printing, the internet—now CRISPR.

The potential is huge: curing diseases, saving lives, even extending lifespan. But the danger is real too: inequality, discrimination, or irreversible mistakes.

Maybe the question isn’t “Should we edit genes?” but “Can we do it with enough wisdom, humility, and empathy?”

Because once we start editing the code of life, there’s no undo button.

And maybe that’s what scares me most.

Works Cited

National Human Genome Research Institute. “Ethical Concerns and Genome Editing.” Genome.gov, National Institutes of Health, 2023, https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns.

“The Pros and Cons of Gene Editing Babies.” The Week, 12 Feb. 2021, https://theweek.com/news/science-health/959606/pros-and-cons-of-gene-editing-babies.

“The CRISPR Babies.” Science History Institute – Distillations Podcast, 2020, https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/distillations-pod/the-crispr-babies.

Powell, Alvin. “Perspectives on Gene Editing.” Harvard Gazette, Harvard University, 24 Jan. 2019, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/perspectives-on-gene-editing.

American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy. “Ethical Issues in Germline Gene Editing.” Patient Education Portal, 2023, https://patienteducation.asgct.org/patient-journey/ethical-issues-germline-gene-editing.

Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. “About Cystic Fibrosis.” CFF.org, 2023, https://www.cff.org/intro-cf/about-cystic-fibrosis.