 Here's an idea.
Editing your children's genome
could raise questions about
whether or not
they are authentic.
In about the last
decade, geneticists
have developed the Clustered
Regularly Interspaced Short
Palindromic Repeats
or CRISPR system
that uses the repetitive
structure of DNA as a guide
for editing that DNA,
allowing, with a suite
of other techniques, for
permanent and in some cases
inheritable changes to
the genome of organisms,
including humans.
And it's a big deal.
It's such a big deal that J-Lo
is producing a crime drama
series about it.
How exactly CRISPR works
is beyond my expertise
and the scope of this video.
But luckily, Vanessa
from "BrainCraft"
made a whole documentary
about exactly
that that's out next week.
You can watch its
trailer right now.
And you should watch it
once you're done here.
What we're going
to talk about now
isn't how CRISPR works,
but some of the conundrums
which arise because
of how well it works.
In the short time
this technology,
and technology like
it, has been around--
first theorized 30 years ago,
but really only developed
in the last seven, and still
being perfected as we speak--
it's gotten up to some
pretty insane things,
like removing malaria
from mosquitoes,
creating more muscular beagles
and drought resistant corn.
There are plans to use it
for cancer treatment and even
as a cancer cure.
The first trial for that was in
China at the end of last year.
And that trial rose some
eyebrows, as have a few others.
Because what we
can do with CRISPR
is quickly outpacing
conversations
about what we should
do with CRISPR.
Like is it ready
for human trials?
And if it is, how do we
track the consequences
of direct human genome editing?
What lines do we
absolutely not cross?
And though CRISPR has
widespread applicability,
the most discussed
crossable lines
have to do with humans,
specifically, human babies.
So in this episode, we're going
to walk down a line of lines
and discuss what crossing them
might mean for humanity, to see
how we feel about technology
developing faster than feels
can be felt. So the blessing
and the curse of CRISPR at all
is that it's easy,
cheap, and good.
The people who can
use it are far flung,
in parts of the world with
differing ethical, moral,
legal, medical, economic,
and regulatory frameworks.
This creates a tension
between the global community
of all humans with a
shared genetic identity,
and local communities of
some humans, who yeah,
may be willing and financially
able to risk it all
to cure their cancer, but
may also at some point
be interested in changing
someone's eye color,
making them immune
to certain diseases,
or simply more muscular, or even
increasing their intelligence.
Think like "Limitless,"
except without the drugs
and we are all Bradley Cooper.
Ah, we should be so lucky.
It may sound like
science fiction,
but right now this
sort of thing is
more in the realm of science.
That's it, just science--
not just possible, but likely.
Just a month before
shooting this episode,
The National Academy of Science
and the National Academy
of Medicine teamed up to release
human genome editing, science,
ethics, and governance,
a detailed study
where they make recommendations
for the responsible development
and use of genome editing tech.
They repeatedly stressed
that, though the tech has
wide elective
applications for humans,
it should be used only for
the treatment or prevention
of disease and
disability, and not
other less pressing purposes.
But I mean, come on!
We've all seen "Gattaca."
It's worth asking
who has the power
to decide what purposes
are and are not "pressing."
The worry is one ripped straight
from the sci-fi hologram
headlines, with widespread
but gate kept technology,
the rich could pay for
elective genetic enhancements
unavailable to those
without surplus cash.
In time, two genetically
divergent populations reify the
divide between rich and
poor on a genetic level,
resulting in what Sidney
Perkowitz at JSTOR Daily
calls a soft eugenics--
not selective breeding for the
good of the species, yuck!--
but a literal genetic
differentiation
which emerges via differing
access to medical technology.
A related concern has to
do with the lives of people
with disabilities.
If people are able
to systematically
edit genes responsible for
a variety of disabilities,
how does this impact the lives
of those who don't or can't
benefit from that technology?
And furthermore, if there are
fewer people with disabilities
overall, does it stand to
reason that those remaining will
have a harder time getting
the respect or resources
they deserve?
That public programs
benefiting the disabled
will be unfairly curtailed
because their impact has
been quantitatively diminished?
Much like the
judgment about what
is and is not a
pressing purpose,
we might also ask about what
is and is not a disability.
Who decides?
And how does that impact
the lives of people
born with those conditions?
One way to read the elimination
of disabilities before birth
is as a judgment on the
assumed life of that person,
and therefore, of all
people with that disability.
That, living with what has
been deemed a hindrance,
whether it's
deafness, blindness,
Down syndrome, or cystic
fibrosis, all of which
have their own very specific
and impossible to compare
challenges, is of a lesser
quality than a life without.
