Maximizing the Access and Uptake of Genome Editing as a Prevention and Treatment of Disease

The burgeoning of genome editing has necessitated ethical dissection from clinical practitioners, research scientists, philosophers, as well as bioethicists. To some, the therapeutic applications of genome editing are boundless. The realization of the CRISPR system has stimulated both academic and commercial interest in harnessing genome editing technology to prevent diseases from manifesting and to treat diseases accordingly. Clinical trials around the world are underway that seek to operationalize genome editing as a prevention and treatment of infectious diseases, genetic diseases, and noncommunicable diseases alike. To others, the field of genome editing is rife with harm. At the most primitive level, the safety concerns ascribed to genome editing have not yet been mitigated to their greatest extent. The downstream implications transcend the domain of health and precipitate concerns related to the stigmatization of disease, the slippery slope to eugenics, and the lack of consent associated with hereditary genome editing. Moreover, a salient concern among skeptics is that social inequities derived from health disparities will be exacerbated, insofar as marginalized individuals will not experience the intended benefits of genome editing. This thesis argues that maximizing the access and uptake of genome editing as a prevention and treatment of disease is ethically sound. Firstly, this claim is justified on utilitarian grounds that the therapeutic applications outweigh the anticipatory harms. The exploration of genome editing as a prevention and treatment of disease ought not to be prohibited insofar as the benefits are empirical, whereas the harms cannot be quantified. Secondly, insofar as genome editing can be mobilized to reduce health disparities and downstream social inequities, this claim is supported by justice ethics. I present two pathways in which genome editing can be operationalized, both with intent to optimize social equity by prioritizing distinct categories of diseases. Lastly, I consider the barriers to the access and uptake of genome editing as a prevention and treatment of disease. Upon the collapse of such barriers, genome editing technology can be mobilized to increase longevity and better the lives of individuals that have so flagrantly been neglected