Bioethical Considerations in CRISPR-Cas9–Mediated Genome Engineering

In the framework of medicine, genetic engineering constitutes one of the most revolutionary fields. The discipline involves the direct modification of genes that will induce a change in an organism’s characteristics using laboratory- based technologies. Following its emergence as a major alternative to traditional medical treatments, genetic engineering has become the only glimmer of hope for many patients living with terminal illnesses. However, what began as a cure for disease is becoming a blueprint for “perfect” humans. This malpractice of gene modification to “fix” the quality of a population is termed eugenics. The ethical implications of this biological mechanism have sparked significant controversy among scientists and ethicists, with a narrow line separating its use for medical purposes from eugenics. To illustrate, numerous people now aim to change their attributes, like their eye color, hair color, or even their intelligence, through gene editing. Researchers have increasingly studied the ethical facet of emerging biotechnologies, with numerous sources shedding light on the potential consequences of gene modifications on future generations. Several studies (Eissenberg, 2021; Gyngell et al., 2017; Sandler, 2019; Senan, 2025) significantly explore the moral challenges that genetic engineering imposes, such as the risk of autonomy, issue of consent, threats to human dignity, and its effect on future generations.

Risk of Autonomy:

One of the most significant ethical concerns of gene editing is the risk of autonomy, specifically how much control an individual has regarding their own identity and life choices. Several researchers have referenced the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who strongly claims that humans are autonomous; if we increase the use of germline genome editing (GGE), we will then be able to control future generations. However, this perspective is challenged by Gyngell et al. (2017), who argue that genes are not inherently “natural” and that not everything in our lives is within our control. That is because children are highly influenced by their parents through partner selection, education, and opportunities. From this standpoint, GGE may enhance freedom and autonomy rather than risking it. For example, an individual suffering from cystic fibrosis could potentially be cured with the use of genetic engineering, allowing them to live a healthier and more liberated life. On the other hand, Sandler (2019) adopts a more balanced position, in which he acknowledges that genetic editing may have major negative effects on the autonomy of future generations, although he also argues that the risk of autonomy is only one of several ethical problems and should not be treated as an absolute debate. This approach allows the author to discuss opposing points while still demonstrating that concerns about autonomy are not sufficient to fully reject genetic engineering as a solution. While these sources engage directly with autonomy, Eissenberg (2021) does not address this issue altogether, highlighting a gap in his research in terms of the significance of autonomy in debates on germline gene editing.

Issue of Consent:

Another major ethical argument on the implementation of genetic engineering is the issue of consent; therefore, several sources address this topic. Embryo editing is one example of gene editing that lacks consent, as the embryo’s DNA is edited before the fetus comes to life, which means that an individual’s future life is “decided” for them and their entire bloodline before they are even born. Gyngell et al. place a very strong emphasis on informed consent and demonstrate it by giving the real-life example of Jesse Gelsinger’s case. Researchers initially conducted trials on adults who could provide informed consent, such as Gelsinger. This approach was chosen even though the therapy was primarily intended to treat infants, who lacked both the biological stability to survive severe side effects and the capacity to give legal approval. Moreover, this article also states that the argument of consent is very weak and not strong enough to object to GGE, since many decisions such as technology already affect future generations without their consent. Similarly, Sandler (2019) reinforces the fact that this concern is not unique to genetic editing; people need to focus on whether the potential risks outweigh the medical benefits. Both articles present the most comprehensive approach to consent since they discuss all possible benefits and risks without overlooking any significant aspect. In contrast, Eissenberg adopts an enlightening scientific perspective by distinguishing between somatic and germline gene editing. Considering that somatic gene editing only affects the current single generation, GGE automatically applies specific genetic changes to future generations without their consent. This article lacks any further discussion on the importance of consent and how it raises possible drawbacks in implementing genetic engineering techniques.

