Ética na Genética | Debate - USP Talks #26

Summary

The transcript discusses the ethical implications of genetic modification, particularly the use of CRISPR to edit human embryos and prevent genetic diseases. It touches on historical precedents like in vitro fertilization, which faced similar ethical dilemmas but became commonplace over time. The conversation explores concerns about unintended consequences, societal inequalities, and the definition of 'disease.' It highlights the potential for gene editing to treat conditions like Alzheimer's or cancer but warns about the risks of unchecked technological advances. The discussion ultimately asks where society should draw the line in genetic intervention for future generations.

Takeaways

• 😀 Gene editing technologies, like CRISPR, can potentially prevent severe genetic diseases, but their ethical implications are highly controversial.
• 😀 The debate around gene editing for disease prevention draws parallels with past technologies like in vitro fertilization (IVF), which also faced initial ethical opposition.
• 😀 The primary concern about genetic modification is the unpredictability of results, with the possibility of unintended genetic alterations due to lack of control over the method.
• 😀 Technological advancements often come with both benefits and risks. Over time, societies learn to adapt and understand these risks, which can lead to wider acceptance.
• 😀 Ethical dilemmas arise when considering whether it is appropriate to edit embryos or select for certain genetic traits, particularly when it comes to non-life-threatening conditions.
• 😀 Some argue that genetic selection is already happening through medical interventions like cesarean sections and hormone treatments, challenging the idea that gene editing is radically different.
• 😀 The question of what constitutes a 'disease' is complex, as certain conditions, like deafness or dwarfism, may be seen as acceptable or even desirable by some communities, complicating ethical discussions.
• 😀 As gene-editing technology advances, there will be increased pressure on society to define limits, especially regarding interventions that may affect future generations.
• 😀 Access to gene-editing technologies will likely remain limited at first, with wealthy individuals benefiting more from these advances, but over time, costs could decrease and democratize access.
• 😀 The long-term future of genetic editing may see it being used for preventative treatments of diseases like Alzheimer’s, but societal and ethical acceptance will play a key role in how these technologies are used.

Q & A

What ethical issues were raised by the Chinese scientist's gene editing experiment on twins?

The ethical issues stemmed from the scientist's decision to edit the genes of embryos to make them resistant to HIV. This intervention was controversial because it involved altering the human genome in a way that could be passed on to future generations. The scientist justified his actions by comparing them to the ethical debates around in vitro fertilization, which was also initially controversial but later became routine.

How does the concept of gene editing compare to earlier technological advancements like in vitro fertilization?

Gene editing is being compared to in vitro fertilization (IVF), which was once highly controversial but is now widely accepted. Initially, IVF raised ethical concerns, much like gene editing does today, but over time, the technology proved beneficial, allowing many people who couldn't conceive naturally to have children. The analogy suggests that gene editing may also become more accepted as the technology improves and its benefits become more apparent.

What are the risks associated with genetic modification of embryos that scientists are concerned about?

Scientists are concerned that the current gene editing techniques, such as CRISPR, are not yet precise enough. There is a risk that unintended genetic changes could occur, potentially causing harmful mutations or side effects that we do not fully understand. This lack of control over gene editing raises concerns about the long-term impact on individuals and the human genome.

What is the argument against editing the human genome for non-medical purposes?

The argument against editing the human genome for non-medical purposes is that it could lead to unethical decisions, such as altering traits for cosmetic reasons. This could result in a society where genetic modifications are used to create 'designer babies,' potentially leading to issues of inequality, discrimination, and loss of genetic diversity.

How does the example of cesarean sections relate to the debate on genetic modification?

The example of cesarean sections is used to show how medical interventions that were once controversial, like cesarean births, have become routine over time. The argument is that, just as cesareans were initially met with resistance but became accepted as a life-saving procedure, gene editing might also become accepted as a tool for preventing genetic diseases, once its risks are better understood and managed.

What is the ethical dilemma of defining what constitutes a 'disease' when it comes to genetic modification?

The ethical dilemma revolves around the question of how to define what constitutes a 'disease' and whether genetic modifications should be used to eliminate traits that are considered undesirable but not necessarily harmful. For example, some people with conditions like dwarfism or deafness might not view these traits as diseases, yet others might argue that gene editing should be used to eliminate them. This raises the question of whether it is ethical to make these decisions on behalf of future generations.

What challenges arise when considering whether to edit genes to prevent late-onset diseases like Alzheimer's?

The challenge with editing genes to prevent late-onset diseases like Alzheimer's is that individuals may not want to know if they are predisposed to such conditions, as it can cause psychological distress without offering any immediate solutions. Moreover, if treatments for such diseases are not available, genetic modifications could create false hope or unnecessary anxiety.

How does the cost of genetic treatments compare to other medical interventions?

Genetic treatments, like those used for gene editing, are initially very expensive, but the hope is that as the technology advances and becomes more widely used, the costs will decrease. This has been seen with other medical technologies, such as in vitro fertilization and genetic testing, which were once prohibitively expensive but have become more accessible over time.

What role does societal perception play in the acceptance of new medical technologies like genetic modification?

Societal perception plays a crucial role in the acceptance of new technologies. The general public may initially resist or fear new medical innovations, such as genetic modification, due to ethical, moral, or cultural concerns. However, as the technology becomes more widely used and understood, and as its benefits become clearer, societal attitudes can change, leading to broader acceptance.

How might gene editing impact social inequality, particularly in relation to healthcare?

There is a concern that gene editing could exacerbate social inequality, particularly if the technology is initially only available to the wealthy. If gene editing becomes routine but remains costly, it could create a divide between those who can afford genetic modifications and those who cannot, leading to increased disparities in health and opportunities.