Any one parent electing
that their child not
be born with a genetic
disorder may not
be explicitly judging
people with that disorder,
only most likely thinking
about their own child
and responding to the
unfortunate state of the world
where, while the lives of
people with disabilities
are not fundamentally
of a different value,
they are often treated that way.
How one does or does not
purposefully or not make
a political statement
when considering
this kind of
genetic manipulation
for their own child is a
hugely complex conversation.
But there may even be
a more base concern
when considering whether to
edit your child's genome.
Should you do it, just period?
Besides concerns about soft
eugenics and disability,
there is also conversation
concerning whether parents
possess the right to
determine who their child will
be via genetic manipulation.
This is going to take
a little bit to unpack.
 Keep in mind this
child is still you--
simply the best of you.
 First, we should point out
that the Committee on Human
Gene Editing again recommends
that before inheritable changes
to the human genome are
made, we set up a study
to determine the long
term, like long term,
like whole generations
long term, effects.
The worry is, if we change
our children's eye color
or resistance to
certain diseases today,
we may endanger the lives
of their grandchildren
due to unforeseen genetic
ripple effects, which is not
good for, well, humanity.
But for our purposes
in this video,
let's assume we have
a safety guarantee
for your kids' kids' kids'
kids' kids' kids' kids' kids.
And let's also say
that the technology
is available to everyone.
So we're simply
talking about parents
deciding various facets of
their child's genetic make up.
Decisions that will be
passed on to their children
unless they are similarly
edited, and so on and so on,
up the family tree.
This is one facet of some
arguments against CRISPR
as unnatural or playing god.
Where aspects of a
child's development
were mysterious, left up
to an inscrutable battle
between nature and
nurture, science
can now sweep some or all of
the game pieces off the table
and construct a custom
genetic victory,
thus resulting in the person
most wanted by their parents--
tall like dad's side, smart
like mom's side with green eyes
and red hair,
because hey, why not
make them stand out in a crowd.
Such a combo of
characteristics may be extreme,
though is
theoretically possible.
But mom and dad's decision to
have a genius ginger beanpole
isn't just one about genetics
and abilities and appearance,
but as a result of those
things, also life experience,
going beyond the natural
and god playing arguments,
we can ask whether the direct
influence on your kid's DNA
is OK, because of how involved
it is, like helicopter
parenting but for genes.
One way to view this question
is as a problem of authenticity.
From a certain perspective,
one's genetic makeup
and its lived
results are generally
thought to be the conclusion of
a naturalistic kind of chance.
So the deliberate
configuration of a child
conceivably results
in children who
aren't whoever they might
have been naturally,
but rather exactly who
their parents wanted
because they said so.
Aspects of their existence
arise not through a combination
of gene selection, environmental
effects, or nurture,
but via box ticking.
The person is, therefore, as one
particular argument might go,
not authentically themselves.
They are, rather,
their parents' design.
And design is shaped by
trends, influenced heavily
by the moment.
Conversation about
designer babies
is often couched in ideas
about the commodification
of offspring.
You can customize
options on your car,
your computer, your social media
profile, why not your kids?
Because they're people.
That's why.
And, I mean, to a
certain degree, I agree.
It is a little
weird, but it's also
complicated for a few reasons.
First, it's sort of always been
within the realm of possibility
that one could
manually, so to speak,
determine the genetic
makeup of one's children
simply by choosing a partner
with specific qualities
or by living a
certain lifestyle.
One's genome also
changes significantly
throughout one's life, thanks
to environmental effects.
So the children I and a
partner would create today
is different from the one
we'd make 10 years ago.
Not to mention, before
and during conception,
carrier screenings or
in vitro fertilization
can identify and help
navigate around aspects
of a child's genetic makeup.
While IVF was
controversial at first,
it isn't now thought to produce
a person who isn't themselves,
isn't authentic.
Which is itself a
difficult concept.
Most modern ideas stem from
the Jean-Jacques Rousseauian
perspective that authenticity
is an internally derived ideal,
that one finds some
form of genuine self
free from external
influence by ignoring
the desire for approval
or dependence on others.
Related to authenticity are also
ideas about autonomy and truth.
That to be authentic, one
must know who they are,
act the way they know
they are, and in doing so,
be true to themselves.
But how does this
work with genetics,
and not like, which
band t-shirts you wear.
Can you be a genetic poser?
An ancestors purposeful
mucking about with one's genes
certainly sounds like a loss
of autonomy to some degree.
