Imagine a child designed exactly how you wanted. Every aspect and detail about this child is according to your liking. This child will be designed without a single disease or mutation coded into its DNA. On top of that, this child could be designed to be very athletic and intelligent. Finally, as the cherry on top, this child could have the exact eye color, hair color, and height that you prefer. What more could someone ask for? Through the use of CRISPR-Cas 9 technology, this perfect design is actually possible. However, one would question, is this ideal perfect child truly ideal? Is this child designed to be perfect in the eyes of God, or in the eyes of man?
According to the Heidelberg Catechism, God created humanity good and in His own image, “in true righteousness and holiness, so that [we] night rightly know God [our] Creator, heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal happiness, to glorify and praise Him” (HC Q&A 6). Human efforts to redesign this image through CRISPR-Cas 9 risk usurping God’s creative work as we are reminded in Genesis 1:27 (NKJV): “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Although CRISPR-Cas 9 gene editing can help prevent diseases and genetic mutations, enhance health, and improve the quality of life, Christians should be hesitant to support this new technological movement because of the high cost, lack of reliability, and ethical dilemmas regarding designer babies.
Editing Life
Gene editing has become increasingly common as science continues to advance. Cleveland Clinic defines gene editing as “the process of altering genetic material.”1 In recent years, CRISPR-Cas 9 has become one of the leading forms of gene editing because of its simplicity and precision. According to Cleveland Clinic, CRISPR-Cas 9 “was originally identified in bacteria, as a bacterial defense system.”2
CRISPR, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, refers to palindromic DNA patterns repeated many times throughout the DNA sequence. Between each section are short segments of random spacer DNA. Research found that the spacer sequences “matched completely with the bacteriophages, prophages, and plasmids, and the resistance of the bacteria and archaea was directly linked with these sequences.”3 This was a huge breakthrough in the study of CRISPR-Cas 9 because it proved that the spacer segments were related to the “prokaryotic immunity.”4 This information was used to transcribe CRISPR fragments into an RNA guide sequence which then binds to portions of DNA and either alters or deletes them with the help of enzymes such as Cas 9.
CRISPR must be combined with an enzyme to snip the DNA. Often in genetic editing, CRISPR will be paired with the Cas 9 enzyme; however, other enzymes can be used as well. Further, these crRNA segments are modified to match the portion of DNA that needs to be edited. Using this method, crRNA is altered to match that of the diseases or mutations in DNA. The “guide sequence and enzyme” binds to the DNA code of a specific disease or mutation.5 The DNA is then altered to eliminate the specific area of code leading to the removal of the disease or mutation. In short, the CRISPR segments bind to specific sections of DNA while the Cas 9 enzyme snips, alters, or deletes that section of DNA.
The Promise of CRISPR
CRISPR-Cas 9 gene editing has many benefits in the health department. Missouri Medicine states that “the CRISPR-Cas system has the potential to aid in diagnosing diseases, preventing their spread, and contributing to potential treatments.”6 Through CRISPR-Cas 9 therapies, people can be cured of diseases such as sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Additionally, scientists have found that “by screening embryos for specific genetic disorders…it may be possible to prevent the transmission of debilitating and life-threatening conditions to future generations.”7 By preventing disease at the beginning of life, future generations will be safeguarded from these various diseases and mutations.
Genetic editing also leads to the enhancement of health and a reduced chance of genetic disorders. CRISPR-Cas 9 can alter and design the DNA of an embryo to code for desired traits. As an embryo continues to develop, “genetic modifications could help increase resistance to certain diseases, improve immune systems, or enhance overall physical and cognitive abilities.”8 These early modifications can help a person throughout their lifetime by providing them with ample protection against disease, as well as benefiting them with physical and cognitive advantages.
Finally, CRISPR-Cas 9 gene editing overall improves the quality of a person’s life. Through the elimination of disease and enhancement of health, some say that CRIPSR-Cas 9 “may offer the opportunity to enhance the quality of life for individuals by giving them a better chance of being born healthy and disease-free.”9 Some even predict that CRISPR-Cas 9 editing will lessen the ware and tare of aging. Stanley Qi, a bioengineer at Stanford University, states, “[M]y hope is that in the future, CRISPR-Cas 9 isn’t just being used to save lives, but also to improve the quality of life when people age.”10 While eliminating disease, enhancing health, and improving life are all good things, people question where to draw the line in gene editing.
