7-Opinion

M

y first introduction to the possible 
future of genomic editing came 
while reading Aldous Huxley’s 

“Brave New World.” The novel begins in the 
year 2540 at an embryo factory called the 
Central London Hatching and Conditioning 
Centre. The director of the facility describes 
to a group of male students how eggs are 
modified during the gestation period of 
development to fit into five distinct castes: 
Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta or Epsilon. 

Beginning with Alphas as the predestined 

leaders of the World State, each subsequent 
class decreases in intelligence, rank and, by 
consequence, contribution to the government. 
As predesignated vocations become more 
mundane and insignificant, intelligence must 
be lowered so there will never be resistance 
to the regimented class system. Under the 
guise of creating a perfect society, the facility 
had created a heavily regulated and dystopian 
world.

In 2021, the sophisticated reproductive 

technologies illustrated in “Brave New World” 
do not seem as fanciful as they did when the 
book was published in 1932. The test tube 
embryos portrayed in the novel parallel 
the relatively common process of in vitro 
fertilization, which manually produces an 

embryo by combining mature eggs and sperm 
in a lab. Yet, a key difference remains, given that 
there is no genetic manipulation of the human 
genome during IVF. In pre-implantation 
genetic screening, none of the DNA in embryos 
is artificially manipulated, but certain embryos 
can be chosen for implantation based on criteria 
such as not carrying a specific disease trait. This 
could soon change with Clustered Regularly 
Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats gene 
therapy, or CRISPR.

CRISPR technology is a fairly new genome 

editing method which allows specific locations 
in the human genome to be targeted using 
guide RNA and a Cas9 protein. Together, RNA 
and the Cas9 protein cleave a specific portion 
of DNA which is then repaired by the cell 
using a donor DNA template containing the 
sequence of choice. While the manipulation 
of genetic traits has had enormous societal 
and economical benefits — as can be seen 
in the Green Revolution — the altering of 
human germ cells has numerous ethical and 
moral concerns. To start, patient consent is 
impossible and any mistakes made will be 
hereditary, which may have a detrimental 
effect following cell specialization. 

The 
ethical 
limitations 
of 
CRISPR 

gene editing were recently tested by 

Chinese researcher He Jiankui in 2018. He 
“manufactured” the first CRISPR-edited 
babies through two twin girls, Lulu and Nana. 
The experiment is now known as the Lulu 
and Nana controversy — the global scientific 
community has criticized He, claiming he took 
advantage of the parents’ situation. Lulu and 
Nana’s father was HIV-positive, so He decided 
to target the CCR5 gene, which HIV can use 
as an entrance into cells — despite Lulu and 
Nana having virtually no risk of contracting 
HIV. Moreover, the edits made on Lulu were 
incorrect and incomplete, and the implications 
will not be known until later in her life. He 
blatantly disregarded worldwide standards 
for genomic editing by operating under a 
shroud of secrecy, not 
properly obtaining 

informed consent and miscategorizing the 
experiment as an “AIDS-vaccine development 
project.” Despite the amoral grounds of 
He’s CRISPR-editing attempt, his partial 
success in manipulating the human genome 
foreshadows what is to come. 

While experimenting with CRISPR-

editing techniques is complicated, the 
possibilities of its development include 
increased athleticism, intelligence and overall 
health, which are alluring to many people. 
Even still, public opinion often draws the line 

between lessening the prevalence of diseases 
and picking out traits; after all, ridding the 
world of muscular dystrophy sounds much 
better than simply wanting blue-eyed babies. 
But even when it comes to tackling lifelong 
diseases, it needs to be acknowledged that only 
a minuscule fraction of global society will have 
access to these specialized genetic treatments, 
let alone be able to afford them. As methods 
for gene editing are further explored and 
made accessible, the possibility of particular 
portions of society carrying the greatest 
amount of disease prevalence increases. 

