THE FUTURE

Do You Want to Play God?

We already have the tools to edit the human genome — cheaply, precisely, permanently. The first genetically designed humans are alive today. Dr. Mouna Esmaeilzadeh, who was there when it happened and who predicted the Nobel Prize for the scientists behind the technology, asks the question no one is asking loudly enough: not whether we will design humans, but who gets to decide.

Would you design your children? Higher intelligence? More agreeable temperament? Happier? Kinder? Would you remove the genes that increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease and cancer?

Today, we have the technology to enter the genome and edit it — easily, precisely, and cheaply.

The first genetically designed human beings were born in the autumn of 2018. Twin girls, Lulu and Nana, in China. I was there. I was part of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences' annual Royal Technology Mission — a delegation led by the King to keep Sweden at the technological frontier. During our visit, this enormous scandal broke: a researcher had used CRISPR gene scissors to cut out a gene, making the girls resistant to HIV. He was imprisoned. The girls are seven years old today. And they are the first generation of humans in four billion years to have been designed.

In 2020, I sat on Swedish national television predicting the Nobel Prize, championing researchers Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier for their work on the gene scissors. They won.

But I did not only talk about the extraordinary possibilities. Of course we would all say yes to preventing cancer. But how far should we be allowed to go? Where do we draw the line?

Writing in ink that cannot be erased

The technology is complex today, but within a short time, any teenager would be able to assemble biological material — create dalmatians with hearts instead of spots. We would be wise to build the regulatory framework before that day arrives.

CRISPR is already being used to treat cancer. That is not the part that should make you pause.

The distinction is this: if I edit a cell in your liver, I change you. But if I edit an embryo, I change all of your children, their children, their children's children — a thousand generations forward. We are writing in the book of life with ink that cannot be erased.

This is not science fiction. It is happening. At IVF clinics in the United States, certain companies already offer embryo screening for intelligence, height, and disease risk. Not editing — not yet. Just selection. But the direction is the same. For those who can afford it.

The new inequality is no longer social. It is biological.

The greatest event since life began

For two hundred thousand years, humanity has been a passenger of chance. Randomness wrote our genetic book and we were passive participants in evolution. Now we have taken the wheel. This is the single greatest event since life began on Earth — and we are barely talking about it.

In the beginning, says the Bible, God created man. That is no longer true. By the beginning of the 2030s, man creates man.

Today, we hold more power in our hands than any generation has ever held. And with that power comes the question: what do we do with it? What do you do with it?

The case for — and against — playing God

For the last two decades, I have been pushing for a paradigm shift within healthcare, where we use techniques such as AI and genetic editing to prevent diseases. Some would say that we should not interfere with God’s work. But we have passed that point a long time ago. Imagine this. In the savannah, those with the genetic defect leading to bad eyesight would be eaten by predators and not be able to survive. By creating superpowers such as glasses, we have interfered in God's work, allowing these "inferior" genes to survive. Personally, I know many people who don’t have a perfect eyesight and I am happy that they have not been eradicated by the rules of nature.

But the next chapter is harder. Because even though we can play God, we are not omniscient. We do not know everything, even when we believe we do. And even if we did, the choices would not be simple.

Consider this: bipolar disorder is more common among writers and much more common among poets. If we removed the genes associated with the condition, would we potentially erase a generation of geniuses from the face of the Earth? And what happens when this technology falls into the hands of a fascist regime — like the one I was born under?

When I am asked whether it is ethically defensible to design babies, my answer is this: in the future, it will be considered unethical not to. Just as we compel children to attend school today because we believe we are optimising their future, we will use the medical possibilities available to optimise their chances. But that means we must understand what we are doing. And we must begin the conversation about what kind of world we want to create.

The question is no longer whether we can design humans. The question is who gets to decide. And what kind of human we want to become.

The best way to predict the future is to create it. And we can do that now. You and I.

— Mouna