The ethical implications of gene editing technologies like CRISPR in human medicine
Fascinating article written by Ashwyn, a Gordon’s Academic Scholar.
As humanity advances, technological progress within medicine is inevitable. Gene editing technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9 have emerged, becoming an active bioethical debate.
The potential benefits of gene editing are limitless. Genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis – which severely impact and shorten lives – could be treated by correcting the underlying mutations in the CFTR gene (Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, 2016) – an idea developed in 2016, before any recognised forms of gene editing. In addition, safety and efficacy have been demonstrated in CRISPR treatments for major diseases including cardiovascular conditions and cancers, such as B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which are currently undergoing phase I clinical trials (CRISPR Medicine News, 2025). In Addition, the first approved CRISPR – based therapy, CASGEVY, treats sickle cell disease (SCD) and transfusion-dependent thalassemia (TDT). Approval followed data from a phase III trial in both adults and children with severe SCD or TDT, where 24of 27 patients with TDT are no longer being reliant on transfusions (CRISPR Therapeutics and Vertex, 2022). These findings challenge arguments that gene editing poses excessive health risks, as the balance of evidence suggests patient benefit outweighs possible harm.
Nevertheless, ethical concerns remain. The cost of CASGEVY is approximately $2 million per patient, raising questions of accessibility. Even though CRISPR is the least costly gene-editing method, treatment affordability limits equal, fair access and may widen healthcare inequalities in the short term.
Religious and cultural perspectives also play a role. Many traditions – including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism – criticise gene modification due its link to “playing God,” with the Catholic Church formally declaring hereditary gene editing illicit (A Virtuous Appraisal of Heritable Genome Editing, Christopher M Rielly).
Looking forward, societal implications are only more controversial. Advances could one day permit editing for non-medical characteristics such as eye or hair colour by targeting genes like OCA2 (Saesha Kukreja, 2024). While embryo modification for reproductive purposes is currently prohibited in the UK, its future legality is under discussion. Such developments raise concerns about the loss of genetic diversity. For example, if disabilities are eliminated through editing, society must question whether this reduces suffering or implies that disabled individuals have “undesirable” genes.
This debate links closely to the idea of “designer babies,” where parents select traits such as enhanced muscle growth or resistance to specific disease. Arguably, this could redefine normality by eradicating characteristics perceived as undesirable. Furthermore, the unaffordable cost of gene editing suggests that only wealthy individuals may benefit, deepening socioeconomic divides. This could lead to not only wider disparities in opportunity but also physical and genetic contrasts between rich and poor populations.
Ultimately, gene editing technologies such as CRISPR create profound ethical implications. While they show potential to revolutionise medicine and mitigate suffering, they risk reinforcing inequality, reducing genetic diversity, and fostering future prejudice against individuals with unedited genomes. Without careful regulation and balanced access, the technology could shift from a promising medical tool into a cause of division in society.
Reference list:
Article
Saesha Kukreja (February 2018) ‘Illuminating the future of eye colour with CRISPR gene editing’.
Article
Christopher M Rielly, ‘A Virtuous Appraisal of Heritable Genome Editing’
Published study
CRISPR Therapeutics and Vertex (2022) ‘Positive Results from Pivotal Trials of exa-cel for Transfusion-Dependent Beta Thalassemia and Severe Sickle Cell Disease Presented at the 2023 Annual European Haematology Association (EHA) Congress’
Charity information article
cystic fibrosis foundation (2016) ‘Gene Editing for Cystic Fibrosis’ (2016) Introduction.
Clinical trials information
CRISPR Medicine News (May 2025) Disease: B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, NHL