The monetary cost of healthy embryos is 

already a barrier for Americans wanting to 
use IVF, considering each attempt can cost 
anywhere between $10,000 and $15,000 
depending on parents’ insurance and servicing 
clinic. About 1.7% of births in the United States 
are a product of IVF, compared to 4% and 5.9% 
in Belgium and Denmark, respectively, where 
reproductive assistance is publicly funded. 
Consequently, Americans without disposable 
income may not be able to access this method. 

Now consider the cost of personally 

designing a baby. How much would it cost 
to increase intelligence or decrease heart 
disease? Many people will not be able to afford 
these individualized services when taking into 

account that IVF itself is currently a luxury. 
Alongside cost, numerous racial and ethnic 
groups hold a stigma against infertility and 
genetic disorders which further decreases 
discussion and awareness of possible options. 

In addition to cost and social acceptance, 

an equally important issue is where the 
treatment clinics offering these services 
are placed. Embryo-processing facilities 
require expensive laboratories and a well-
trained staff, meaning they will not likely 
be found in low-income areas or in most 
developing countries. The repercussions will 
cause the carriers of disease to be decided 
based on location, cultural background and 
socioeconomic status. 

Almost 90 years ago, Huxley clearly 

warned of the multiple dangers to society that 
can come with sophisticated technologies like 
those he described in “Brave New World.” 
While we are still far from the bleak dystopian 
life found in Huxley’s novel, we risk the same 
class characterization by genetics if we do not 
provide the proper universal regulations and 
equitable access as designer babies become 
more of a reality. 

Opinion
Wednesday, April 21, 2021 — 17
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

MEERA KUMAR | COLUMNIST

C

ontent 
Warning: 
Sexual 

harassment and assault.

My hands start shaking 

when I think of going back to campus. 
Shaking out of fear and anger. I can’t 
help but feel furious when I realize how 
naive and underprepared we all are as 
freshmen trying to grapple with the 
so-called “college experience.” 

It all started with the staring. I was 

desperate to make new friends after a 
conspicuous lack of Welcome Week, the 
series of parties and formal incoming 
student events scattered across campus 
at the beginning of every school year, 
due to COVID-19. When a student asked 
to sit with me at dinner after I felt his 
eyes boring into my midriff in the dining 
hall line, I hesitantly said yes — I needed 
to start meeting people and making 
friends. 

It’s no secret that sexual harassment 

and assault are widespread on college 
campuses. The documentary “The 
Hunting Ground” explored two former 
students’ experiences with sexual 
assault and their university’s failure to 
help them. Many reports are released 
every year from the University of 
Michigan that highlight disturbing 
statistics about this issue — from July 
of 2019 to June of 2020, there were 
157 reports of sexual assault and 135 
other acts of harassment, misconduct 
or stalking. While these statistics are 
illuminating, they are incomplete — only 
20% of female student victims report 
their experience to law enforcement. 
Still, I always thought with certainty I’d 
be able to tell if I was in an inappropriate 
situation … right?

After 
the 
staring 
came 
the 

inappropriate questions within only an 
hour of knowing each other, seeming so 
innocuous at the time. Wow, I thought, 
I’m finally making grown-up college 
friends! So I talked to him again. 

You’re probably thinking, “Why 

would you put yourself in that situation?” 
I ask myself that question too. All I can 
tell you is that I was isolated. I didn’t 
have a roommate and, due to COVID-19 
housing restrictions, the only souls I saw 
were dining hall workers and the cluster 
of silverfish that scuttled across the floor 
of my room at 4 a.m. 

Then, the more I hung out with him, 

the more I noticed the jokes. I saw the 
smirks he traded around the group of 
our mutual friends after he asked me, 
“Tampons or pads?” Everyone laughed. 
The guy who I thought was my friend 
started making remarks to my face 
about my chest, and eventually, he 
started forcing “hugs” on me, trying to 
feel me up while I stood still with shock. 
I finally realized what was happening. 
Once or twice a week, I would have to 
choose: Should I continue living in total 
isolation or get harassed?

People act like harassment is 

something you immediately notice. 
That’s not always true. In your 
desperation 
to 
understand 
what 

happened, you try — and sometimes 
succeed — to convince yourself it wasn’t 
that bad. Our parents’ generation went 
through this stuff all the time, right? 

