The University of Southampton

Author: Sumiya Alam

Gene-ius or Gene-ocide? Balancing Style and Ethics in the Age of Designer Babies

Posted on by

Genetically Modified Humans

A picture of what the Genesis Chamber looked like in the show “Krypton”. Each pod is a different embryo undergoing gestation artificially.

I’m sure we’ve all heard of Superman, right? Well, he was made in something called the Genesis Chamber on Krypton. This facility housed the fetuses of the future population of Krypton, all the genes kept all in one place to carry out artificial gestation. This made me think about how one could customise their baby using gene editing. The type of technology required to do this is no longer science fiction but a reality. Known as CRISPR/Cas9, this gene editing technology can efficiently remove and insert genes from the genome of a live organism by using the enzyme Cas9. For example, Chinese scientists have found a way to conduct genetic modification on human embryos, essentially creating GM humans!

The 4 Views of Ethics

Without realising things like this are currently possible, it made me wonder about the moral philosophies that must have been considered in order to carry out these experiments. The virtue of a concept lies in its purpose and in this case, the use of gene editing to customise children is not necessarily being used for “good” but, if used for the purpose of improving quality of crops or eliminating hereditary diseases, it would be virtuous. The value of the concept is, however, subjective. There will be disagreements where people use their influence for their own agendas instead of backing the rights of people. Utilitarianism should also be considered when deciding whether or not to implement these advancements. Maximising goodness for the majority whilst minimising suffering is key to overcoming these moral dilemmas. Would the pros outweigh the cons?

The ethical dilemma of designer babies | Paul Knoepfler – a TEDTalk addressing how CRISPR/Cas9 to edit genes, the potential “upgrades” that can be made and inevitable consequences.

The Good and The Bad

Source: Architects’ Journal

Advantages include immunity and eradication of diseases, particularly those with genetic causes. There maybe be no need for prosthetics if all human genomes are edited to be strong, tolerant and have the potential for regeneration. Editing features such as appearance could reduce societal disparities by enabling individuals to select traits deemed desirable by prevailing standards, potentially mitigating existing inequalities but potentially introducing new ones. However, this raises concerns about the erasure of racial and minority identities. Novelists like Kazuo Ishiguro have warned that gene editing could foster a class of genetically superior individuals. As a person of colour, I can see how this, if in the wrong hands, could exacerbate discrimination, prejudice, and already existing predispositions against minorities. Moreover, homogenization of traits could impede evolutionary progress, as diversity often facilitates species survival. Limitations of the technology, including unforeseen alterations in the genome and ambiguities surrounding informed consent, further complicate its ethical implementation. Questions arise regarding the societal integration of this concept, including considerations of accessibility, potential capitalization, and resultant inequalities. Determining who gains access and addressing disparities are crucial considerations in navigating the ethical complexities of genetic editing’s societal implementation.

Conclusion

To summarise, the idea of using gene editing has good underlying justifications, for example when used for the purpose of creating more tolerant genomes and reducing disease. However, it can easily be manipulated to feed the agendas of corporate powerhouses and create larger inequalities across society, reducing diversity and what it means to be human. I went into this thinking it was very cool concept but was far too futuristic to even be considered. Having found out that scientists have already modified human embryos alarmed me so what I thought would revolutionise the world to make it better for generations to come, in hindsight, may not be as glamorous as I thought.

Ocular Prosthetics – What Can We See In The Future?

Posted on by

Our eyes are one of the most complex sensory organs in our bodies and are taken advantage of everyday. The geometry and intricacy of our eyes is so specific, sometimes you wonder how biology came up with it! In cases of impairment or complete absence of an eye/eyes, we need to find ways to bring back function effectively as well as making them as realistic as possible, to allow for better quality of life. Prosthetic eyes have been around for millennia, but mainly for the purpose of restoring aesthetics. It’s time to further develop the functional aspect.

Currently…

Traditional ocular prosthetics were typically made of acrylic but now use silicone, or a combination to mimic appearance and natural eye movement. By attaching the prosthetic to residual eye muscles, its allows for limited functionality. Aesthetics have come a lot further in terms of mimicking the natural eye by customising things like colour of the iris, iris patterns and blood vessels. This type of customisation may make patients feel more confident in their prosthetic and further enhance their quality of life. As far making and implanting these prosthetics, the procedure has become easier and more sustainable by using 3D printing and quicker, less invasive surgeries. Research has been conducted to incorporate electronics to give the user rudimentary vision, using things like built-in cameras with sensors, which detect and light and dark. But how can we develop this further?

In The Future…

Loss of vision can come in various forms, e.g it maybe congenital, damage caused by injury or even cancer. Therefore, we must consider the best options which take into account risk of surgery, what patients expect from their implant and if it is the most suitable option. With all these things in mind, advancements in ophthalmology and neural circuits can eventually lead to enhanced functional capabilities of ocular implants. What areas of research does this include?

Curing Blindness using a Bionic Eye, Future Now
  • Neural Interface : Involve incorporating cameras, sensors, and neural interfaces to transmit visual information directly to the visual cortex of the brain, by bypassing components that would otherwise be needed to transmit visual information, for example damage to the optic nerve. This is the type of technology we see in the development of a bionic eye.
  • Biocompatibility: Improvements in materials science could lead to the development of ocular prosthetics that are even more biocompatible and long-lasting, reducing the risk of complications such as infections, tissue rejection and the risk from additional surgery.
  • Regenerative Medicine: Bioengineer artificial fully functioning eyes that are indistinguishable from natural eyes. Using stem cells and other biological materials to create new tissue or make completely artificial eyes, engineered using nanowire to replicate photoreceptors and silicone to replicate the vitreous humor in our eyes. This type of artificial eye has been developed and may surpass the ability of an actual human eye.
  • Artificial Intelligence: Integration of artificial intelligence could enhance the functionality of ocular prosthetics by providing features such as automated image processing, object recognition, and augmented reality overlays, further improving the wearer’s visual experience.

Summary

As scientists, there is much we must take into consideration. Managing patient expectations, improving quality of life but simultaneously making it accessible to everyone. Advancements like these can be heavily capitalized to make a profit, which then creates inequality and reduces accessibility to those who need it most so innovation must come with caution. The future of ocular prosthetics holds promise for significant advancements in both aesthetics and functionality however, it’s important to note that many of these developments are still premature and may take time to implement.

Neuralink – Why is it Controversial?

Posted on by

After reading a recent article about Neuralink first human implant, I was wondering why controversies has the company undergone?

Billionaire Elon Musk and the logo for his groundbreaking neurotechonology company, Neuralink.

Neuralink was founded in 2016 by Elon Musk, owner of the social media company X, formerly known as Twitter. The aim of this neurotechnology is to create an interface with the the human brain and electronic devices such as smartphones in order to help treat people with potential brain injuries and certain behavioural disorders. As of January 2024, Musk tweeted the first every human implant surgery had been successful and the patient is recovering well.

However, the company has undergone plenty of controversial over the years.