Effect on Future Generations:

Reflecting on the direct implications of gene editing, the forefront consequence is its effect on future generations. Germline Gene Modification functions precisely at a molecular and genetic level. However, this slight change in a gene will inevitably affect heredity and the transmission of genes to future offsprings, a concept found worth noting in all sources depicting GGE. To begin with, Senan (2025) examines the legal and ethical implications of how gene editing may alter the genetic makeup of future offspring. However, Gyngell et al. refute this idea, considering that GGE affects future generations positively and ensures that all genetic diseases would, if introduced, be eliminated from the entire bloodline. Techniques like Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Pandromic Repeats (CRISPR) that are well-known for their reliability in gene editing are still considered risk factors for causing off-target mutations. According to Eissenberg (2021), “While engineered plasmids and viruses have been used successfully to install novel DNA elements in plant and animal genomes, the function of the transgene has often been variable and sometimes creates mutations at the sites of insertion”. In other words, these powerful tools sometimes edit the wrong segment of DNA, thereby causing an additional site of error and exacerbating the intensity of a disease. Eissenberg also suggests a different lifestyle, in which he encourages individuals who have undergone GGE to raise genetically unrelated children unless genetic diagnosis and screening ensures that the embryo is free of any genetic defects, and in rare cases where both parents have the same genetic trait (homozygous), a sperm or egg donor can be used to contribute a normal gene variant.

Threat to Human Dignity:

Another overlooked concept when discussing gene editing is human dignity. Consulting human genome editing without the in-depth examination of human dignity is simply misleading as it is crucial for all discussions of ethical, philosophical, medical and even legal facets and it sits at the core of ethics when it comes to human genome modification. To begin with, Gyngell et al. render human dignity through GGE as a reduction of suffering and improvement of the well-being of future generations, whereas Sandler refutes this idea and suggests that genetic engineering is not merely a tool, but rather a lifestyle and form of life, which transforms values and human life as a whole. As for Eissenberg , who prolongedly discussed designer babies and the loss of originality in human beings in his article, acknowledges that human genome modification is influencing human dignity with the continuous design and editing of all human identities. The increased probability of selected genes surmounts the Mendelian ratio (the predictable proportions and ratios of genes inherited) and forces certain attributes to dominate over others. This causes the progeny to be exactly as desired, creating identical human copies. The idea of making humans the same, perfect copy reinforces eugenic ideologies and is considered authoritarian and extremely unethical, depleting human dignity.

All things considered, human genome editing has struck significant ethical controversy. Despite the medical assets GGE provides, which supporters of gene editing deem as a tool for scientific progression, personalized medicine, and improved quality of life (from curing human genetic diseases that were once incurable to providing a glimmer of hope to patients), numerous ethical drawbacks persist, including threats to autonomy, consent, and human dignity. Humanity now has the power to potentially rewrite its own genetic code, but possessing that power does not guarantee the wisdom of using it with responsibility. If humanity begins to edit its blueprint without fully understanding the consequences, we may be designing a future we cannot control. For that reason, we are in dire need of ethical responsibility to guide our innovations, or we will lose our humanity. Despite these insights, gaps remain in understanding the extent to which these ethical risks are significant., which poses the question: “Does human germline genetic engineering pose a serious ethical risk of reviving eugenic practices?”

References:

Eissenberg, J. C. (2021). In our image: The ethics of CRISPR genome editing. Biomolecular Concepts, 12(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1515/bmc-2021-0001

GYNGELL, C., DOUGLAS, T., & SAVULESCU, J. (2017). The ethics of germline gene editing. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(4), 498–513 https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.aub.edu.lb/stable/26813084

Heyderova Senan, G. (2025). Problems of genetic modification within the framework of ethics and law. European Science Review, 25–28. https://doi.org/10.29013/esr-25-5.6-25-28

Sandler, R. (2019). The ethics of genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation. Conservation Biology, 34(2), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13407

Follow our socials

Community

© 2026. All rights reserved.