In the fall of 2018, He Jiankui of China’s Southern University of Science and Technology reported that he and his team of geneticists successfully piloted Cas9, a modern human gene editing system (Harris). Though his claims and scientific methods are still being verified, this news struck the bioinformatics and biotechnology community drastically. These recent findings prove that genetic engineering on humans is evolving into a prevalent and relevant topic. Not only does this contemporary issue have major significance in regards to geneticists and people of the scientific realm but also to the average family and common folk. Evidently, there aren’t definite rules or legislature that specifically explicate the allowance or limitation of genetic engineering, but it could be only a matter of time until genetic engineering progresses into a fundamental subject.
Ethicality of Genetic Engineering
After analyzing numerous sources that explain the intricate technicalities of genetic engineering, one opinion that seems to arise is that genetic engineering on humans is ethical and beneficial for the ultramodern civilian. The first successful genetic engineering experiment, based on recombination, took place in 1973 by biochemists Stanley N. Cohen and Herbert W. Boyer. Cohen and Boyer paved the way for modern biotechnology by cutting DNA fragments of E.coli and successfully rejoining them (Encyclopædia Britannica). Not only is gene modifying technology futuristic but it allows those associated with it to live advanced lives, in regards to overall health. John Harris, professor emeritus of science ethics at the University of Manchester, agrees with this phenomenon by expressing that “[human germline editing] could potentially decrease, or even eliminate, the incidence of many serious genetic diseases, reducing human suffering worldwide” (Harris). With insight like Harris’, modern-day families can use genetic engineering to potentially increase the likelihood of stable health for their children. For example, one way that genetic engineering can help ensure strong health in those around the world is by using IVF (In vitro fertilization) and embryo screenings to limit the chances of “preventable, and unnecessarily costly, genetic diseases” (Metzl).
Clearly, those who are adventurous enough to experiment with genetic engineering can experience significant economic and medical benefits. Obviously, parents want the very best for their children so many future parents may want to provide the best for their children using this type of biotechnology. Of course many in society view this new way of life as unprecedented due to concerns of excessive expense, DNA copyright realities, and medical risks. The existence of several negative nuances goes to show how human genetic engineering is such a complex issue.
Unethicality of Genetic Engineering
Although genetic engineering presents many significant advantages, this process is also looked down upon by many in public. An example of one negative opinion that constituents share in regards to human genetic engineering is that it’s unethical and presents the scare of genetic infringement. Terence Kealey, professor of clinical biochemistry at the University of Buckingham, explains this condition furthermore by elucidating: “We have no right to infringe on the life, liberty, property, and happiness of others; and bringing a genetically modified human embryo to term is to risk doing just that” (Kealey). Here, Kealey connects John Locke’s principles of unalienable rights to genetic engineering. This connection helps to illustrate the point that genetic modification is technically forfeiting one’s set, natural rights. On the other hand, genetic engineering procedures are not always effective. Research conducted by CRISPR Cas9 data servers has found that genetic modifications don’t guarantee to be passed down from generation to generation and only directly affect certain tissues (National Library of Medicine). Moreover, genome modifications are only susceptible to somatic cells (egg and sperm cells). These limitations cause geneticists and families alike to rethink the value of genetic engineering if results aren’t strongly effective and not assured. With the considerable scientific uncertainty that human genetic engineering presents, most are looking for a sound compromise to ensure the best outcome is gained from practicing genetic engineering.
One example of a sound compromise that values the opinions of those who are in favor and opposed to human genetic engineering would be to allow the practice of genetic engineering but solely for medical purposes only. A poll conducted by Pew Research center depicts that using 46% of Americans believed that genetic engineering is appropriate in order to reduce the risk of serious diseases (Metzl). In contrast, 83% of Americans believe that using genetic engineering to make someone smarter is taking medical advances too far (Metzl). These percentages represent a common viewpoint amongst the public; genetic engineering is necessary to promote well-being but greatly unnecessary for personal advantage and wants. Jamie Metzl, a senior fellow of technology at the Atlantic Council, is greatly knowledgeable and immersed in the capabilities of genetic engineering and expresses that “[IVF] allows doctors to replace diseased mitochondria -- the powerhouses of our cells -- with healthy donor mitochondria” (Metzl). Clearly, genetic engineering technology is capable of biological innovation and should be made accessible so more people can benefit from this advanced science. It’s of the utmost importance that we use genetic engineering technology to prevent harmful diseases and medical conditions rather than taking advantage of the technology for our own personal enjoyment or advantage (intelligence, beauty, etc.).
Conclusion
Therefore, human genetic engineering/modification is ethical and beneficial if performed for medical purposes only. While multiple opinions exist like agreement towards genetic engineering due to overall civilian benefit as well as opposition towards genetic engineering due to genetic infringement and unethicality, it’s worthwhile that society places a limitation on genetic engineering. Albeit, there are many stances on human genetic engineering but only time will be a determining factor in evaluating the effect of genetic engineering on the global society.
Works Cited:
Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, editor. "Genetic Engineering." Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 19 Dec. 2019, www.britannica.com/science/genetic-engineering. Accessed 13 Mar. 2020.
Harris, John, and Marcy Darnovsky. "Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos?" National Geographic, National Geographic Society, www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-gene-editing-pro-con-opinions/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2020.
Kealey, Terence. "Gene Editing Babies is Unethical." USA Today (Online), 03 Dec 2018. sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2264376326?accountid=1151.
Metzl, Jamie. "Genetically Modified Humans." Washington Post, 06 Feb 2015. sirsissuesresearcher,https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2262370172?accountid=1151.
Proulx, Natalie. "Is It Ethical to Create Genetically Edited Humans?" The New York Times, New York Times Company, 6 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/learning/is-it-ethical-to-create-genetically-edited-humans.html. Accessed 5 Mar. 2020.
"What are genome editing and CRISPR-Cas9?" Genetics Home Reference, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Aug. 2017, ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/genomeediting. Accessed 3 Mar. 2020.
Comments