Confused, I made myself speak about 

the issue with mutual friends; they were 
eager to excuse him, telling me that “the 
guys just didn’t know how to act around 
girls.” Whatever. Upset, I confided in 
a close friend whom I believed would 
support me. “Oh,” she responded. 
“That’s not that bad. Like it’s kinda bad, 
but not terrible.” I suppose what my 
friend was trying to say was, “I’ve heard 
worse,” or “You’ll get over it.” She wasn’t 
shocked or concerned because she had 
heard of so many similar experiences. I 
shut up. 

If nobody believed that what I 

experienced was worth talking about, 
what was the point in making a fuss? I 
didn’t have the energy to make a fuss. I 

receded further into myself, only leaving 
my bed in the middle of the night to 
use the bathroom. My ever-present 
anxiety increased ten-fold every time 
those people I thought were my friends 
called me in the middle of the night or 
knocked forcefully on my door. Classes 
seemed distant; I couldn’t convince 
myself to work in between my multiple 
teary anxiety attacks every day. While 
the silverfish swarmed on the floor, I 
fell further and further down a spiral 
that never seemed to end. Embarrassed 
by my terrible grades and disillusioned 
with my classes, I floundered.

I went home after the fall semester. 

When I was younger, I didn’t get along 
with my family — our opinions clash 
on everything under the sun. I couldn’t 
wait to go to college and leave the lonely 
suburb where I lived. But for now, I’m 
just grateful to be in my childhood 
bedroom, living with people I feel safe 
being around. Ultimately, what helped 
me move on was the critically acclaimed 
episode of the TV series “Sex Education” 
where Aimee’s friends help her come to 
terms with her assault. Her friends insist 
on taking the incident seriously. When I 
rewatched the episode, I started crying. 
Our peers can break us, but I won’t ever 
stop believing they can build us up, too.

Still, that doesn’t change what 

happened this year. I’m sick of college. 
I know it may sound ridiculous that the 
freshman who hasn’t even been here 
a year has complaints. But I’m sick of 
trusting the University of Michigan and 
believing things will be okay. 

The fact that countless professors 

and administrators at the University 
have been accused of sexual misconduct 
or the fact that the director of the Office 
of Institutional Equity, which handles 
sexual assault cases, is facing multiple 
lawsuits for mishandling cases doesn’t 
surprise me. Stories of assault among the 
few people I’ve met at the University are 

common. In the short online seminar 
required of all freshmen, incoming 
students are “warned” against the 
dangers of drinking, burnout and toxic 
relationships, but the topic of sexual 
assault is barely featured. 

When things fell apart for me, I had 

no concept of where to begin — I wasn’t 
sure if I wanted to report the incident, 
and even if I did, I had no idea of where 
to go. My head spun when I looked at 
the endless forms on the University’s 
website — I had no idea where to 
start, or what each option entailed. 
Overwhelmed, I stopped looking. There 
must be a better system of outreach for 
those affected by sexual assault, but 
this would require the University to 
accept the pervasive culture of sexual 
misconduct throughout campus, which 
seems unlikely.

With the University’s desperation to 

preserve their reputation, they ignore 
issues that plague their student body. 
Before my residence hall experience, 
I used to define myself as a risk-taker 
— now, I don’t fully know who I am 
anymore. 

I just want to feel safe again. I want to 

be able to get a breath of fresh air without 
being approached with comments about 
my body. I want to be able to fall asleep 
without being worried if people who 
touch me without my consent are going 
to knock on my door. I want to feel 
supported. I worry that I won’t find this 
support at the University of Michigan. 

Residents of Ann Arbor, I’m sorry 

that I can’t love your beautiful city. 
Because of the University’s harmful 
decisions affecting the student body and 
their allowance of a prevalent sexual 
assault culture, quite frankly, it’s hard to 
believe that I could ever feel safe in Ann 
Arbor.

