Duke Medical Ethics Journal

Digital biotechnology has revolutionized twenty-first-century medicine. Previous research limitations, such as analyzing genetic code, have become trivial lab exercises. For example, sequencing the human genome in the early 2000s would cost a researcher upwards of ten million dollars, a task that can be completed today for under $500. [4] A primary driver of recent biological inquiry was the advent of CRISPR technology in 2012. CRISPR-Cas (Clustered, regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats-CRISPR associated) is a customizable protein complex originally found in bacterial immune systems used to make specific cuts in DNA. [3, 5] In nature, this system allows bacteria to identify and degrade harmful phages (in essence, a bacteria-infecting virus) before they cause damage to the organism. Bacteria accomplish this by “reading” the phage DNA sequence, making a small “probe” that uniquely binds to the foreign DNA, and then cutting the DNA strand using a protein. [5] In the lab, this technology has become equally powerful. Scientists have isolated this CRISPR system and constructed it in numerous cell lines and organisms, using computation to identify gene target probe sequences.

 

Digital solutions, specifically involving artificial intelligence, are “poised to extend this gene-editing technology’s utility by predicting repair and post-transplantation outcomes.” [3] CRISPR has already proven invaluable in identifying and treating previously unsolvable genetic disorders. With rapidly advancing technologies, ad-lib CRISPR applications beyond medicine appear to be on the horizon. To preserve people’s individuality, cosmetic genetic treatments should be avoided. Throughout this discussion, we emphasize how biological identity underpins our ability to express our experiences and claim ownership of tangible property. In effect, elective CRISPR therapies brand people with patented technology, compromising all three of these aspects of humanity. While medical applications of CRISPR bolster humanity, elective cosmetic CRISPR treatments jeopardize biological identity. 

 

For people to express their experiential and intellectual identity, societies require strong scaffolding. Numerous philosophies, including Hobbes’ Leviathan and Rousseau’s Social Contract, have established a need for some form of governance to facilitate healthy community interactions, the scaffolding of society. At their core, these ideas rest on the enforcement of citizen rights and how to manage those who break community contracts. [2] Upholding laws necessitates the ability to identify citizens. To accomplish this, we must extend our definition of individuality beyond cultural identity. Biological markers are a critical aspect of identity. From signatures to fingerprints to facial recognition, contracts are upheld by the ability to biologically identify ourselves. Ultimately, biological identity originates from the genetic code. Human genetics are responsible for making people biologically distinct. Of course, as a reminder, genetic identity is one of many characteristics that make people unique. Free citizens make infinite decisions that impact how they distinguish themselves, compiling a lifetime of intellectual and experiential identity.  However, from a governance perspective, modifying biological identity wields power that people may feel uncomfortable subjecting themselves to. Indeed, biology is often used to validate our membership in society.  Changes made to a person’s genetics affect not only their immediate appearance but also their inheritable biological information. For better or worse, the children following that person will be affected by that choice. These genetic changes will forever be linked to a company, a product, and a patent. In effect, using elective CRISPR therapies places a metaphorical copyright sign in the middle of a person’s fingerprint.