Abstract
Not too many years ago, the possibility of cognitive enhancement through genetic engineering interventions seemed to be not only very distant, but also a dead end. In few years the situation has changed: today we have available new generation of genetic editing techniques—in particular CRISPR-Cas9—which allows to cut and paste with precision into the coding sequence of bases of a single gene, yielding results that were previously unthinkable in terms of simplicity and applicative accuracy (science fiction excluded). On the other hand, recent studies have identified some genes that can play a very important role in controlling specific cognitive functions. In this article, in addition to accounting for these advances in research, I examine, from a neuroethical perspective, some emerging critical issues related to enhancement via genetic editing. First of all, I consider the safety of the practice. Secondly, I address other ethical issues, some of which seem to suggest that we need extreme caution before embarking on the path of genetic editing. Finally, I discuss the parents’ will to give their children better cognitive skills. In general, faced with the prospect of a radical and sudden change in cognitive endowments, the most pertinent course of action seems to be to identify the individual and social factors of human well-being that are most shared, and assess whether cognitive enhancement through genetic editing goes in that direction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
“CRISPR-Cas9 was adapted from a naturally occurring genome editing system in bacteria. The bacteria capture snippets of DNA from invading viruses and use them to create DNA segments known as CRISPR arrays. The CRISPR arrays allow the bacteria to “remember” the viruses (or closely related ones). If the viruses attack again, the bacteria produce RNA segments from the CRISPR arrays to target the viruses’ DNA. The bacteria then use Cas9 or a similar enzyme to cut the DNA apart, which disables the virus. The CRISPR-Cas9 system works similarly in the lab. Researchers create a small piece of RNA with a short “guide” sequence that attaches (binds) to a specific target sequence of DNA in a genome. The RNA also binds to the Cas9 enzyme. As in bacteria, the modified RNA is used to recognize the DNA sequence, and the Cas9 enzyme cuts the DNA at the targeted location. Although Cas9 is the enzyme that is used most often, other enzymes (for example Cpf1) can also be used. Once the DNA is cut, researchers use the cell’s own DNA repair machinery to add or delete pieces of genetic material, or to make changes to the DNA by replacing an existing segment with a customized DNA sequence” (Genetics Home Reference (NIH) 2018).
References
Agar, N. (2004). Liberal eugenics. In Defence of human enhancement. New York: Wiley.
Bess, M. (2015). Our grandchildren redesigned: life in the bioengineered society of the near future. Boston: Beacon Press.
Bonduriansky, R., & Day, T. (2018). Extended heredity: a new understanding of inheritance and evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brighouse, H., & Swift, A. (2006). Equality, priority, and positional goods. Ethics, 116(3), 471–497.
Buchanan, A. E. (2011). Beyond humanity? The ethics of biomedical enhancement. New York: Oxford University Press.
Callaway, E. (2018). Controversial CRISPR ‘gener drives’ tested in mammals for the first time. Nature, 559(7713), 164.
Clayton, M. (2006). Justice and legitimacy in upbringing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ehrenberg, A. (2016). The weariness of the self: Diagnosing the history of depression in the contemporary age. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Food and Drug Administration (2017). Information about self-administration of gene therapy. https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/CellularGeneTherapyProducts/ucm586343.htm.
Forlini, C., & Racine, E. (2009). Autonomy and coercion in academic “cognitive enhancement” using methylphenidate: perspectives of key stakeholders. Neuroethics, 2, 163–177.
Garasic, M. D., & Lavazza, A. (2015). Performance enhancement in the workplace: why and when healthy individuals should disclose their reliance on pharmaceutical cognitive enhancers. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 9, 13.
Garasic, M. D., & Lavazza, A. (2016). Moral and social reasons to acknowledge the use of cognitive enhancers in competitive-selective contexts. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1), 18.
Genetics Home Reference (NIH) (2018). What are genome editing and CRISPR-Cas9? https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/genomeediting.
Gheaus, A. (2017). Parental genetic shaping and parental environmental shaping. The Philosophical Quarterly, 67(267), 263–281.
