The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology has ushered in a new era of medical possibilities, promising cures for previously incurable diseases. However, this revolutionary technology also raises profound ethical concerns and exacerbates existing health disparities. On one hand, gene editing holds immense potential for treating genetic disorders. Imagine a future where inherited diseases like cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease are eradicated through precise gene modification. This technology could also revolutionize cancer treatment, enabling personalized therapies tailored to individual patients' genetic profiles. Furthermore, advancements in gene therapy could lead to the development of novel vaccines and treatments for infectious diseases, potentially reducing global health inequalities. However, the accessibility and affordability of this groundbreaking technology present a significant challenge. The high cost of gene editing therapies will likely limit access to wealthy individuals and nations, further widening the already substantial global health gap. This could create a two-tiered healthcare system, where the affluent benefit from advanced gene therapies while the poor are left behind, perpetuating existing inequalities. Moreover, concerns about off-target effects – unintended modifications to the genome – raise serious safety issues. The long-term consequences of gene editing remain largely unknown, potentially resulting in unforeseen health problems for future generations. Beyond the practical concerns, ethical dilemmas abound. The prospect of using gene editing for non-therapeutic enhancements, such as increasing intelligence or athletic ability, sparks heated debate. Such practices raise concerns about eugenics and the potential for social stratification based on genetic modifications. The question of who should have access to this technology and for what purposes necessitates careful consideration of societal values and principles. The ethical framework governing gene editing needs to be carefully constructed, balancing its potential benefits with the potential for misuse and harm.
1. What is the primary concern regarding the accessibility of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology?
2. According to the passage, what is a potential negative consequence of using gene editing for non-therapeutic enhancements?
3. Which of the following is NOT mentioned as a potential benefit of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology?
4. What is the author's overall stance towards CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology?