The year is 2040. White, fluorescent lights flicker, two hearts hammer rapidly, one sentence that can destroy a family: “Your baby carries the mutation for severe muscular dystrophy.” The mother’s eyes glisten in the glow of the hologram displaying her unborn child’s genome.

However, one faint glimmer of hope: a few sessions of gene therapy may fix this issue.

The parents will almost certainly accept this seemingly miraculous opportunity to save the fate of their baby and allow them to lead a healthy life. But, at what cost? The idea of being able to alter an individual's DNA was once classified as a scientist’s dream. In present day, it pushes against the confines of fiction. Growing gene-editing technologies, while they have the capability to rewrite and fix what’s broken — or not — they balance the tightrope of morality and advancement.

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) is a gene-editing tool that allows scientists to find and replace or edit specific DNA segments with amazing accuracy. The most obvious and socially “good” application for this is to directly target genetic mutations that translate into severe diseases and then cure them before they take root. According to a 2022 article on gene editing therapies, the ability to precisely manipulate human DNA could enable powerful new types of genomic medicines. This shows that scientists aren’t limiting treatment to symptoms anymore; instead, the biological blueprint has now become accessible. Standard gene therapy tools allow the treatment of disorders like cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell through the insertion of a functional gene copy. However, recent advancements in this area take it a step further by directly fixing pathogenic mutations in genomic DNA. On top of this, prime editing, which is an advanced CRISPR technique, is designed as a one-time treatment to correct a mutation that causes genetic disease. These small differences enable the revolutionary possibility of reversing inherited diseases by rewriting the code even before an individual is born.

It is almost impossible not to wonder what it would mean for the human race if any disease could one day be optional. After all, as Sheena Iyengar, in her book on freedom in gene editing, observes, “with this increased power to choose comes the freedom to enact our desires and, the hope is, circumvent the accidents of nature and chance.” While more choices lead to the freedom to discard the prospects of lifelong suffering, we are also forced to acknowledge whether or not this freedom always equals a better outcome for the “greater good.” We have to ask ourselves if humanity’s need for control and the freedom to execute that control is the sole reason CRISPR has been embraced so quickly. For the same reason gene editing is powerful, it is also just as very dangerous. With the normalization of gene editing, comes the expectation of perfection. When all it takes is one treatment to cure an inherent disorder, soon that transforms to changing phenotypes or augmenting intelligence or awareness.

Growing gene-editing technologies, while they have the capability to rewrite and fix what’s broken — or not — they balance the tightrope of morality and advancement.

Once upon a time, “designer babies” were merely a thought in science fiction, and now they have entered the realm of choice wrapped in faux necessity, ultimately widening the gap of inequality. The question arises: Who, then, gets to decide the fate of humanity? Who determines the worth of the traits that define human life? That couple awaiting the fate of their unborn child’s future isn’t highly concerned about the ethics of their decision; the only thought running through their mind is doing everything possible to give their baby a chance at a normal life. However, it is crucial for this discussion to take place since gene-editing is not limited to individuals, it is potentially rewriting evolution. A study from Creighton University emphasized that gene editing carries the risk of making permanent changes to the human genome that could be passed to future generations and potentially lead to eugenics. These concerns do not erase the emotion behind wanting to give your child the best possible future, they simply add the ethics surrounding gene enhancement to the conversation. It suggests that there should be a clear line between gene therapy and gene enhancement.

Although CRISPR represents a turning point in medicine by being able to treat certain diseases, it also stands amidst the storm of an ethical dilemma. The precise way this technology functions is not without its flaws. It is entirely possible that a mere off-target edit can change the course of an embryo’s development by causing unintended genetic conditions instead of curing the existing ones. A single mistake could introduce irreversible changes to the human gene pool. The impact of one generation’s decisions could ripple through humanity indefinitely.

On top of biological mishaps, gene editing paves the way for deeper social inequities. If gene enhancement is made possible, yet another crossroad presents itself in the form of accessibility. It has been a common trend that high-level scientific advancements are often unaffordable by the general public, which also extends to CRISPR technologies. This would reinforce social and class hierarchies, by making medical advancement exclusive to certain people. Ethical progress demands we separate scientific achievement from socioeconomic exclusivity.

Ethical governance and global cooperation must keep up with scientific advancement in order to prevent the inevitable ethical divide. International regulation, transparent research protocols, and monitoring by committees can make CRISPR's use directed at true medical need and not individual or commercial fancy. Scientists must also be truthful about risks, and educational programs must warn the public about what gene editing can or cannot accomplish. Engaging ethicists, lawmakers, and communities in these conversations will ensure that moral responsibility stays in line with technological capability. The challenge is not just scientific but moral. Ensuring that genetic technologies remain tools for healing, not privilege. True progress will depend on how responsibly society balances innovation with equity.