Habermas, J. (2003). The future of human nature. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hamer, D. (2004). The god gene: how faith is hardwired into our genes. New York: Doubleday.
Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making ethical people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Huentelman, M. J., Piras, I. S., Siniard, A. L., et al. (2018). Associations of MAP2K3 gene variants with superior memory in SuperAgers. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 10, 155. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2018.00155.
Kamm, F. M. (2005). Is there a problem with enhancement? The American Journal of Bioethics, 5(3), 5–14.
Kosicki, M., Tomberg, K., & Bradley, A. (2018). Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nature Biotechnology. https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4192.
Lam, M., Trampush, J. W., Yu, J., et al. (2017). Large-scale cognitive GWAS meta-analysis reveals tissue-specific neural expression and potential nootropic drug targets. Cell Reports, 21(9), 2597–2613.
Lavazza, A. (2015). Erasing traumatic memories: when context and social interests can outweigh personal autonomy. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 10(1), 3.
Lavazza, A. (2016). A Rawlsian version of the opportunity maintenance thesis. The American Journal of Bioethics, 16(6), 50–52.
Ledford, H. (2017). FDA advisers back gene therapy for rare form of blindness. Nature, 550(7676), 314.
Lee, S. M. (2017). This guy says he’s the first person to attempt editing his DNA with CRISPR. BuzzFeedNews. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/this-biohacker-wants-to-edit-his-own-dna.
Lee, B., Lee, K., Panda, S., et al. (2018a). Nanoparticle delivery of CRISPR into the brain rescues a mouse model of fragile X syndrome from exaggerated repetitive behaviours. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 2, 497–507.
Lee, J. J., Wedow, R., Okbay, A., et al. (2018b). Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nature Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3.
Maier, L. J., Ferris, J. A., & Winstock, A. R. (2018). Pharmacological cognitive enhancement among non-ADHD individuals-a cross-sectional study in 15 countries. International Journal of Drug Policy, 58, 104–112.
Mosher, D. S., Quignon, P., Bustamante, C. D., et al. (2007). A mutation in the myostatin gene increases muscle mass and enhances racing performance in heterozygote dogs. PLoS Genetics, 3(5), e79.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2018). Genome editing and human reproduction: social and ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Genome-editing-and-human-reproduction-FINAL-website.pdf.
Pearlman, A. (2017). Biohackers are using CRISPR on their DNA and we can’t stop it. New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23631520-100-biohackers-are-using-crispr-on-their-dna-and-we-cant-stop-it/.
Plomin, R. (1999). Genetics and general cognitive ability. Nature, 402(6761supp), C25–C29.
Reardon, S. (2016). First CRISPR clinical trial gets green light from US panel. Nature. https://www.nature.com/news/first-crispr-clinical-trial-gets-green-light-from-us-panel-1.20137.
Sandel, M. J. (2007). The case against perfection: What’s wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Santoni de Sio, F., Faulmüller, N., & Vincent, N. A. (2014). How cognitive enhancement can change our duties. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 131.
Savulescu, J. (2001). Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics, 15(5–6), 413–426.
Savulescu, J. (2006). Justice, fairness, and enhancement. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1093(1), 321–338.
Savulescu, J. (2009). Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in philosophy of technology (pp. 417–430). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Scheggia, D., Zamberletti, E., Realini, N., et al. (2018). Remote memories are enhanced by COMT activity through dysregulation of the endocannabinoid system in the prefrontal cortex. Molecular Psychiatry, 23(4), 1040–1050.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine. (2017). Human genome editing. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press.
The President’s Council on Bioethics. (2003). Beyond therapy: biotechnology and the pursuit of human improvement. New York: Harper Perennial.
Zhang, S. (2018). A biohacker regrets publicly injecting himself with CRISPR. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/biohacking-stunts-crispr/553511/.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lavazza, A. Cognitive Enhancement through Genetic Editing: a New Frontier to Explore (and to Regulate)?. J Cogn Enhanc 2, 388–396 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0104-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0104-1