About the Debate on Genetic Engineering
The recent discovery that the genome editing biotechnology known as “CRISPR-cas9” has applications beyond its original experimental use in protecting bacteria from viral infections has contributed to a worldwide debate about how far scientists can go before they reach unethical territory. The controversy is largely centered around the technology’s ability to be applied to human embryos. A similar bioethical debate arose as a result of the cloning experiments that produced Dolly the sheep. People were scared that scientists would go too far and attempt to apply the same experimental procedures to humans. A large majority of the world agreed that it would be far too dangerous and unethical to clone humans. The difference between then and now is that the lines are slightly more blurred, and people are less sure about where they should stand. Should we be able to use genetic engineering technology to alter the human genome, or is that taking it a step too far?
Proponents of the application of genetic engineering to humans argue that it could result in curing genetic diseases and lengthen the lifetimes of patients who have already been diagnosed with a terminal gene-related illness. Critics argue that the implementation of biotechnology to alter genetic information inside of human cells is unethical and could result in an abuse of the technology to produce a race of genetically identical individuals. Those who have not fully dedicated themselves to either side often argue that the application of genetic engineering to humans could produce beneficial results, but only if there is some way to ensure that the implementation of this new biotechnology is limited to the advancement of techniques that are related to medical research, as opposed to other traits.
Proponents of the application of genetic engineering to humans argue that it could result in curing genetic diseases and lengthen the lifetimes of patients who have already been diagnosed with a terminal gene-related illness. Critics argue that the implementation of biotechnology to alter genetic information inside of human cells is unethical and could result in an abuse of the technology to produce a race of genetically identical individuals. Those who have not fully dedicated themselves to either side often argue that the application of genetic engineering to humans could produce beneficial results, but only if there is some way to ensure that the implementation of this new biotechnology is limited to the advancement of techniques that are related to medical research, as opposed to other traits.
Genetic Engineering Should be Applied to Humans Now
If the biotechnology is available today, why not use it to rid children of terminal genetic illness? Children all over the world suffer from diseases such as Tay Sachs, diabetes, Severe Combined Immunodeficiency, and Cystic Fibrosis. According to a study conducted by the Public Library of Science, a large majority of the diverse demographic that was surveyed believed that the use of genetic modifications in the fields of human medicine and health were acceptable and were supportive of research continuing in these fields. If this is true, what is stopping the world from applying biotechnology to humans today and easing the pain of millions of people with a little bit of DNA cut and paste? Studies have already been conducted around the world demonstrating the clear benefit of genetic engineering to treat the side effects of diseases such as muscular dystrophy. If genetic engineering could be applied to human embryos, there would be no more patients who suffer from muscular dystrophy who are forced to spend a majority of their lives seeking gene therapy. According to research performed by Dr. Zhuchi Tu, a professor of biology in China, CRISPR-cas9 has presented the opportunity to explore large animal models of neurodegenerative diseases. Experiments were performed on pigs, sheep, and non-human primates to begin finding ways to remove diseases like Parkinson’s Disease from humans. Since these studies were successful, what is stopping us from continuing research and applying genetic engineering to humans today? Some even believe that the application of genetic engineering to human embryos would provide relief to the disparity that exists between the rich and the poor. If poor families are presented with the opportunity to genetically enhance their children and provide them with advantageous traits that could help them better compete in society, they could rise in status and provide a better future for generations to come.