When Medicine Becomes Design
In recent years, scientists have begun using CRISPR-Cas 9 very radically. While gene editing was once used to eliminate disease and mutation in DNA, it has now been developed to program and create the perfect designer children. Parents were able to request phenotypes such as eye color, hair color, and height to be coded into their child’s DNA. However, using CRISPR-Cas 9, embryos can now be altered to achieve characteristics like high intelligence and strong athletic abilities. In an interview, Qi states that designer babies are a “scary topic,” and further development of the CRISPR-Cas 9 technology may lead to creating a “new human species.” He also mentions that this method “not only affects that single person, but also the children that person could have in the future.”11 Again, this brings forth the question, where is the line drawn for gene editing and designer children?
The Price of Perfection
Additionally, the excessive costs of CRISPR-Cas 9 gene editing leads to greater social inequalities. It has been argued that “designer babies could further widen the gap between those who can afford genetic modifications and those who cannot.”12 This directs to “a divide between the genetically enhanced and the unmodified population, leading to social inequality and discrimination based on genetic makeup.”13 The upper class will be given an even larger advantage over lower-class people who can afford neither genetic editing nor medical help necessary for such diseases. Furthermore, if CRISPR-Cas 9 gene editing was to be made more affordable, it would be immensely difficult to make it accessible to the entire population. While first-world countries could have easy access to these technologies in the future, it will be near impossible to offer it in poorer areas. These hereditary diseases are often found in areas where there is little access to and knowledge of medical advantages. Some sources say that the imbalance is “rooted in structural racism” and that there is “inadequate or biased distribution of health care resources.”14 While there are good benefits to CRISPR-Cas 9, is it worth growing social divides so a portion of the population can have a perfect child?
CRISPR-Cas 9 gene editing is not failsafe, leading to many dead embryos and others that are unsuccessful in their modifications. For example, in an experiment run by a group of Chinese scientists, “of the 86 embryos…reportedly used, 71 survived for two days. Of the 54 that were tested, 28 showed a genetic change, or had been ‘edited.’”15 With these stats, one would wonder if it is worth the risk. Is it ethical to use a method that “knowingly sacrifices the lives of some to potentially improve someone else’s life”?16 These embryos are commonly seen as objects and variables in a field of experimentation. But, in the eyes of God, an embryo is a life, however small and vulnerable it may be. As the Psalmist declares, “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made…” (Ps. 139:13–14, NKJV). God knows and forms each person from the earliest stages of life (see also Jer. 1:5).
Additionally, several studies have shown that the “CRISPR-Cas 9 system can induce a substantial amount of off-target mutagenesis.”17 This means that if the technology is slightly off in its cuts, it can lead to other diseases or mutations being formed in the genetic code. This off-target effect is one of the most common errors in CRISPR-Cas 9 editing leading embryos to form with mutations that are often fatal. The errors of CRISPR-Cas 9 often cause the death of an embryo, the death of a human life. Is the death of many worth the possibility of a perfect child?
Children: Gifts or Products?
Finally, the use of CRISPR-Cas 9 to create designer babies is ethically wrong. Human life is a beautiful gift of God and parents are called “to appreciate children as gifts or blessings” and to “not to be passive in the face of illness or disease.”18 As Psalm 127:3 (NKJV) declares, “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, The fruit of the womb is a reward.” A parent should not view their child as their perfect design, product, or instrument, but rather a child is a gift perfectly created by God.19 The Heidelberg Catechism reinforces this by teaching that God sovereignly creates and upholds all life, “since all creatures are so in His hand, that without His will they cannot so much as move” (HC Q&A 28). A child is therefore not raw material for parental customization but part of God’s providential order. No mere human can design a child in the perfect ways that God does.
Drawing a line of what is ethically right and wrong when designing a child is exceedingly difficult. Many people question how far is too far. If it is permissible to eliminate disease, then is it okay to design eye color? If it is permissible to design for eye color, then is it okay to code for height? Then perhaps coding for athletic ability and intellect are allowable as well? And so this cycle continues until a parent believes that they have designed their ideal baby. Many argue that “this type of direct intervention threatens to distort our understanding of children as a gift to children being treated as products of choice and intention.”20 Not to mention the “unrealistic expectations” that a genetically modified child will then be held to.21 A parent will design their child to the standard deemed by society to be perfect. Now imagine the disappointment of a parent when a child is born perfectly healthy but without blue eyes like they expected. Rather than rejoicing in the birth of a healthy child, they are angry about minor and unimportant characteristics that offset their idea of a perfect child. This is such a flawed way of thinking. In reality, there is no such thing as the perfect child. This world is depraved and fallen and there is no perfection apart from Jesus Christ and His love. As Psalm 51:5 (NKJV) reminds the reader, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me”; further, Romans 3:23 (NKJV) reads, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The Heidelberg Catechism expounds on this saying, our original goodness was lost through the Fall, so that we are all “conceived and born in sin,” making human attempts to engineer perfection both futile and an overreach of our earthly limitations (HC Q&A 7). This leads one to again ask, is a so-called perfect child really worth the risk and struggle?
