If it becomes possible to end genetic diseases such as sickle cell anemia, pheny ketonurea and other such diseases by editing out the mutant genes should it be allowed.?
Good question. As you may know, Biologos has posted some commentaries on gene editing recently. Francis Collins, who founded this site, is much better at this; @T_aquaticus, @glipsnort and others can comment better. What method are you considering? I’m very rusty–my last genetics course did teach about viral vectors, etc, but was in 1995.
Great question indeed!
The science writer Carl Zimmer has weighed in on the issue:
And, so far, they’re just fine. America needs a sober debate about the pros and cons of Crispr instead of a paranoid ban on the technology.
Isn’t that the point of pursuing the research in the first place?
CT had a good article awhile back about the line between enhancement and healing. I thought it brought up some good points:
My husband’s life was drastically changed when he was 35 and diagnosed with leukemia. His doctor thinks that the chemo treatments caused his predisposition to Parkinson’s to be accelerated. He is 55 now and has spent more of his adult life disabled than healthy. Yes, this technology needs to be pursued and while we are doing so we need to figure out how we are going to make it financially available to all who need it.
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.