Purpose of Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering, such as technologies like CRISPR-Cas9, allows scientists to modify genes with remarkable precision. Advocates see it as a transformative tool to cure disease, improve agricultural yield, and address hereditary disorders. Critics warn that the potential risk of playing God, exacerbating inequality, or disrupting ecosystems could outweigh its alleged good. This raises critical questions about where ethical, economic, and humanitarian lines should be drawn as the technology continues to advance.

Key Question

To what extent is the deployment of genetic engineering used to benefit society, and how should ethical, economic, and humanitarian concerns shape its development?

Perspective 1 – Excerpt from “CRISPR Baby Becomes First Person to Receive Gene-Editing Treatment in the Body” by Alice Park (Time, 2024):

Alice Park reports on the groundbreaking use of CRISPR-Cas9 to treat a young child named KJ born with a severe genetic liver disorder. Doctors used in vivo gene editing to correct the defect inside KJ’s body, a first in human treatment. Park notes, “If the treatment works long term, it could mark a significant step forward for in vivo gene editing in humans.” The article emphasizes that gene editing is no longer theoretical—it is saving lives. Park frames CRISPR as a clinical milestone and argues it could transform treatment for countless patients with untreatable genetic conditions. This perspective supports continued, tightly regulated development of gene-editing technologies for medical use.

Perspective 2 – Excerpt from “Biblical Boundaries for Human Gene Editing” by Georgia Purdom (Answers in Genesis, 2019):

Georgia Purdom, writing from a Christian creationist viewpoint, argues that gene editing must respect divine boundaries. “While treating disease is within the biblical mandate of helping those who are suffering, altering the human genome in ways that affect future generations raises serious ethical questions.” She supports therapeutic use but warns against inheritable genetic modification. This religious critique sees CRISPR as overstepping moral limits, especially when used for enhancement or eugenic purposes. The perspective calls for caution and humility in approaching God’s design, framing genetic perfection as a human aspiration that could lead to moral ruin.

Perspective 3 – Excerpt from “Gene Editing and the Economy: CRISPR’s Commercial Future” by Antonio Regalado (MIT Technology Review, 2021):

Antonio Regalado explores how CRISPR is reshaping the biotech industry, writing: “The technology is moving so fast that Wall Street and Silicon Valley are already betting billions on companies promising everything from disease cures to DNA-based livestock.” He details how gene-editing startups like Editas and Intellia are attracting major investments, despite the uncertain regulatory path ahead. While promising economically, Regalado also warns that access to these therapies may initially be limited to the wealthy, which could deepen health inequality. This economic perspective acknowledges the enormous profit potential of genetic engineering but also highlights the need for equitable market regulation.

Perspective 4 – Excerpt from “The Genetic Divide: CRISPR and Global Health Equity” by Françoise Baylis (Nature, 2019):

Bioethicist Françoise Baylis argues that CRISPR could exacerbate global inequalities unless applied with justice in mind: “Gene-editing technologies will not automatically benefit the global poor unless there is a deliberate commitment to equity.” She highlights the risk of technological elitism, where wealthy nations develop advanced treatments while vulnerable populations are left behind. Baylis calls for international guidelines to ensure CRISPR is used to address diseases prevalent in low-income regions—not just conditions affecting the affluent. This humanitarian perspective urges a socially responsible framework that places justice and accessibility at the forefront of genetic innovation.