https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PkokArN_utp6MDUlsh_pCkRrdBdDzqoiK2JCp8Przb0/edit?usp=sharing Jasmine Mei uses she/her pronouns. She is currently enrolled in the accelerated 6-year BS/DPT program at Boston University. Her post-graduate goals are to go to physical therapy school and following that, work at Spear Physical Therapy in New York City where she’s from. Her hobbies include going to the gym and traveling with friends and family. A fun fact about her is that she knows how to read and write in Russian!
top of page
bottom of page
As a student studying biology, I think the way of gene editing is a track I might pursue in my future. I am just thinking that violating the natural rule is not ethical. Natural selection is the principle for an equilibrium in the ecosystem. If human beings were to change the code of the gene, it would be like we do not following the rules of nature. There will be punishments for our behavior in the future. For example, if we cheat in games, we may get a lot of benefits in the short term, but as long as the programmer recognizes it, our account will be blocked. In this case, will our human race become extinct?
When I think of gene editing, the first thing that comes to mind is whether it could reduce diseases in newborns or even help create “superhumans.” This technology would inevitably benefit public health by improving overall healthcare in society. However, it could also widen social inequality, as the wealthy might have the means to afford advanced gene editing, while the poor continue to struggle without access to such advancements.
The presentation makes a strong moral case for using gene editing to reduce suffering but it also raises a dilemma regarding what happens when preventing suffering starts to overlap with enhancing traits? If we normalize genetic interventions for health, we may start sliding into designing for intelligence or appearance and that could reshape social values around “perfection” and worth