Before we elaborate on the specifics of Tay-Sachs disease and its potential carrier advantages, we first need to explain a few complex terminologies and concepts. The first two terms that we need to understand are dominant and recessive genes. In short, dominant genes are genes a host carries in which the symptoms of that associated gene are clearly visible and indefinable on the person, either through a direct clinical diagnosis or through indirect periodical observations. On the contrary, recessive genes are genes that a host carries, but their symptoms and effects are not clinically traceable. The next term that we need to define is the word alleles. Alleles are genetic chromosomes that look nearly identical to each other with some subtle differences, and those tiny differences are often the result of a point mutation. Finally, the last term that we need to go over is heterozygous. Heterozygous is a relatively simple concept to understand and will be the center focus of the rest of this writing. Basically, it is a concept in which two alleles are present in the host’s genetic sequence, but both genes are considered harmless. Typically speaking, one of these genes is theoretically harmful. Since the harmful gene does not exhibit any clinical symptoms, they do not post any immediate harm to the host and do often provide extra benefits.

Tay-Sachs disease is a rare yet very lethal genetic disorder most commonly associated with the Jewish community. This genetic disorder is usually acquired by the child through the process of inheritance from their parents. The reason why this condition is so lethal is that there is no clinically proven or viable cure. In addition, patients suffering from these conditions are often children as young as three years or younger. Similarly, during the disease progression, these patients will gradually suffer from some excruciating pain and loss of their vital senses, such as vision and hearing. Interestingly, our textbook references similar diseases, sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Sickle cell anemia is a condition in which the host’s red blood cells take a crescent shape appearance rather than the regular rounded shape. This condition is serious because it could cause a severe shortage of supply of healthy red blood cells throughout the body needed to deliver the life-sustaining oxygens. It could also cause more frequent blood clots, which may turn into a far worse condition such as a brain seizure. Cystic fibrosis, on the other hand, is also an inherited disease and will turn healthy lung tissues into fiber-like tissues. This condition will cause the patient to have frequent and prolonged coughs, odd and uncommon breathlessness when exercising, and significantly increases the chances of and prolong the duration of other lung-related infections. Luckily, although these two genetic diseases are uncurable, the overall life expectancies for patients suffering from these conditions are remarkably longer than that of Tay-Sachs through clinically viable treatments.

Although these two conditions are awful in terms of their clinical outcomes, we could tweak them through genetic engineering, most commonly known as CRISPR, and make those two diseases mentioned above work in favor of us and enhances the host’s overall survivability. For example, in the case of sickle cell anemia disorder, because of its trait of blood clots, we could potentially use this genetic feature to prevent other diseases such as Malaria, a condition that is the result of mosquito bites that carries a parasite. Because of the parasite’s ability to travel through the bloodstream, it is capable of causing substantial medical chaos, especially in regions where medical resources are scarce. Therefore, if scientists were able to infuse a recessive passive gene into a person’s genetic codons at birth, we might just be able to achieve a perfect condition. A condition in which the person carries sickle cell virus that helps induce immunity to Malaria while also remaining unaffected by the sickle cell’s destructive genetic nature. Combined with heterozygous’ enhancement of natural selection viability, scientists could potentially create a population in which they are immune to both Malaria and sickle cell diseases.

Nonetheless, as good as CRISPR technology can benefit society, it could also harm us in some other severely consequential ways because it is most definitely a double-edged sword, to say the least. First of all, genetic engineering is nearly identical to the concept of humans trying to play God. Granted, we are definitely able to benefit from eradicating certain genetic diseases by infusing and altering the human’s genetic sequence codes with immunologically enhanced strains. However, we are also at risk of creating something far worse than the initial disease itself. In order for any disease to survive, it will have to go through the eliminating and evolutionary processes set forth by mother nature. With us tampering with mother nature, we are inevitably destroying that ecological balance, tilting the scale in favor of us, the humans. With that, we could very well cause irreparable damage to both our planet’s ecological wellbeing and to us, the human species.

Responses to the professor or other students:

Response One:

I like your idea that we humans should place saving life at the forefront when performing genetic engineering. Unfortunately, though, I am not particularly keen on the idea of solely trusting human nature. Take nuclear energy, for example, which came first? Nuclear bombs or nuclear power plants? With that, I do believe that genetic engineering should be a heavily regulated field of science, similar to that of virology research. Quite frankly, one of my all-time favorite comedians puts this concept the best with a bit of humor on the side, I have linked the video below if you are interested in listening to it. So to put it simply, good concepts, but it is hard to put this idea into practice. I solemnly believe that the demise of humanity is most definitely carried out by an invention that was originally designed with excellent intentions.

Response Two:

I like the mention of good traits and bad traits. That decision is definitely very subjective at best. Similar to what I have mentioned in my original post, science that is embraced for the harmony of the human civilization is by all mean a very noble idea. Unfortunately, it is most definitely easier said than done, especially when it comes to human nature. Personally speaking, seeing how virology research progressed in recent years, and especially in the years following the start of the pandemic, I am convinced that leaving these fields of scientific research unhinged and unregulated without oversight is an immensely dangerous course of action to take.