Technology is a pervasive, unstoppable force that has come to dominate the majority of cultures over time. One prominent indication of this force is the overpowering existence of the bioengineering field, in which scientists and researchers constantly discover new methods to modify all types of living organisms. Geneticist Jennifer Doudna’s TedTalk regarding her Crispr (clustered regularly interspaced short jpalindromic repeats) technology has sparked a major debate in the biomedical realm, where both scientists and citizens have voiced concerns that result from the unstratified use of this groundbreaking tool.

The Crispr technology is one that mimics the function of cas 9 enzyme present in bacteria by precisely locating target DNA in the guidance of an RNA guiding sequence. Afterwards, the cas 9 enzyme or other restriction enzyme can cut the double stranded DNA in any place, whether to insert or delete genes. Since it is such an accurate system, the target DNA can subsequently be edited in any way desired, either amending flaws in the DNA that could result in deleterious diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy (a disease causing muscle degradation due to a lack of protein that maintains muscle cells in place) or cystic fibrosis (unhealthy buildup of mucus in organs like the lungs due to faulty genes). Though this tool does possess the potential to save hundreds of lives annually and prevent the onset of countless diseases, the ethical implications of rashly editing the human genome without considering the effects is alarming.

Crispr’s abnormally affordable pricing, as little as 30 U.S. dollars, makes the genome-editing tool accessible on a wide scale, thereby maximizing the chances of making lethal alterations in human genes. For instance, the Crispr technology is far yet to be perfected, which signifies that the Cas 9 proteins can randomly make cuts in places otherwise not wanted for cutting. Consequences can include, and are not limited to, novel mutations that cause different forms of disease or deletion of inherited characteristics such as eye color. Even if the Crispr technology is perfected, another dangerous situation arises: researchers will have difficulty distinguishing between original DNA and genetically modified DNA. This fact can severely affect individuals who are strongly opposed to genetically modified organisms or crops, thus igniting another set of issues in society of whether or not the benefits of Crispr outweigh the harms.

As direct correspondents to such expanding technology, we as rightful citizens have obligations to voice ethical concerns that are implicated within the extensive use of gene-editing tools. No matter the cost, we must prioritize the potential harms and genuinely consider: Is the technology worth the risks?

<Jenny Chang Orange Lutheran High Schooㅣ 11th Grade>