The Double-Edged Sword of Genetic Editing

Authored by: Suri Wang

Art by: Claire Ma

The genetic code acts as the instruction manual for every living organism, determining traits such as eye color, skin tone, and sex. Over the past 50 years, scientists or researchers discovered a way to manipulate the code: genetic engineering, the deliberate alteration of DNA. In 2013, scientists approved CRISPR-Cas9, a precise gene-editing tool that modifies DNA at targeted sites. While genetic editing offers advances in treating neurological disorders, monogenic disorders (disorders caused by one point mutation), and cardiovascular disorders, it also raises ethical challenges requiring social and scientific consideration. 

Biological Breakthrough 

In 2013, CRISPR-CAS9, a bacterial system that cuts and modifies DNA, was first used [1]. This was revolutionary, as CRISPR can correct single-nucleotide mutations, which is integral to the prevention of neurodevelopmental disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease [2]. Of over 10,000 monogenic disorders that exist, 17% are neurological. These conditions are hard to treat due to the difficulty of crossing the blood-brain barrier. CRISPR, however, gives doctors a new, innovative way forward. In 2023, genetic editing treatment for sickle cell anemia, a monogenic disorder, was approved. Researchers hope to eradicate these disorders through fetal genetic editing. From a scientific perspective, fetal intervention offers advantages: effective dosing and a permeable blood-brain barrier [3]. 

Genetic editing also advances cardiovascular research. A CRISPR toolbox allows for the study of both in vitro and animal models for human disease. Scientists edit human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) to determine the role of a specific gene/point mutation of cardiovascular disease, to analyze how specific point mutations influence cardiac disease, revealing the role of DNA methylation in altered contraction kinetics and disrupted glucose and lipid metabolism. In mice models, HDR-mediated germline genomic editing introduces point mutations to develop therapies for conditions including Duchenne muscular dystrophy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, cardiac arrhythmia, and atherosclerosis [4]. This research emphasizes the importance of genetic editing as a tool for accurate, efficient, and fast genome editing in a variety of fields. 

Human Differences

The discovery of the gene during the 19th century marked a turning point in medicine and human development, but it also paved the way for scientific racism. In 1883, English polymath Francis Galton coined the term eugenics. His journal, The Eugenics Review, endorsed selective breeding and sterilization of those deemed outside the genetic norm. Today, despite society’s shift towards inclusivity, ableism and racism still exist [5]. 

Mapping the human genome shifted perceptions of human disability. Geneticist Dr. Victor McKusick warned that genetic editing would lead to the devaluation of genetic variability. By 1994, it was evident this ideology had grown when the New York Times published an advertisement describing a quest for “beautifully perfect” babies, free of illness and disability. Taking into account the opinions of those close to disabled persons, in her article, Pamela Haag reflects on her brother’s experience with bullying due to Marfan syndrome [6]. Despite that, she argues that genetic editing would increase ostracization for those who do not fit the genetic norm.

Another important factor is the fundamental cause theory, that health disparities between social classes exist due to the advantaged demographic having increased access to medical treatment. When novel treatments arise, those with higher status and greater resources, such as money, power, or knowledge, are able to access interventions before disadvantaged minorities [7]. Currently, non-CRISPR gene therapies cost between $450,000 to $2,000,000, outside the affordable range for most of the population. Moreover, much research on CRISPR in the human genome is done on white or Asian subjects, while the studies that focus on minorities have limited investment into meaningful benefits for these groups. 

Genetic-editing errors 

Genetic-editing tools carry risks as their delivery systems can trigger immune reactions in patients if they enter the bloodstream  (Major & Juengst, 2025). One mistake in the fetus’s genome or in the sex cells of a pregnant woman can change the conformation of other proteins, like a chain of dominoes. The compliance and regulation of this technology must be subject to a strong framework of laws, which are currently not in place. In the United States, the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee of the NIH guides gene-editing; meanwhile, the health department of the UK motions against prenatal genetic intervention [8]. Nineteen different countries, including Canada and Sweden, have banned editing the human genome entirely [9]. While reaching a global position on the use of genetic editing would be helpful to balance both the positives and negatives, it proves a difficult task for future policymakers, as disdain towards genetic engineering is not uncommon. 

On one hand, genetic editing offers a permanent solution for treating a variety of disorders. Yet, there are several social and medical drawbacks. To establish such a framework for safe use, policymakers need to understand various perspectives towards genetic editing, from scientific, international, and ethical lenses. But questions remain. Is it actually one’s environment as they develop that plays the biggest role in biological development? And what has led humanity down an obsession with defying nature?

References:

1. Broad Institute. (2018, December 7). CRISPR timeline. Broad Institute. https://www.broadinstitute.org/what-broad/areas-focus/project-spotlight/crispr-timeline

2. Meshram, H. K., Gupta, R., Patel, R., & Sharma, P. (2025). Next-generation CRISPR gene editing tools in the precision treatment of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. Ageing Research Reviews, 111, 102851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2025.102851

3. Major, R. M., & Juengst, E. T. (2025). Prenatal gene editing for neurodevelopmental diseases: Ethical considerations. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 112(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2025.01.003

4. Li, Z.-H., Wang, W., Wang, L., Zhao, Y.-J., & Wang, D.-W. (2023). Recent advances in CRISPR-based genome editing technology and its applications in cardiovascular research. Military Medical Research, 10, Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40779-023-00447

5. Gillham, N. W. (2001). Sir Francis Galton and the birth of eugenics. Annual Review of Genetics, 35, 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genet.35.102401.090055

6. Haag, P. (2024, June 20). Imperfecta. The American Scholar. https://theamericanscholar.org/imperfecta-2/

7. Subica A. M. (2023). CRISPR in Public Health: The Health Equity Implications and Role of Community in Gene-Editing Research and Applications. American journal of public health, 113(8), 874–882. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307315

8. Nordberg, A., Minssen, T., & Rutz, B. (2018). Cutting edges and weaving threads in the gene editing (r)evolution: Reconciling scientific progress with legal, ethical, and social concerns. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 5(1), 35–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsx043

9. Conley, J., Robinson, A., Wilson, R., Kuczynski, K., & Henderson, G. (2025). The impact of the three major human genome editing reports on the governance landscape. Journal of community genetics, 16(5), 503–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-025-00809-z