I’m scared of Ann Arbor

TREVOR MCCARTY | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

The University should 
change the status quo in 

our food system

I

n its final recommendations, the University of Michigan’s 
President’s Commission on Carbon Neutrality heavily focuses, 
as expected, on carbon offsets, university infrastructure 

changes and sustainable housing. But it also addresses a crucial yet 
often-ignored piece of the puzzle: food. Importantly, our community 
is increasingly recognizing animal agriculture as a significant 
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, global pandemics and 
environmental injustice. To address food’s impact on our carbon 
footprint, the PCCN’s recommendations include encouraging more 
plant-based options and changes in choice architecture at dining 
facilities. 

Students, faculty and administrators should support these 

changes because they are a key first step in challenging the 
unsustainable status quo in America: cheap meat from factory 
farms. The vast majority of the meat that any person (or institution) 
purchases comes from industrial animal agriculture, rather than 
a local or regenerative farm, which exacts an enormous toll on our 
environment. 

According to Science, around 57% of food’s greenhouse gas 

emissions are attributable to this industry, yet animal products only 
provide 18% of our calories. And if cows were a country, they’d be the 
third-largest global greenhouse gas emitter. But the University has the 
opportunity to kickstart a sustainable new default.

The subtle shifts in dining hall structures, menu options and food 

defaults recommended in the PCCN can nudge students to eat more 
sustainably while still preserving their ability to choose the food they 
want. According to case studies, simply setting plant-based foods as the 
default (while giving students the choice to opt in to animal products) 
can lead to an over 80% increase in diners eating these options. This 
strategy — which subverts our current destructive food norms — 
aligns with a new, dynamic food initiative known as DefaultVeg. If the 
University adopts these food policies, it would significantly reduce our 
carbon footprint — the primary goal of the PCCN. 

The University’s current dining policy, Sustainable Mondays, has 

already shown itself to be an effective tool at curbing food-related 
emissions. The PCCN provides an opportunity to amplify the impact 
of these strategies with an ambitious yet simple, scientifically verified 
approach that is compatible with different dietary preferences and 
is more inclusive in general. An added benefit of defaults and choice 
architecture is preserving food choice for students every day of the 
week. 

Food has long been left out of the climate conversation, including 

in many climate neutrality plans. However, food is rightly gaining 
momentum as one of the most pressing social challenges of our 
time, including issues of food justice and access to more sustainable 
procurement policies and the rise of plant-based products. 

Locally, consider how the City of Ann Arbor’s carbon neutrality 

plan, A2Zero, contains a call for more plant-forward food policies. 
Institutions like the City and the University are now in a unique 
position to spearhead crucial transformations in food policy. 

This straightforward idea — making plant-based foods the 

default to encourage more sustainable choices — is about more than 
reducing carbon emissions. It’s also about reframing what we think 
of as “normal food” and embracing an array of healthful, resilient and 
versatile plant-based foods at the center of our plates. 

As students of one of the country’s most prominent research 

universities, we should encourage U-M to be a trailblazer in food 
policy. If our leadership wants to seriously address the deep, systemic 
flaws in our food system, they will begin by changing the status quo 
and move toward a more just and sustainable approach. 

KATHERINE KIESSLING | COLUMNIST

Designer babies may lead to further class division

Katherine Kiessling is an Opinion Columnist and 

can be reached at katkiess@umich.edu.

Meera Kumar is an Opinion Columnist and 

can be reached at kmeera@umich.edu.

Trevor McCarty is pursuing an MS in Environment and Sustainability at U-M 

and is the Program Associate at the Better Food Foundation. He can be reached at 

tmccarty@umich.edu.

SHUBHUM GIROTI | COLUMNIST

L

ast week’s shooting near 
Indianapolis marked the sixth 
straight week containing a 

mass shooting. We see the same cycle 
after every one. Thoughts and prayers 
are followed by Democrats generally 
calling for reform and Republicans 
generally accusing the former of 
politicizing personal injury. Then a few 
weeks later, we all stop talking about it 
and move on to something else we try 
and care about for a bit. 

