Germline Editing and the Future of Eugenics

Introduction

Humans have always desired to become superior. Some choose to become powerful in social classes such as becoming wealthier or being elected to positions of power, while others decide to work on their physical well-being and strength. In both cases, the extent to which humans have evolved throughout time is exemplary of the natural process in which every organism continues to adapt to its environment. However, within each species, there are a variety of pathways in which they choose to use their abilities or enhance them. Recently, with the introduction of CRISPR-Cas9, a tool that can be used to genetically modify DNA in order to change certain traits, a debate has sparked over the ethics of messing with a divine and set-in-stone creation. Genetic editing should only be used to cure diseases through generations in the germline because it is the most essential and ethical option. Despite this, with an increasing interest in humans to become better performers and better looking, there is no avoiding the eventual use of genetic editing in the germline for more “optimal” family genes. However, this introduction of genetic modification to the public will bring the revival of several ideologies from the Eugenics movement. Debates over ethics and costs will bring a great divide between classes and religions on the basis of an individual's ability to perform, genetics, and beliefs on ‘Playing God’.

The Ableism Movement 

Individuals have previously been discriminated against for being seen as less able, making others value their lives as less. Eugenics was at its strongest point during times of great political and religious renewal. Before the Enlightenment of the 17th century, people generally believed disability was a punishment from a Divine Power. Later, during the Holocaust, people who were said to contain a ‘physical or mental disability’ were targeted as part of the Nazi’s euthanasia program. (Holocaust). More recently, Ableism has evolved into programs condoning the early choice of death for the disabled. Although some argue that it is the better option, this assumes that living the life of a disabled person is miserable, providing them with a lesser sense of value: “the advent of legalized euthanasia would create a false equivalence between a life without dignity and death without dignity, and grant a paternalistic medical profession the literal power of life and death over people whose lives appeared of a lesser value and apparent suffering.” (Robertson, 2019) said Stella Young, a disability rights activist. The difference between life and death without dignity relies on the attributes of an individual, in other words, whether or not they are seen to be “suffering from a disability”. This euthanasia situation proves the possible outcome of a devaluation of life for those who are not capable of living to the same extent of comfort as an “abled” person. This devaluation of life is the first step towards creating the divide between supporters/users of genetic engineering for novelty use and opposers, who will generally be seen as “disadvantaged” genetically speaking. 

Athletic Standards and Their Effect on Performance Portrayals 

A more standardized method of cherry-picking individuals with superior genetics is the concept of drafting within major sports leagues. Some of the biggest sports have professional leagues that practically determine whether or not a person is able to make a career out of their athletic skills. Such organizations include the NBA (Basketball), MLB (Baseball), NFL (Football), NHL (Hockey) and others. These drafts are determined by a series of tests and competitions that ‘drafters’ observe in order to decide which picks of humans are optimal for their team. The stress that athletes go through in order to push themselves to get drafted first is extreme, meaning that they would go to certain extents to perform better. In a survey done in 2017 by Ian Varley, a researcher of injury and professional sports, he and associates found that in the UK, approximately 15% of elite athletes had gone through genetic modification or know of someone who did for purposes of injury susceptibility or enhanced performance (Varley, 2017). Additionally, the survey found that approximately 80-100% of respondents (players and coaches) believed that genetics played a significant role in determining an athlete's skill. The normalization of performance enhancement within athletes will bring forth a greater selection of genetically modified elite athletes into major sports leagues. This process of selection will force many athletes to feel forced to enhance themselves in order to catch up with those who have already been modified. This will create a larger division and population of athletes which will be reciprocated into the non-athletic societies. 

Repression and Leniency Towards Those Born with Unwanted Genes

The concept of Negative Eugenics targets individuals with heritable and chronic illnesses as inferior to others, both in the past and currently. Negative eugenics includes “the prohibition of marriage between those at risk of bearing genetically diseased children, enforced sterilisation or abortion and, ultimately, mass eradication of undesirable germ lines.” (Robertson, 2019). These policies have been inputted throughout time and been justified by different prominent ideologies and philosophies. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life written by Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray demonstrates an ideology known as Social Darwinism used to justify racism and discrimination against certain minorities in the early 20th century. They find that “The differences in IQ scores among racial and ethnic groups are largely attributable to genetic factors.” (Herrnstein). Additionally, these differences are used to argue for the prevention of women with low intelligence from reproducing and sterilizing them. (Robertson, 2019). Social Darwinism justifies a precedent from long ago that genetic inferiority lives in certain races, especially in African Americans, which Sepúlveda long argued were inferior: "Those whose condition is such that their function is the use of their bodies and nothing better can be expected of them, those, I say, are slaves of nature. It is better for them to be ruled thus." (Gilder, 2012). The justification of actions that the public has split views on, such as slavery, will always be argued for and against during its time of implementation. A difference in genetics can be seen as a difference between those who are human and those who are “less human” and almost creature-like. Currently, in China, the Maternal and Infant Health Law (1995) makes it illegal for a couple to marry if one partner carries a hereditary disease unless “they agree to use long term contraception or to undergo sterilization.” (People’s, 1994). This direct application of those same ideas of negative eugenics described by Herrnstein and Murray means that the reality of genetic discrimination is just as applicable. Preventing individuals from undergoing certain activities due to their unfavorable genes will cause pressure and send the message that unless you remove diseases with genetic modification, society will continue to look down on you. 