Trusting God’s Design
CRISPR-Cas 9 gene editing has benefits such as eliminating disease, enhancing health, and thus improving the overall quality of life. However, due to the high cost, lack of reliability, and ethical dilemmas concerning designer babies, Christians should not support this technological movement. While the concept of curing and eliminating diseases is good, once one begins genetic editing, it is hard to draw a line of where to end. Genetic editing is very expensive and is not reasonable for the vast majority of the population, leading to large social divides. Furthermore, the CRISPR-Cas 9 technology is not foolproof or absolutely reliable. While it is simple and precise, many studies show the potential for off-target mutations that are often fatal to the embryo. CRISPR-Cas 9 research sacrifices the lives of many embryos leading one to question the ethics behind gene editing. Is advancement in this field worth the mutilation of “embryonic human life”?22
Christians must consider the blessing of children perfectly designed by God. Children are a gift, not manufactured tools or objects. As Scripture reminds us, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you” (Jer. 1:5, NKJV). Additionally, there is no such thing as perfection in this fallen world apart from Christ. Do not meddle with the design of a child that God has seen as perfect. As the prophet declares, “Woe to him who strives with his Maker!… Shall the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?” (Isa. 45:9, NKJV). Rather, consider the gift of life and God’s perfect design, and praise Him for the care and keeping He has bestowed on you throughout your life.
1 Cleveland Clinic. “What is CRISPR gene editing and how does it work?” Posted April 25, 2023. https://health.clevelandclinic.org /crispr-gene-editing.
2 Cleveland Clinic, “What is CRISPR gene editing and how does it work?”
3 Khurana, A., et al. “A comprehensive overview of CRISPR/Cas 9 technology and application thereof in drug discovery.” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, 123, 10 (2022): 1676. https://doi.org/10.1002 /jcb.30329.
4 Khurana, et al. “A comprehensive overview….”
5 Cleveland Clinic, “What is CRISPR gene editing and how does it work?”
6 David, D. J. & Yeddula, S. G. R. “CRISPR advancements for human health.” Missouri Medicine, 121, 2 (2024): 174.
7 N. Das. “Designer babies pros and cons: How to understand.” Posted October 8, 2023. ILearnLot. https://www.ilearnlot.com /designer-babies-pros-and-cons-how-to-understand/73004/.
8 Das. “Designer babies pros and cons.”
9 Das. “Designer babies pros and cons.”
10 Qi, S. “Stanford explainer: CRISPR, gene editing, and beyond.” Posted June 2024. Stanford Report. https://news.stanford.edu /stories/2024/06/stanford-explainer-crispr-gene-editing-and -beyond#ethics.
11 Qi. “CRISPR, gene editing, and beyond.”
12 Das. “Designer babies pros and cons.”
13 Das. “Designer babies pros and cons.”
14 Subica, A. M. “CRISPR in public health: The health equity implications and role of community in gene-editing research and applications.” American Journal of Public Health, 113, 8 (2023): 877. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307315.
15 Cunningham, P. & Sleasman, M. J. “What’s wrong with designer genes?” Posted July 21, 2015. Desiring God. https://www .desiringgod.org/articles/whats-wrong-with-designer-genes.
16 Cunningham & Sleasman. “What’s wrong with designer genes?”
17 Peng, R., et al. “Potential pitfalls of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing.” The FEBS Journal, 283, 7 (2016): 1226. https:// doi.org/10.1111/febs.13586.
18 Sterckx, S., et al. “I prefer a child with…”: Designer babies, another controversial patent in the arena of direct-to-consumer genomics. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 12 (2013): 924. https://doi.org/10.1038 /gim.2013.164.
19 Sterckx, et al. “I prefer a child with.…”
20 Cunningham & Sleasman. “What’s wrong with designer genes?”
21 Das. “Designer babies pros and cons.”
22 Cunningham & Sleasman. “What’s wrong with designer genes?”
Elsie R. Vander Kolk is a member of Grandville Protestant Reformed Church and is currently in her third year at Cornerstone University. She is pursuing a degree in Integrated Science Secondary Education, with the goal of combining her passion for science and teaching to educate and serve others.