Maybe you were
doomed to earnestly
ask that question from "I
Heart Huckabees" all along.
 How am I not myself?"
 But also, arguably,
designer DNA
is no less purposeful
than your parents
choosing a mate
or an environment
or an age to have kids, just
perhaps a little bit more
direct.
Maybe it's that authenticity
is often related
to some kind of search.
To hear philosophers discuss it,
authenticity is a process, not
a state of being, but a
balancing act between the self
and external forces.
Maybe in being designed,
one need not search.
You'd simply know, on
paper, who you are.
You're not going
to find yourself.
You're only going to find
your configuration documents,
and boom!
There you are.
 There you are.
 But are you there?
I mean, sure, if you're
born with the genes
and characteristics your parents
choose from the mutant menu,
as Vanessa calls it,
in a way that's you.
But to say this
usurps your ability
to become yourself
seems to overemphasize
the role of genetics in
what philosopher David
DeGrazia calls one's
narrative identity--
the process of always becoming
one's self through experience
and self-reflection.
Paradoxically, the ongoing
process of being authentic
is often thought to require a
breath of external experience,
such that one can test against
their internal experience.
A custom genome doesn't
preclude internal experience.
It just provides another
way to understand it.
Certainly one's appearance,
ability, and health
determines much of
their authentic self,
but to say those
things determine it
so completely that one is
powerless to become themselves
in the face of their
parents' design decisions
seems hasty in the way the
phrase the apple doesn't fall
far from the tree always does.
Maybe one branch of the
tree hangs over a hill.
Apple falls off the-- rolls down
the-- you get what I'm saying.
In the end, I don't
think this question
will be divorced from the
others related to CRISPR.
My gut says it won't be
the technology itself,
but how and by whom it's
used that determines how
those babies are considered.
In one scenario,
the first children
born of CRISPR or a
CRISPR-like process
could, much like the first
IVF or test tube babies,
represent a kind of
challenging novelty.
But could also, much
like IVF babies,
quickly become yet another
prenatal biomedical mainstay.
This scenario is
highly dependent,
I think, upon the technology
being used as recommended,
for disease prevention or
treatment and with great care.
But in another
scenario, one that
could determine whether certain
groups will be seen or not seen
as real or authentic,
CRISPR is used only or at
first significantly by a
relatively small population who
are lucky enough,
for whatever reason,
to have access, exasperating
the effects of already vastly
uneven access to medicine
and medical technology.
Bad enough would be
only the rich benefit
from genetic disease
prevention or treatment.
Worse, they may be in
a position to choose,
based on their own criteria what
besides disease is and is not
a pressing purpose.
And in this situation,
maybe people
won't have a reason to worry
about if they're not authentic
but rather about if they are?
What do you all think?
Would you edit your
child's genome?
In what situation would you?
In what situation would you not?
And how do you avoid
the political and social
ramifications of this kind
of powerful technology?
Let us know in the comments,
and I'll respond to some of them
in next week's comment
response video.
And before we talk about what's
in this week's counter response
video, a little bit of news.
YouTube has suggested
that we stagger
the release of our episodes
and our comment responses.
So we're going to try that.
We're going to start to
release comment response
videos on Fridays.
So we'll continue
to tell you what
will be in them at the
end of the episodes.
But then you will have to
wait a day or two, depending
upon when we release,
to actually see them
because apparently the
algorithm likes it more.
And you know what they
say about the algorithms.
You-- um, you obey them.
So in this week's
comment response video,
which will be out
on Friday, we talk
about your thoughts regarding
telekinesis as an allegory
for the use of technology.
Once that's uploaded, we'll
put a link in the description
or just keep an eye
on your sub box.
If you would like
to support the show,
Idea Channel has a Patreon.
Thank you so, so much to
all of our current patrons.
If you haven't
already, don't forget
to check out the trailer for
Vanessa's documentary, "Mutant
Menu" that's out the
same day as this video.
Or, if it's after May
10th, you can go and watch
the documentary itself.
It's here on YouTube.
We'll put a link in the
description once it's out.
If you watch it, you
might see some people
that you recognize in it.
[WHISPERS] I'm in it.
We have a Facebook, an
IRC, and a subreddit.
And the Tweets of the Weeks are
everyone, including [INAUDIBLE]
Becca who responded
to Ben Zimmer's tweet
about the history of the
pronunciation of gif with team
"zaif" shout outs.
Zaif for life.
And last, but
certainly not least,
this week's episode would not
have been possible or good
without the very hard work
of these muscular beagles.