|
Before Genetic Engineering Can be Applied to Humans, There are Some Things We Need to Do
While there are quite a few benefits that can arise from the application of genetic engineering to humans, there are also some concerns to keep in mind. One of these concerns is the use of the biotechnology to enhance future offspring in order to alter traits that have nothing to do with disease. An answer to preventing this problem is to regulate the ability to implement CRISPR-cas9 to the human genome. Dr. Tammi Ball believes that a certain criterion should be developed in order to establish who should be able to determine how far we should go with this technology. She is concerned that if no boundaries are set, the world could end up taking the application of this technology a step too far, leading society into unethical territory. She does, however, see the health benefits that the implementation of this scientific discovery presents, which is why she offers a few options to regulate the future of genetic engineering. Dr. Ball suggests considering how much patients should be expected to pay for procedures that could cure genetic disease, how much insurance companies should be expected to contribute, and how future generations of genetically modified humans are able to give consent to have their traits picked out for them. Another respected scientist, Dr. David A. Prentice, a professor of the life science at Indiana University holds a similar viewpoint. He expresses his concern for the future that could arise if scientists begin applying genetic engineering to human embryos. He does not believe that there is a problem with using the genetic engineering technology to relieve symptoms of genetic disease, but he believes that society needs to engage in open discussion about the potential wrongdoings that could occur from designing future embryos. There are a lot of considerations that have to be made before the world should apply genetic engineering to humans, and the world is not in a position at the time to be readily accepting this new scientific discovery without hesitation.
|
Genetic Engineering Should Not be Applied to Humans
Why limit ourselves to just getting rid of disease? The genetic engineering technology is impressive enough to also pick things out like hair color, eye color, IQ, height, and sex. The difficult part is that you would also be locking in your child’s destiny. Any trait that you pick over a different trait could change your child’s entire life. The esteemed Michael Sandel, a professor of philosophy at Harvard University, writes in The Case Against Perfection that “…by choosing a child’s genetic makeup in advance, parents deny the child’s right to an open future.” Sandel believes that by genetically engineering your child, you end up molding a future that they may not have chosen for themselves if given the option. He contends that it is overall unorthodox to manipulate traits that are unrelated to disease in order to improve upon our natural state. He argues that while procedures like cosmetic surgery could produce similar results, genetically engineering humans offers the possibility of going a step further. Douglas Walton, a professor of philosophy at the University of Windsor, offers the “slippery slope” argument as a rational sequence of events to predict the potential outcomes that will occur if we demonstrate worldwide acceptance of the application of genetic engineering to human embryos. All it takes is acceptance of the biotechnology to start the sequence, and then he believes that parents will begin to genetically enhance their children if given the opportunity. This will eventually result in a continual battle to create the most advantageous offspring. However, neither of these arguments considers the perilous outcomes that could occur as a result of new mutations forming as a result of using this technology on humans. Daniel Koshland, an eminent biochemist and prior editor of Science magazine, uses the example of a genetic engineering experiment performed on pigs to express his fear of the future of genetic engineering. He explains that genetic engineering was applied to pigs to improve weight gain and reduce fat, but even though the technology was successful in achieving those goals, the pigs developed other illnesses that led to premature death. This demonstrates that even the best-intentioned applications of genetic engineering can produce detrimental results.
|
Required reading
Ball, Tami. "The Ethics of Genetics." AMWA Journal: American Medical Writers Association Journal, vol. 32, no. 4, Winter2017, pp. 182-184. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=127135687&site=ehost-live.
This journal focuses on the immediate effects of the application of genetic engineering to human embryos and demonstrates the author’s obvious familiarity with the debate by listing several of the questions that the world will be forced to consider in the upcoming years involving the regulation of genetically engineering humans. Ball states that the government has already attempted to halt experiments related to genetically modifying human embryos by denying taxpayer funding to labs working on human embryos, but this has proven to be ineffective. A few scientists have found funding elsewhere and have continued to study the effects of genetic engineering in early embryonic development. Ball stresses the importance of establishing a criterion for who should be allowed to make decisions involving the future of the implementation of biotechnology to manipulate and alter the human genome and explains that society will be forced to consider many ethical issues if this experimentation continues.
Koshland, Daniel. “The Engineering of Species.” Science, vol. 244, no. 4910, 1989, pp. 1233–1233., doi:10.1126/science.11644373.
In this article, the author utilizes his background in science to explain that there have been several revolutionary genetic engineering techniques throughout the history of genetic study. He explains that this ranges from the simple process of domestication to gene therapy in humans. While the article may be slightly dated, the themes are still relevant seeing as though the author provides a broad summary of the ethical controversy caused by the application of genetic manipulation to achieve a state other than an organism’s natural state. Koshland asserts that even the best intentioned genetic engineering applications, such as using genetic engineering technology to cure illness, oftentimes create detrimental results. An example that he provides to support this idea is that genetic engineering was applied to pigs to improve weight gain and reduce fat, but even though the technology was successful in achieving those goals, the pigs developed arthritis, renal disease, and gastric ulcers. He uses this example to express his hesitance about allowing the continuation of genetic engineering research on humans.
