In “Jurassic Park,” Jeff Goldblum — that most semitic of stallions — plays Dr. Ian Malcolm, a charismatic yet somewhat grating mathematician. Brought to the titular park to assess any possible dangers or shortcomings, he eventually gets into an intense argument with John Hammond, the park’s creator, over the ethical and economic concerns behind resurrecting murderous, ancient creatures and parading them around in the name of capitalism and entertainment. After Hammond defends his work for representing a profound achievement in scientific progress, Malcolm offers the following iconic rejoinder: “Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
Already the subject of our daydreams and wistful fantasies, the last 24 hours have seen us thinking more about Jeff Goldblum than usual; it was reported yesterday that U.K. scientists have been given the legal go-ahead to modify human embryos. This development follows China’s announcement last year that scientists in the country had already conducted similar work. These scientists, based out of London’s Francis Crick Institute, are seeking to better understand infertility and make breakthroughs regarding preventative measures for miscarriages. The scientists at the Crick Institute submitted their request to the U.K.’s Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority back in September, so it’s apparent this request was not treated lightly and has been highly vetted for possible ethical and moral fallout. And yet, we can’t help but feel slightly unnerved about the entire endeavor. We have no doubts about the positive applications that can come from genetic modification. A December 2015 BBC article titled “The promise of gene editing” does a tremendous job of comprehensively outlining and explaining the process and potential uses for genetic modification, such as curing conditions like recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, which leaves individuals’ bodies covered in blisters.
As explained in the BBC article, the embryonic experimentation that will be conducted at the Crick Institute has been made possible by “Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats,” or CRISPR, techniques. The methodology behind CRISPR essentially involves cutting DNA strands and replacing them with new ones. Keeping in mind that humans once had to bang rocks together to create fire and cook food, from an objective standpoint, it is absolutely mindblowing that we as a species now stand on the cusp of altering what makes us… us. But as Jeff Goldblum once so thoughtfully posed, just because we could, does it mean we should? The experiments conducted by these researchers are not seeking to alter physical or mental characteristics of embryos, nor do they intend to implant the altered embryos into a uterus; according to the scientists, they will be destroyed. If you’re of a certain mindset (read: non-religious), this information should come as comforting, if only marginally.
With regards to embryonic science, it is our opinion there is a wide gulf between stem cell research and genetic modification. With stem cells, embryos must be destroyed in order to extract the material. What’s more, stem cell research can — and should — be used for the betterment of the lives of those who have already found themselves stricken with an ailment or disability: The personhood of these individuals has long been affirmed.
The potential to pick and choose the qualities of a person who has yet to be born — such as their gender, degree of intelligence, athletic ability, etc. — is awe-inspiring in its power and horrifying in its implications. Should the proposal of “designer babies” ever be realized, it would pose as large an existential, ethical, economic and social dilemma as mankind has ever seen.
Science, beneficial though it may be, needs to be guided with considerations for moral principles and future consequences: Just because we can, does not always mean we should.
