Like many, I approach the CRISPR dilemma with what I would call “cautious” optimism. In the grand scheme, eradicating undesirable sickness with the goal of giving our species a fighting chance into the distant future seems the most logical step in our ever evolving society. The main objective of modern medicine today seeks to treat and ultimately prolong the life of individuals who would otherwise perish from disease and life-threatening illness, and along that same trajectory, CRISPR technologies also seeks to accomplish the same; but through the approach of eliminating the invisible threat from humanity’s genetic makeup.

It goes without saying that there are heavy ethical considerations that should be given, as we are talking about playing “scientist” with life. Naturally, as with any deviation from what we currently understand as the universal “normal”, comes criticisms (understandably so) that it goes against nature; and it is quite hard to make the argument that it does not. But imagine for a second if you will, that we eventually harness the ability to eradicate disease and life-threatening illness, effectively abolishing the cycle of abuse by health insurance companies and providing every human a strong fighting chance from birth, would you not deem this righteous?

Yet on the other side of the fence, there is much to say about how we should not effectively modify our genetics, as there may be unintended and likely unrealized consequences, and let’s face it.. there really isn’t a whole lot of long term data that shows the efficacy of “modified life”. 

Yet despite the lack of empirical data, I firmly believe this to be the next logical step of our species as we evolve into the next stage of our existence.