The rapid advancement of genetic modification instruments such as CRISPR-Cas9 has unlocked new frontiers in medicine, agriculture, and beyond, offering unparalleled precision in genomic editing and modification. These tools hold the promise of revolutionary breakthroughs, providing scientists with the means to eradicate genetic diseases. However, their swift development raises pressing ethical concerns that require careful consideration. But first, what is CRISPR? CRISPR, short for “Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats,” is a genome-editing technique that allows scientists to target and modify specific DNA sequences with remarkable accuracy. This technology has been in high demand for its potential to correct genetic mutations responsible for conditions like sickle cell anemia and Huntington’s disease.1 Despite these benefits, the application of CRISPR remains fraught with ethical dilemmas.

One of the most pressing concerns is the application of CRISPR technology for non-therapeutic treatments or enhancements. Since CRISPR technology has the ability to address genetic disorders via gene editing, it also has the potential to be commercialized to alter physical or cognitive traits of human babies as per the request of parents. These babies are referred to as “designer babies”. This commodification of human traits could greatly increase existing social inequities, as access to such advanced technology will most certainly be limited to the wealthy.2 Furthermore, the use of such techniques on humans is still a major ethical gray area, as the risks associated with carrying out such procedures are still very much unknown. For instance, a 2018 study on gene-edited embryos found unintended mutations occurring at high rates, raising concerns about unforeseen, and potentially fatal health complications in genetically modified individuals.3 Scenarios such as this raise the question of where to draw the line between therapeutic and enhancement-based applications. 

 

     As touched upon earlier, another point of concern for gene editing is the possibility of unintended consequences. Off-target edits, where CRISPR modifies inadvertent DNA regions, could introduce new harmful mutations, new diseases, or even cause death.3 These risks highlight the need for rigorous safety testing before any form of clinical applications are widely adopted. Moreover, the use of CRISPR in germline editing—altering DNA in eggs, sperm, or embryos—introduces changes that can be passed onto future generations. This raises questions about informed consent, as future individuals cannot consent to modifications made before their existence. This is particularly troubling, as such invasive edits to the genome can potentially affect a bloodline for generations. Errors in germline editing could result in inherited conditions such as increased cancer predisposition or immune system deficiencies, which may not become apparent until later generations. This emphasizes the need for long-term studies to assess the full impact of such modifications before they are applied in clinical settings.

Transparency and regulation also play pivotal roles in the ethical use of CRISPR. A lack of international consensus on the governance of gene-editing technologies creates the potential for unregulated experiments and misuse.4 Without strict regulations and ground rules, there is great potential for malpractice and unintended harm. The controversial case of a scientist using CRISPR to create genetically edited babies in 2018 underscored the urgent need for global ethical guidelines and oversight.5 In this specific instance, Jian-kui He, a Chinese scientist, worked with his team to “engineer” the first gene-edited babies, which he claimed to be HIV-immune. However, such clinical experimentation was a direct breach of both Chinese and international gene editing policy, leading to widespread outcry and criticism regarding the ethical nature of Jian-kui He’s experimental trials. As illustrated, without robust frameworks, the scientific community risks losing public trust and inadvertently promoting a race to exploit these technologies irresponsibly.

 

      Despite these challenges, CRISPR can be used ethically if its applications are grounded in principles of justice, safety, and transparency. Collaboration between researchers, policymakers, ethicists, and the public is essential to establish guidelines that prioritize therapeutic applications over enhancements. Investments in education and public discourse about genetic modification can help destigmatize the technology and address societal concerns. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Advisory Committee on Human Genome Editing has been actively developing governance frameworks to ensure gene-editing technologies are used transparently and equitably, focusing specifically on therapeutic applications rather than enhancements. As CRISPR and similar tools continue to evolve, the responsibility lies with everyone involved to ensure their ethical development and application. By carefully addressing safety concerns, establishing global standards, and fostering inclusive dialogue, scientists can harness the transformative power of genetic modification while safeguarding human dignity and equity.