Olynk Widmar, Nicole J., et al. "When Is Genetic Modification Socially Acceptable? When Used to Advance Human Health through Avenues Other Than Food." Plos ONE, vol. 12, no. 6, 07 June 2017, pp. 1-20. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178227.
This journal article focuses on the statistical evidence that demonstrates public acceptance of the use of genetic modification in the context of medicine and health. The authors present evidence and analysis rather than provide the audience with an opinion on the topic of genetic engineering in its relation to humans. The article includes many tables and graphs to supply the audience with a better understanding of the survey results that illustrate the demographic breakdown of the subjects being asked to rate their acceptance of genetic modification across five categories. These categories include grain production, fruit/vegetable production, livestock production, human medicine, and human health reasons. The authors report the results to be that the public has widely accepted the use of genetic modification as it relates to human medicine and health more so than any of the other categories.
Prentice, David A. "3-Parent Embryos, Gene Edited Babies and the Human Future." Issues in Law & Medicine, vol. 32, no. 2, Fall2017, pp. 233-240. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=125384600&site=ehost-live.
In this article, the author defines the term “3-parent babies” as being the newest technique being used to rid future generations of mitochondria-linked disease, and explains the effects of this, as well as genetic manipulation techniques similar to this in an attempt to convey to his audience that genetic engineering is much more complex than it first appears. The article demonstrates that the field of genetic engineering is expanding at a steady pace and shows no signs of slowing down by listing several different methods that scientists all over the world are using to produce human embryos that are clean of genetic disease. The author expresses his interest in the topic while also demonstrating an element of hesitance to accept the application of genetic engineering to human embryos. His language makes it seem as though he is comfortable with the implementation of genetic engineering to individuals who suffer from genetic illness, but he is fearful of the consequences that may arise if the world accepts the application of genetic engineering to human embryos. He concludes his paper with an encouragement to the audience to engage in worldwide discussion about the debate, revealing that the topic is pertinent to society as a whole.
Walton, Douglas. “The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans.” Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 23, no. 6, 2016, pp. 1507–1528., doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9861-3.
In this paper, Douglas Walton, a philosopher from the University of Windsor, contends that one may apply the “slippery slope” argument to genetic engineering in human embryos, following the logic that an event, in this case permitting the use of genetic engineering in human embryos, will result in catastrophe in the future. Walton provides evidence that the future of genetic engineering in humans will start with public acceptance of genetic therapy, leading to parents genetically enhancing their children, and resulting in eventual worldwide germline therapy competition. He explains that germline gene therapy involves altering genes that will result in the transmission of this new genetic information being passed down to future generations. Walton recognizes that there could be benefits to this kind of gene therapy but asserts that it is more likely that the medical applications will be so successful that the world will be too eager to continue finding new applications, and will result in many legal, social, and ethical issues.
Zhuchi, Tu, et al. "CRISPR/Cas9: A Powerful Genetic Engineering Tool for Establishing Large Animal Models of Neurodegenerative Diseases." Molecular Neurodegeneration, vol. 10, no. 1, Aug. 2015, pp. 1-8. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1186/s13024-015-0031-x.
In this paper, the authors utilize their scientific backgrounds, along with diagrams and evidence from their research to convey to the audience that the new biotechnology “CRISPR-cas9” provides the scientific community with the opportunity to mimic the expression of neurodegenerative diseases in large animals in an effort to find a cure for humans. While research has previously been conducted on smaller animals such as rats and mice, the opportunity to study larger animals such as primates presents scientists with the ability to make more connections between their observations in the lab with real-life occurrences in humans. The paper details the lab’s success in linking similarities between the expression of Huntington’s disease, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s between the lab models and human models. The use of diagrams to illustrate the role of CRISPR-cas9 and the experiment on primates is helpful for readers who are less familiar with the experimental applications of gene editing technology.