Genetic engineering has been around since the 1970s, it involves editing the genome, which According to the National Human Genome research institution“lets scientists change the DNA of many organisms, including plants, bacteria, and animals”. These changes in DNA has been used to create many GMOs(Genetically modified organisms) which we benefit from such as Soybean, Corn, canola, plums and many more that have been genetically modified to needs like virus resistance, insect resistance, and herbicide tolerance. (Phillips). As we have come along way with Genetic engineering, Scientist have begun to take into account problems these advancements might have in the future. These ethical problems include human embryo editing and the unfamiliar consequences that could come from changing human traits. While we have not gotten to the point where we can fully understand these changes, we need to call for more regulations and testing of Genetic engineering before these dilemmas become a reality.
Many thoughts of ethical dilemmas have sparked since the discovery of a new Genome editing tool called CRISPR. Invented in 2009 the new tool “has made it easier than ever to edit DNA. CRISPR is simpler, faster, cheaper, and more accurate than older genome editing methods”(NHGRI). While CRISPR is still in its early days of use, people and scientist are concerned about the capabilities these genetic advancements will be able to have in the future. Some suggest that instead of eliminating severe diseases they could be used as a form of eugenics which according to Danielle Simmons is “The practice of controlled breeding in humans with the goal of achieving specific traits among offspring; usually characterized by a social goal.”(Simmons).
Simmons a writer for Nature Education also says that this eugenics could lead to what the media is calling “Designer babies”. Designer babies are essentially parents giving birth to kids that they have selected specific genetics for. For example, these selected genetics could make a change in height or facial features through genetic engineering, that would not normally be inherited. While this would certainly be more of an ethical problem revolving around religion and beliefs against “playing God” (Warmflash). This problem is likely to affect not just religious aspects but all of humanity, as this type of genetic editing is more likely to come with a higher cost. This being expensive would ultimately lead to inequality among the rich and the poor, where the rich would have accessible access to these Genetical enhancements and the poor would not.
127 our experts are availableright now
There also comes the issue of how much people are willing to enhance their children. Whether it be increased height or better athletic ability or other traits not normally being inherited. And what happens when a child born with genetical enhancements becomes to hate the modifications his parents have invested in him; Simmons questions if this will “alter the way the child feels about its parents, and vice versa?”. While there are regulations being set, some have questionable holes in them. In one of Natures weekly scientific journal called Gene politics they talk about how the FDA “subcommittee wants to take no chance with human modification: a bill that it released on 17 June bans the FDA from using public funds to evaluate applications for clinical trials involving genetically modified human embryos. Ironically, the current wording could backfire: applications for permission to investigate new drugs are automatically approved in 30 days unless the FDA blocks them, which would require funds.”(Gene Politics).
While this is not ideal, The U.S is actively setting regulations which will one day be used to direct the direction of genetic modification in the U.S. This poses yet another question, How do we better these regulations to prevent these ethical concerns? While America is not the only country who has concerns with the ethics of genetic engineering other countries are concerned as well. So how do we all come together and stop this from becoming a problem in the future? Well in the International Summit Community of Human Genome Editing they applauded the advancements that have been made in Genome editing, yet they believe “that proceeding with any clinical use of germline editing remains irresponsible at this time.”(The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine).In other words, they believe that human genetic modification must be stopped at this point in time.
While this is one part of solving the ethical dilemmas from proceeding they also said that Human genome editing could be excepted in the future if it meets strict criteria. The criteria the International Summit Organizing Committee made follows as “independent oversight, a compelling medical need, an absence of reasonable alternatives, a plan for long-term follow-up, and attention to societal effects.”(National Academy of Sciences).Even if this could be met there is still the potential of it not being completely accepted by the public. This has left only two options of regulations. Banning genetical engineering on the human embryo completely or providing more controlled genetic testing to get the the point where we understand all of the complications this could have.
