Occult Technology

Chris 10 Brown, Creation of Society

This publication critically examines the sociological implications of CRISPR-based gene editing as a proposed “cure” for sickle cell anemia (SCA), particularly within Afro indigenous populations. While celebrated as a scientific breakthrough, CRISPR’s application in treating SCA presents deeply rooted concerns regarding eugenics, reproductive justice, and ancestral erasure. Sickle cell is not merely a pathological condition—it is an evolutionary adaptation to malaria, the most lethal disease in human history. This analysis contends that the erasure of the sickle cell gene under the guise of therapeutic intervention functions as a racialized project of genomic purification, with disproportionate reproductive costs to Afro indigenous communities. By situating CRISPR within a historical continuum of medical racism, coerced sterilization, and scientific colonialism, this publication urges a reevaluation of bioethical standards and genetic sovereignty.

The rise of CRISPR-Cas9 technology has redefined the landscape of gene therapy, offering the potential to alter the human genome with unprecedented precision. For individuals with SCD—a condition that overwhelmingly affects people of Afro indigenous descent—CRISPR is being framed as a definitive “cure” (Frangoul et al., 2021). Yet the sociological ramifications of this framing, especially when applied to historically marginalized communities, remain understudied.

Sociology must ask: What are the consequences of eliminating a gene that historically protected against malaria, the most prolific human killer? What are the implications of a “cure” that induces sterility, requires intense chemotherapy, and carries a risk of leukemia? And more importantly, who decides what is a defect, and what is a defense?

Sickle Cell as Evolutionary Defense, Not Genetic Error

Sickle cell trait (HbAS) is a well-documented genetic adaptation that confers partial immunity to Plasmodium falciparum, the deadliest form of malaria (Allison, 1954). In regions where malaria is endemic, this trait increases survivability, illustrating the principle of balanced polymorphism. Yet in biomedical discourse, the sickle cell gene is predominantly pathologized, stripped from its evolutionary and ecological context.

The sociological oversight here is significant. By defining sickle cell exclusively through a Western biomedical lens, CRISPR-based interventions become a vehicle for genomic decontextualization—removing a gene that has functioned historically as a lifesaving buffer between life and death.

Reproductive Injustice and the Biopolitics of Cure

CRISPR-based therapies for SCA currently rely on high-dose myeloablative chemotherapy, which sterilizes the patient and disrupts reproductive capacity. Informed consent procedures rarely emphasize this outcome as a central concern, especially for younger patients and their families (Riley et al., 2022).

From a reproductive justice standpoint (Ross & Solinger, 2017), this is a clear violation. The right to have children, not have children, and raise children in safe conditions is compromised by medical interventions that silently trade fertility for survival. When these interventions disproportionately affect Afro indigenous populations, we must understand them as an extension of soft eugenics—a system where coercion is embedded in constrained choices and medical scarcity.

Moreover, proposals to initiate germline editing in utero raise additional alarms. Sickle cell anemia does not manifest until postnatal decline of fetal hemoglobin—yet editing in the womb presupposes that the gene is inherently harmful. This shift reframes prevention as preemptive erasure, despite the fact that the gene’s protective benefits may still hold adaptive value under changing climate and disease landscapes (WHO, 2023).

Medical Racism and Scientific Colonialism

Black communities are no strangers to exploitative biomedical innovation—from the Tuskegee Syphilis Study to the non-consensual use of Henrietta Lacks’ cells. CRISPR’s rollout in SCA-affected populations mirrors these patterns. Clinical trials began with limited participants, minimal long-term data, and escalating claims of permanence and safety.

This mirrors what sociologists' term biopolitical sacrifice zones (Agamben, 1998; Roberts, 2011): populations whose suffering is considered acceptable for the advancement of science. The risk of secondary leukemia (Brunet et al., 2024) is known yet underemphasized in public narratives—suggesting that Afro indigenous bodies are once again being positioned as experimental frontiers.

Moreover, the standardization of CRISPR as the dominant treatment model may create structural coercion. Without alternatives, families may feel compelled to accept treatment not out of empowerment but desperation—reinforcing medical paternalism under the guise of innovation.

Genetic Sovereignty and Cultural Memory

In erasing the sickle cell gene, we are not only altering DNA—we are interrupting cultural and ancestral memory. Genes hold more than biological instructions; they carry intergenerational narratives of survival, resistance, and adaptation. The sickle cell trait is a biological archive of African resilience in the face of ecological devastation. Removing it without community-driven frameworks of care and consent constitutes genetic colonialism.

Communities have the right to genetic sovereignty—to decide for themselves how to interpret, preserve, or alter their inherited biology (TallBear, 2013). This includes the right to question whether medical intervention is necessary at all, and to contextualize health not simply as the absence of disease, but as the presence of holistic, communal wellness.

The framing of CRISPR as a “cure” for sickle cell anemia risks becoming a contemporary form of eugenics cloaked in innovation. By ignoring the adaptive significance of the sickle cell gene, downplaying reproductive consequences, and failing to address long-term risks, this biomedical narrative re-inscribes racialized hierarchies of whose genes are worthy of preservation.

A sociological response requires us to center community wisdom, reproductive justice, and historical accountability. It calls on researchers, clinicians, and policy-makers to understand that true healing does not require erasure—it requires remembrance, respect, and repair.

-Create Society

References

• Allison, A.C. (1954). Protection Afforded by Sickle-Cell Trait Against Subtertian Malarial Infection. British Medical Journal, 1(4857), 290–294.

• Frangoul, H., Altshuler, D., Cappellini, M. D., et al. (2021). CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing for Sickle Cell Disease and β-Thalassemia. New England Journal of Medicine, 384(3), 252–260.

• Ross, L., & Solinger, R. (2017). Reproductive Justice: An Introduction. University of California Press.

• Riley, L., et al. (2022). Ethics of Gene Therapy in Pediatric Sickle Cell Patients. Journal of Pediatric Bioethics, 4(1), 14–29.

• TallBear, K. (2013). Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. University of Minnesota Press.

• WHO. (2023). Malaria Fact Sheet. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria

• Roberts, D. (2011). Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-first Century. The New Press.

• Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford University Press.

• Brunet, E., et al. (2024). Off-target effects and malignancy risk in CRISPR-modified hematopoietic stem cells. Nature Biotechnology, [preprint].

  
  

Occult Technology and Its Sociological Implications ✍️ By Chris 10 Brow

Buy Now