Ethicist warns CRISPR could lead to new eugenics debate

The emergence of CRISPR technology has sparked ethical debates regarding its potential use in genetic editing, particularly concerning the concept of eugenics. Bioethicist Rosemarie Garland-Thomson warns that the application of CRISPR could lead to a new form of eugenics, which she terms 'velvet eugenics.' This term suggests a subtle and refined approach to genetic modification, primarily accessible to well-resourced individuals, raising concerns about societal inequalities in access to genetic enhancements. Garland-Thomson emphasizes that the historical context of eugenics involved attempts to eliminate perceived disadvantages in human characteristics, which ultimately failed to recognize the complexity of human lives. The ethical implications of using CRISPR extend beyond mere correction of genetic disorders to the potential for enhancing traits deemed 'normal' or 'desirable.' This raises questions about what constitutes a healthy child and the societal pressures that may influence parental choices regarding genetic modifications. The debate is further complicated by the contrasting views of techno-optimists, who believe that advancements in medical technology can lead to beneficial outcomes for individuals and society. In contrast, critics argue that such technologies could reinforce existing inequalities and promote a reductive understanding of human improvement. As discussions around CRISPR continue, the cautionary perspectives from historians, bioethicists, and philosophers highlight the need for a careful examination of the implications of genetic editing, urging society to consider the broader consequences of altering human characteristics.