Advances in biotechnology have made it possible to edit the human genome with unprecedented precision. Techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 allow scientists to add, remove, or alter segments of DNA, opening the door to both...
Faglig kvalitetssikret av lærere og toppstudenter · Følger læreplanen (LK20) · Sist oppdatert 2026-09-06
This guide provides a detailed analysis of the question, "Should genetic engineering in humans be permitted?", breaking down the core arguments, common student pitfalls, and exactly what an examiner wants to see in a high-scoring essay on this complex topic of bioethics.
In the Norwegian English subject curriculum (LK20), topics that require you to discuss complex ethical issues are common, especially in VG2 and VG3. Exam questions often ask you to write an argumentative or discussion-based essay on a contemporary social or scientific issue. This topic on genetic engineering is a classic example. It tests your ability to structure a logical argument, use precise, topic-specific vocabulary (like bioethics, germline editing, and social stratification), and engage with different perspectives. An examiner will assess how well you can move beyond simple "for" and "against" points to explore the nuances of the debate, such as the crucial distinction between therapy and enhancement, which is the core of this essay.
To write a precise and knowledgeable essay, you must master the key terminology. Using these terms correctly signals to the examiner that you have a deep understanding of the subject matter.
| Term | Definition and Example |
|---|---|
| Somatic Gene Therapy | Genetic modification that targets the body's non-reproductive cells (somatic cells). Changes are not passed on to offspring. Example: Editing the genes in a patient's lung cells to treat cystic fibrosis. The patient is treated, but their children could still inherit the gene. |
| Germline Gene Editing | Genetic modification of reproductive cells (sperm, eggs) or very early-stage embryos. These changes are heritable and will be passed down to all future generations. Example: Correcting the gene for Huntington's disease in an embryo. Not only would the resulting child be free of the disease, but so would all of their descendants. This is the most ethically contentious area. |
| CRISPR-Cas9 | A powerful, precise, and relatively cheap gene-editing tool. It acts like a pair of "molecular scissors" that can cut DNA at a specific location, allowing scientists to remove, add, or replace genetic material. Example: Using CRISPR-Cas9 to snip out the mutated segment of the dystrophin gene responsible for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. |
| Therapy vs. Enhancement | This is the central ethical dividing line. Therapy aims to treat or cure a disease or disability, bringing a person up to a "normal" level of health. Enhancement aims to improve a trait beyond the normal human range. Example: Using gene editing to cure hereditary blindness is therapy. Using it to give a person vision that can see in the ultraviolet spectrum is enhancement. |
| Eugenics | A set of beliefs and practices aimed at improving the genetic quality of a human population, historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior. The term has deeply negative connotations due to its association with Nazi Germany and other coercive state programmes. Example: Opponents of genetic enhancement fear it could lead to a "new eugenics," where market forces and parental choice, rather than state coercion, drive a push for genetically "superior" children. |
Advances in biotechnology have made it possible to edit the human genome with unprecedented precision. Techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 allow scientists to add, remove, or alter segments of DNA, opening the door to both the treatment of inherited diseases and, more controversially, the genetic enhancement of human traits such as intelligence, physical appearance, or athletic ability. While the medical potential of genetic engineering is extraordinary, its application to human beings raises profound ethical, social, and safety concerns. This essay will argue that genetic engineering should be permitted for therapeutic purposes under strict regulation, but that the enhancement of non-medical traits should be prohibited.
The strongest argument in favour of genetic engineering in humans is its potential to eliminate devastating hereditary diseases. Conditions such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease, sickle cell anaemia, and certain forms of muscular dystrophy are caused by specific genetic mutations that can now be identified and, in principle, corrected. For families with a history of such illnesses, genetic editing offers the prospect of healthy children free from inherited suffering. For example, cystic fibrosis is caused by mutations in the CFTR gene; gene therapy aims to correct this specific flaw. Similarly, Huntington's disease, a fatal neurodegenerative disorder, results from a single defective gene (HTT), making it a clear target for therapeutic intervention. Early clinical trials have already demonstrated the potential of gene therapy to treat conditions that were previously incurable, and continued research holds enormous promise for reducing human disease and improving quality of life across generations.
Furthermore, the development of personalised genetic medicine could transform healthcare more broadly. Understanding an individual's genetic profile allows doctors to predict susceptibility to cancer, heart disease, or neurological conditions, enabling preventive interventions tailored to each patient. Therapeutic genetic engineering represents one of the most exciting frontiers of modern medicine. Provided it is subject to rigorous safety testing, ethical oversight, and equitable access, its benefits are likely to far outweigh its risks for patients and society alike. This raises questions about how such advanced treatments should be funded, a debate that touches on whether health care should not be provided for free regardless of income.
However, the prospect of using genetic engineering for non-medical enhancement raises serious ethical concerns. If wealthy parents can pay to select or enhance traits such as intelligence, height, or physical beauty in their children, the result could be a society deeply divided along genetic lines. Those with access to enhancement technologies would enjoy significant competitive advantages in education, the job market, and social life, while those without such access would be further marginalised. This scenario—sometimes described as the rise of "designer babies"—risks recreating and entrenching social inequalities in biological form, a prospect that many find deeply troubling and fundamentally unjust. It creates a slippery slope towards a new form of eugenics, where human worth becomes tied to a specific set of genetically engineered traits.
There are also unpredictable safety risks. Genes interact in complex ways that scientists do not yet fully understand. Editing one gene to produce a desired outcome may have unforeseen consequences on other biological systems, some of which may not become apparent for generations. These are known as "off-target effects," where a tool like CRISPR-Cas9 cuts the wrong part of the genome, potentially causing new health problems like cancer. The history of medicine is full of interventions that seemed promising before unexpected harms emerged. Applying powerful genetic technologies to healthy human embryos—particularly for non-medical purposes—therefore carries risks that current science cannot fully assess or manage responsibly.
The challenge for society is to draw a clear and enforceable line between therapeutic use and enhancement. International regulatory frameworks, overseen by bodies such as the World Health Organization and national bioethics committees, should define what constitutes legitimate medical need and establish rigorous standards for safety and informed consent. Research into therapeutic applications should be encouraged and funded, while germline editing for enhancement purposes—changes that would be inherited by future generations—should be subject to a global moratorium until the scientific and ethical communities reach consensus. The question of who has the authority to make these rules is central, echoing broader debates about whether governments should make decisions about people’s lifestyle. Transparent public debate must accompany this process to ensure that decisions about the future of human genetics reflect broad social values, not only scientific capability or commercial interest.
In conclusion, genetic engineering offers transformative potential for human health and medicine, and its therapeutic applications should be embraced with appropriate safeguards. However, the use of genetic technology to enhance non-medical traits poses unacceptable risks to social equality and individual safety, and should not be permitted. A future in which genetic science serves to heal and protect—rather than to divide and commodify—is both achievable and desirable. Achieving it requires not only scientific rigour but also ethical wisdom and genuine global cooperation between nations and institutions.
Writing about genetic engineering requires precision. Below are three common mistakes students make and how to avoid them to elevate your essay. …