Scientists have been manipulating DNA for decades, but early genetic-manipulation techniques were slow, expensive and geared to individual species.
Enter CRISPR — a fast, cheap and flexible way to make precise changes in any cell’s DNA.
CRISPR’s enormous promise has both scientists and investors aggressively seeking new therapeutic applications, including altering a gene within retinal cells to restore sight to patients with a rare cause of heritable blindness.
A more ambitious goal is to modify the “germ line,” the cells that give rise to sperm and egg, thereby creating genetic alterations that could be passed on to a patient’s children. The hope would be to eliminate inherited diseases like cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy or Huntington’s disease. Edits in the human germ line must be made on in-vitro-fertilized human embryos. And that’s where serious concerns arise.
First, CRISPR technology is not yet safe enough for medical use in human embryos. In early attempts to perform CRISPR edits in an embryo, scientists based in China detected unanticipated changes at multiple sites in the genome, which might have caused birth defects or diseases if the embryo had been brought to term. Recent attempts in an American lab were more encouraging, but improved accuracy resulted from unexpected and poorly understood biochemical mechanisms.
While some medical scientists argue that it’s morally wrong to withhold the cure to a genetic disease, the alteration of the human genome raises profound ethical questions. What if we used technology to select specific traits in offspring — height, skin color or intelligence? How would widespread genome editing affect the population genetics of our species in the future? If a sophisticated experimental technique like CRISPR is available only to the rich, could it exacerbate and entrench economic inequality at the biological level?
Issues such as these cry out for international consensus. For now, the laws of many Western European countries and the policies of American research agencies establish a moratorium on genetic manipulation of the human germ line. But a panel from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences recently issued a report exploring the way forward for human gene therapy. Inaction by society is not an option. It is crucial that the pace of policymaking match the inevitably rapid advancement of genome-editing technology.
Rev. Rachel Kessler ’04 explores what “The Good Place,” a popular NBC sitcom about morality and the afterlife, can teach us about becoming better humans.
I started watching “The Good Place” when it first aired in 2016, and I had some initial reservations. The moral premise of the show — that human fate in the afterlife was determined by an objective calculation of morality points — seemed, from my perspective as a Christian priest, to lack grace.
That changed with Eleanor Shellstrop’s (Kristen Bell) shocking revelation at the end of the first season: “Holy motherforking shirtballs, we’re in the Bad Place!” As it turned out, not only were our main humans (Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani and Jason) actually in the Bad Place — all of humanity for the last 500 years had failed to attain entry to the titular Good Place.
That might seem like a depressing premise for a network sitcom, but I believe that assertion of humanity’s failure is the grace I longed for originally. Individualistic moral perfection is as undesirable as it is unobtainable. Through whatever permutations and reboots “The Good Place” has undergone, the recurring theme has been that humans improve only through their relationships with one another.
If there is a moral lesson to be learned from “The Good Place,” the show makes a compelling argument that pursuing individual perfection is a losing game. Instead, “good” comes from living fully into our relationships while loving and learning from one another.
If the “experiment” that began the show’s first season was a twist on Sartre’s classic line, “Hell is other people,” the show’s ultimate premise is the refutation. Or, to quote the great Jason Mendoza: “The Good Place was the friends we made along the way.”
The Rev. Rachel Kessler ’04 is the priest-in-charge of Harcourt Parish and Kenyon’s chaplain. She wishes she could sign up for Chidi’s philosophy lessons.