To understand more of the controlled genetic testing that must be done, we should see the effects it has had on animals; and why the start of human genome editing must be put off as the International Summit has said. While editing mice scientist have found a way to increase learning and memory but they are “also more sensitive to chronic pain” says Stull who is a writer for TheScientist which is a daily scientific newsletter that is respected in the scientific community. This side effect on genetic manipulation is one reason why Human embryos cannot be tested yet. The side effect on increased memory and learning also provides another ethical dilemma. How can we engineer humans knowing that they may experience pain from our modifications?
And to avoid this ethical dilemma we must continue testing so that we can perform these GMOs without side effects. In China, they have proceeded with such testing but Junjiu Huang, a gene-function researcher at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, and his team have used “non-viable embryos obtained from fertility clinics, in which eggs had been fertilized by two sperm and so could not result in a live birth.”(Cyranoski).This is a good step in the right direction but it does not show the implications these genetic changes would have on a living person.
To show these implications we would have to look at more research from Genetic modifications in animals. If we take a look at the Africanized Bee also called the Killer Bee we see a related form of modification but these bees were cross-breed with honey bees and in the end resulted in a more aggressive bee. The Killer Bee has” killed some 1,000 humans, with victims receiving ten times as many stings than from the European strain.”(Smithsonian).This means that while we can benefit from GMOs we can also cause harm. The new Bee and other GMOs also affect other branches of science like Taxonomy. this could be both for the good and the bad.
In Taxonomy case, it is for the good, as Boxshall a scientific adviser to the House of Lords Science and Technology has said “Taxonomy is not taken seriously”. (Rodger). And as a result of increased modification and changes in animals and plants, from GMO studies or things revolved around genetic modification, Taxonomy might gain more support in the end. The scientific job of Taxonomy might also help regulate the changes being made to animals and the environment. These regulation on animals will also help Human embryos be controlled and therefore help ethical dilemmas from becoming a problem in the future.
On the Other side, Genetic technology has also advanced to be very useful and has even been helpful in fighting cancer. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute gene therapy helped a “ one-year-old in the United Kingdom named Layla” “fight leukemia, a type of cancer”.Layla was able to overcome it and while Gene therapy is very useful and provides very little ethical dilemmas, the advancements it makes outside of the medical area are the cause of most concerns. I’m not advocating against the stopping of gene therapy research I’m, more so advocating for the regulation of it, as its Technology can be used to not only get rid of diseases as I said before, but it can also be used to create those perfect humans and along with it more problems.
This is also a reason why “treatments like the one that Layla received are still experimental because the scientific community and policymakers still have to address technical barriers and ethical concerns surrounding genome editing.”(NHGRI).While one might ask for more regulations and more clinical trials on humans. It is not in the best interest of humanity as “making changes in human DNA that could be passed down for generations has long been considered off-limits. One reason is that a mistake could introduce a new disease that could be passed down for generations.”(stein).So while these advancements can help society in their use of stopping diseases it has the possibility of introducing new ones. Which is why the negatives out weight the positives and why we need to conduct more research and to regulate the advancements being made. Whether it is from following the International Summit criteria or Banning genetical engineering on the human embryo completely.
While coming to the conclusion of stopping Ethical dilemmas in the scientific community we had to look at regulations proposed by the International Summit and the ones already existing. We also had to look at unfamiliar consequences that could come from changing human traits to fully understand the positives and negatives of Genetic Engineering. We saw that a change we make in the Human DNA can propose a much bigger problem then what good they can do.To come up with a solution for the ethical concerns in the scientific community we had to see that messing with Human DNA could mean Humanity’s downfall.
This is one of the reasons why the negatives outweigh the positives and why more research and regulations need to be made whether its following the International Summit criteria or by doing extensive research that may take years to develop. This Solution is based on the knowledge we have now and it could have the possibility to change if we were to unlock another method of Genetic engineering. This method would need to let us have full control of the changes we want to make without the side effects. While this doesn’t seem very likely we will have to continue with the process of setting better Regulations and have more extensive research before we continue Human embryo experiments.
