This was the topic of debate among 10 University of California, Davis undergraduates last week.

Germ line gene therapy to cure disease is “like going after a fly with a bazooka” said team 1 who argued in favor of the ban.

“There are significant risks and unproven benefits. We don’t fully understand how genes interact with each other so we cannot predict the long-term effects. With somatic gene therapy or only the individual is affected. Germ line gene therapy is passed down through generations.”

Team 2 disagreed. “Why be hesitant to reduce suffering and remove painful diseases from the human population? All medical procedures carry risks. Think of Huntington’s disease. This is a lethal disease does not kill someone until later in life, often after they have already unknowingly passed the mutant gene onto their children. Wouldn’t it be better if they did not have the mutant at all? “

Team 1: “Gene therapy violates a fundamental natural law. Who gets to decide what is normal vs. abnormal? Think of plastic surgery- at first it was used for severe disfigurement but now individuals are seek treatment for cosmetic reasons. Gene therapy, which requires replacing or complementing a mutation with the wild-type human gene has risks. For example, germ line gene therapy may introduce new mutations that would be passed down into the next generation and forever change the human population”.

Team 2: “ Our species is not sacred. The human gene pool is enormous. Saying that changing one gene is going to drastically affect the human population is like saying peeing into the ocean will change the salt balance. A visceral fear of messing our genetic code should not outweigh the clear benefits of this technology. All options to relieve human suffering should be on the table.”