human right

Should Gene Editing Be a Human Right?

Posted by

0


IN BRIEF
  • With technology like CRISPR making gene editing easier than ever before, society is divided on the ethical implications of using the tech to alter simply “unwanted” genes.
  • Given the potential of gene editing to drastically change humanity, it’s good that we’re having this debate on what and who it should be used for right now.

GENETIC EDITING FOR ALL

We are all subject to the genetic lottery. That’s how it’s always been, and for a while, we thought that was how it would always be.

Then, in 2014, a gene-editing technology called CRISPR was introduced. With CRISPR, geneticists could edit sections of the genome to alter, add, or remove parts of the DNA sequence. To date, it is by far the easiest way we’ve found to manipulate the genetic code, and it is already paving the way for more efficient and effective treatments of conditions with a genetic component. However, the technology brings with it the potential to manipulate and remove simply “unwanted” genes.
The potential to change someone’s DNA even before they are born has led to claims that CRISPR will be used to create “designer babies.” Detractors were appalled at the hubris of science being used to engineer the human race. Supporters, on the other hand, are saying this ability should be a human right.While most of the proposed CRISPR applications are focused on editing somatic (non-reproductive) cells, altering germline (reproductive) cells is also a very real possibility. This prospect of editing germline cells and making changes that would be passed on from generation to generation has sparked a heated ethical debate.

RIGGING THE GAME

To be fair, most advocates of genetic editing aren’t rallying for support so CRISPR can be used to create a superior human race. Rather, they believe people should have free access to technology that is capable of curing diseases. It’s not about rigging the genetic game — it’s about putting the technique to good use while following a set of ethical recommendations.

To that end, a panel made up of experts chosen by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine released a series of guidelines that essentially gives gene editing a “yellow light.” These guidelines supports gene editing on the premise that it follows a set of stringent rules and is conducted with proper oversight and precaution.

Obviously, genetic enhancement would not be supported under these guidelines, which leaves some proponents miffed. Josiah Zaynor, whose online company The ODIN sells kits allowing people to conduct simple genetic engineering experiments at home, is among those who are adamant that gene editing should be a human right. He expressed his views on the subject in an interview with The Outline:

We are at the first time in the history of humanity where we can no longer be stuck with the genes we are dealt. As a society we have begun to see how choice is a right, but for some reason when it comes to genetics, some people think we shouldn’t have a choice. I can be smart and attractive, but everyone else should be ugly, fat, and short because those are the genes they were dealt and they should just deal with it.

However, scientific institutions continue to caution against such lax views of genetic editing’s implications. Apart from the ethical questions it raises, CRISPR also faces opposition from various religious sects and legal concerns regarding the technology. Governments seem divided on the issue, with nations like China advancing research, while countries like the U.K., Germany, and the U.S. seem more concerned about regulating it.

The immense potential of gene editing to change humanity means the technology will continue to be plagued by ethical and philosophical concerns. Given the pace of advancement, however, it’s good that we’re having this debate on what and who it should be used for right now.

On July 28, the UN General Assembly adopted a non-binding resolution calling on states and international organisations “to scale up efforts to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all”. Water and sanitation are now enshrined as basic human rights. However, of 163 delegates from member nations who voted on this resolution, 41 abstained and did not fully endorse this right. Why?

Posted by

0


On July 28, the UN General Assembly adopted a non-binding resolution calling on states and international organisations “to scale up efforts to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all”. Water and sanitation are now enshrined as basic human rights. However, of 163 delegates from member nations who voted on this resolution, 41 abstained and did not fully endorse this right. Why?
Some delegates felt the decision to hold the vote was pre-emptive, and all countries could have reached consensus—and thereby avoided the need for a vote—if more time was allowed to interpret legal outcomes of the move for public and private suppliers. Most delegates who abstained, and some who endorsed the resolution, were anticipating a report to be published later this year by an independent expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). The Brazilian delegate, who voted yes, decried the absence of an “appropriate forum” to debate the resolution, and the UK’s delegate, who abstained, said that the resolution was not proposed “with consensus in mind”. Nevertheless, the justifications given by the 41 countries that abstained, including the USA, Japan, and Canada, were not convincing.
Irrespective of politicking at the UN, 884 million people worldwide do not have regular access to clean water, and 2·6 billion do not have access to basic sanitation. The 2010 Millennium Development Goal 7 report states that the target of halving the number of people without access to safe water is on course to be met by 2015, but provision of sanitation is not. The practice of open defecation by 1·1 billion people is not only “an affront to human dignity”, but also the key source of faecal—oral transmitted diseases such as diarrhoea, which causes 1·3 million deaths per year in children younger than 5 years.
A little more than 5 years through the UN General Assembly’s Water for Life Decade, adequate supply of water and sanitation is far from universal. When the HRC’s report is published, the hope is that no country obstructs a binding commitment to provide clean water and sanitation for all.
source:LANCET