It seems as though everyone you 

talk to these days has their story of a 
shooting scare, or someone they know 
has such a story, ranging from the scare 
on campus a few years back to any 
number of mass shootings that have 
occurred — totaling 417 just in the year 
of 2019. What is even more disturbing 
is the racial breakdown of shooting 
victims, which is all too often left out of 
the discourse on mass shootings. 

We have said it for years, but I will 

say it again: Enough is enough. With 
talk of removing the filibuster still 
kicking around, Democrats must force 
Republicans to vote against common-
sense gun reform, which around 80% 
of Americans support in one form or 
another.

Following 
the 
Parkland, 
Fla., 

shooting, I saw this cycle take place 
in my own backyard. Politicians from 
both sides swore such a shooting would 
never happen again, but as we all 
know, that was not the case. President 
Joe Biden has fought for years to 

implement gun control measures, but 
one of the only substantive things he 
has done was include $5 billion in his 
infrastructure plan for community 
violence prevention programs. It is a 
start, but it is in no way enough. 

What we need is a comprehensive 

— and popular — gun control bill 
that would leave the more ardent 
Republicans with no choice but to cast a 
nay vote and face their constituents who 
would be in favor of implementing such 
legislation. Moreover, if Democrats 
remove the filibuster, they would be 
less able to use gun control just as a 
voting issue and doing next to nothing 
once they are in power. 

H.R. 1446 is on the docket for 

the Senate, but it is expected to be 
filibustered by Republicans. This bill 
focuses on background checks for 
gun purchases, which is a step in the 
right direction, but it is missing more 
aggressive forms of gun control. I 
propose a complete assault weapons 
ban and regulations on ghost guns.

The Assault Weapons Ban, which 

lasted from 1994 to 2004, was found 
to have decreased incidents of mass 
shootings by 25% and fatalities by 40%. 
This was a great piece of legislation 
while it lasted because it prevented 
people from purchasing military style 
assault rifles, which are the commonly 
used weapon for mass shootings in this 
country. Incidents including, but not 
limited to, the Pulse nightclub shooting 
in Orlando, Fla., the Las Vegas concert 

shooting and the Marjory Stoneman 
Douglas High School shooting involved 
assault weapons. These weapons must 
be banned for the sake of saving lives, 
and almost 70% of Americans agree 
with this sentiment. 

A new and huge loophole to 

circumvent a lot of these regulations is 
ghost guns. Ghost guns are weapons 
that are assembled personally through 
kits, meaning not by a corporate gun 
manufacturer. This process has always 
been legal; law enforcement never 
deemed them to be too dangerous, since 
they thought individuals usually lacked 
the expertise to assemble such a device. 
However, the actual ease and efficacy of 
these ghost guns have troubled many. 

Critically, these guns lack serial 

numbers 
or 
any 
other 
tracking 

mechanisms that law enforcement 
could use to regulate them. The solution 
to this problem is not an easy one, 
but we can begin by placing the same 
restrictions on buying ghost guns as are 

placed on regular guns. California did 
this and has had success in mandating 
serial numbers and background checks 
when applicable. New Jersey also 
criminalized the 3D printing of guns, 
another form of ghost guns. These 
regulations are incredibly important 
for preserving safety and reducing 
the amount of unregulated guns and 
subsequent violence in the United States.

These two states’ measures will not 

end the gun crisis in the U.S., but they 
will certainly save lives. The cycle of 
American gun violence always spikes 
right after a shooting and quickly 
subsides, but the problems do not go 
away for the communities affected. 

Mass shootings and gun violence 

have long wakes, filled with withspread 
harm and fear. Democrats should take 
initiative and finally accomplish a goal 
they continuously run on.

Gun violence: Let’s actually do something about it

Shubhum Giroti is an Opinion Columnist 

and can be reached at sgiroti@umich.edu.

AMBIKA TRIPATHI | CARTOONIST CAN BE REACHED AT AMBIKAT@UMICH.EDU

Design by Megan Tummala