God’s Separate Sphere of Creation  

Differences between cultural and personal beliefs across the globe will increase as more people decide to go against the principles by which some people live. As different countries live by varying lifestyles, especially with some much more requiring of sticking to religion than others, the obstacle of being able to understand the other’s argument of options of whether or not to genetically modify their germline will be hard to overcome. In Islamic foundational sources, “creation is one of the divine acts, which is also captured in the divine names and attributes, one of which is the creator (al-khāliq).” (Shabana, 2019). Therefore, living by these principles, the Muslim population will largely oppose genetic modification along with other religions. A study done by the Pew Research Center in 2009 found that 23% of the population of the world at the time, or approximately 1.6 billion people, identified as Muslim. Additionally, a handful of citizens in other religions will oppose the same ideas, as demonstrated by the constant debate over ‘Playing God’. Another study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 2.2 billion people identified as Christian in 2010, 1 billion as Hindu, and other religions adding up to a sum of 84% of the world being religiously affiliated. Although not all of the population of each religion will be entirely dedicated to fighting against genetic modification, there will certainly also be a large population of individuals creating their stance on the unjustness of gene editing based on personal perspectives. On the other hand, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), 1.3 billion people experience “significant disability”. All differing perspectives considered, there will be a large population of those who believe they require or would benefit from genetic modification versus those who will be largely against it. Differences in religion and ability will create differing arguments that are equally as reasonable. This increasing tension will worsen relations within and across nations with differing lifestyles.

Is Social Media a Weapon Against Injustice? 

One of the prominent arguments against the possibility of Genocide occurring again is the speed at which media is spread across the globe today compared to previous instances such as the Holocaust. Following the events of the Holocaust, people across the globe were shocked and disturbed to hear of the acts that were occurring in German camps. The world has placed multiple institutions, most prominently the United Nations (UN), in order to prevent such devastating events from repeating themselves. Additionally, social media serves as a platform in which if a similar event were to occur today, the world would be informed within days, hours, or even minutes. During the 21st century, social media has constantly been used to bring awareness to unjust actions going on around the world such as sexual violence against women. The #MeToo “brought light to the extent of sexual harassment and assault that women face in their daily lives.”(Miller, 2023). Allowing the public to see things that are wrong with society brings back intentions dating back from the Progressive Era to improve institutions that surround people everywhere. Not only has social media been used to bring awareness, but it has also been used to prevent foreign conflict. In 2012, while the Syrian people were facing turmoil, the youth used technology and social media such as YouTube and Facebook to spark the revolution of Arab Spring which was a “massive peaceful protest which resulted in the ejection of several authoritarian governments” (Kalim, 2018). While the large dependence on social media has brought further awareness and prevention of injustices throughout the world, there must also be the recognition that “it can also be used as a platform to propagate hate speech or perpetuate stereotypes” (Miller, 2023). The consequence of social media means that as non-violent protests can be advocated online, so can violence between groups who fight especially when it involves a war. Hate speech and stereotypes against certain groups can instigate a precedent in a User’s mind that one side of the argument is wrong and the other is right, a defect of polarization and narrowcasting. Additionally, bringing awareness to genocides, although very useful to inform citizens, hardly scratches the surface of fixing problems. The Israel-Palestine conflict has continued since its beginning in 1948, and people have turned their backs due to its lack of media coverage. However, things changed when on October 7, 2023, Israel began to attack the Gaza Strip. Any social media or news constantly covers the issue, however, in its 8 months of the ongoing massacre, people are continuing to die. According to a report by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between Oct. 7, 2023, and May 29, 202,4 there have been 36,171 Palestinian deaths and 81,420 injuries. The ongoing genocide of Palestinian citizens in Gaza and other locations proves that today’s prevalence of media coverage is not enough to prevent unjust actions. If the discrimination seen in the Ableism movement continues through a revolutionized eugenics movement, people will speak out on the issue but violence will occur, with nothing to get in its way. 

Conclusion

Although novel changes may seem innocuous as they only change someone’s appearance, the more people who normalize the process will be contributing to a divide between several cultures. Therefore, regulations about the extent to which or how someone's genetic performance should be changed need to be put in place. If governments cannot regulate debates then they will spark conflicts based on the discrimination of the ‘un-edited’. Many will be forced to abide by the new norms of genetically modified children and disabled people, meaning even more will condemn their actions, creating a never-ending cycle of debates and violence.