Human Genetic Engineering

The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering

The genetic makeup of an individual plays a major role in influencing their health, as well as in their physical traits and behaviour. Scientists are just beginning to use technology to uncover the genomic contributions to different physical traits, and as they do so, they are discovering a variety of other potential applications for this technology. Ongoing advances make it likely that genetic technology will not only allow mankind to turn the tide on disease, but will grant the power to engineer specific attributes into humans. My concern is the ethics of this situation, because once we begin to consciously design ourselves, we will have entered a new era where humans, rather than being accepted as they are, will become another object shaped according to society’s preferability.

Human genetic engineering, or HGE, is “a process by which scientists and medical professionals alter the genetic makeup, or DNA, in a living human cell” (Clapper). Originally, the purpose of HGE was to cure and help end the spread of disease, for the overall goal of creating a healthier society (Lombardo). The human body is made up of genes (as pictured above), segments of DNA that code for particular traits; characteristics that can be anything from hair and eye colour, to intelligence or athleticism, to whether or not an individual will have Alzheimer’s when they are older (Dulson et al, p 682). However, because the human genome is so complex, there are often mistakes made in the structure of DNA, resulting in mutations. Mutations are permanent changes in the DNA that cause genetic disorders such as cancer, diabetes, Down Syndrome, colour blindness, and the list goes on (Dulson et al, 684). Scientists have developed a technology known as gene therapy, first used in 1990, which corrects mutated genes in body cells by replacing them with a normal copy (“Gene Therapy”). This kind of engineering only affects the existing patient and their current condition. However, another procedure known as germline engineering affects the patient as well as their offspring. It “targets the genes found in eggs, sperm, or embryos in very early stages of development” meaning that “the genetic modifications that take place affect every cell created afterwards in the developing embryo’s body” (Clapper). This is largely where the controversy begins. The modifications made to the patient are passed onto all future generations of the individual, thus giving the ability to change the conditions a child is born with. Although germline engineering is still extremely new and is prohibited or discouraged in about 40 countries, scientists now hold to power to cure the sick before they are even born (Green)!

At first glance, HGE seems to have revolutionary benefits to society; including sustaining, improving, and giving life. Nevertheless, there is no shortage of concerns when investigating potential consequences of HGE. First and foremost, the reproductive side of this technology is still widely in its infancy and there is a lack of long term data, so outcomes are largely unpredictable (King). One safety concern often raised involves the fact that most genes have more than one effect or purpose. For example, “in the late 1900’s, scientists discovered a gene that is linked to memory. Modifying this gene in mice greatly improved learning and memory, but it also cause increased sensitivity to pain” which is clearly not a desired trait (Simmons). This leads to much uncertainty in the chance that altering genes for a specific trait in designer children could flip on or off another characteristic. For instance, in 2003 two children developed leukemia not long after undergoing gene therapy, alluding that the altering of genes activated the gene that causes leukemia (Dulson et al). Therefore, due to the vast complexity of the human genome, there is the danger that HGE results in accidental mutations; hurting rather than helping the health of mankind.

As you might imagine, there are also many ethical concerns with HGE. Mainly, once this technology is available, it’s just not possible to ensure that it will be used purely for medicinal purposes, and not for esthetics. If professionals can alter the unborn to be free of mental and physical disease, who says they can’t alter them to be very intelligent, athletic, or tall? This is the issue of eugenics, “the deliberate attempt to improve the human race through artificial genetic selection or selective breeding” (Clapper). In other words, eugenics is the social philosophy of trying to create a “perfect” humanity by selecting the desired traits of the next generation. “Today, many people fear the preimplantation diagnosis,” or test-tube babies, “may be perfected and could technically be applied to select specific non disease traits” rather than for medical purposes, as it is currently used for (Simmons). In the media, this is referred to as “designer babies.” As previously mentioned, the technology used for designer babies is either widely discouraged or banned in most places, and is not yet administered for widespread availability. Nonetheless, it is a delicate discussion in terms of morals and predicting the influence this technology could have on our future.

Parents who select their children to possess certain desired traits might also hold a vision of a “perfect child” creating tyrannical expectations for them (Lombardo). Many question the naturality of this situation and ask, “are we playing God?” or messing with “Mother Nature” (King)? Additionally, all humans are different in their own way and have a distinctiveness that makes each one unique. By designing future humans, are we stripping mankind of all natural individuality? How ethical is this?

Using HGE to create designer babies also puts forth the possibility of discrimination. Primarily, it is not feasible for everyone to have access to the expensive technology that makes up HGE, creating social justice issues, and a possible prejudice between those who are designer (the rich) and those who are not (the poor). Another concern posed is if we design our children to make sure they aren’t born with a mental disorder, such as Autism or Down Syndrome, are we discriminating against people with mental disabilities by suggesting it would be better if they did not exist or that they are not equal to others?

Additionally, it is likely that the technology of designer babies would “encourage sex discrimination and lead to gender imbalance, as it has in China and India” to predominantly patriarchal societies (“Gender Selection of Babies”). This ties back to the concern of HGE posing as a threat to the continuity of the human race. In many countries around the world, male dominance is widely accepted. This sets the concerning possibility of taking advantage of HGE to select the sex of future generations. For example,

“in [the] countries [of China and India], the cultural preference for boys is strong, and parents often determine the gender of their children through ultrasound and then abort the fetus if it is a girl. Although the Chinese and Indian governments have outlawed the practice, it has already affected the ratio of men to women” (“Gender Selection of Babies”).

Imagine if the public of these countries legally had access to HGE technology; the female population is likely to plummet, even more so than it is currently (as depicted in the images below). Not only is this an ethical dilemma, but it serves as an actual danger to the survival of humans, as at this point in time, both sexes are needed to sustain the human population.

Additionally, moving away from solely gender discrimination, designer babies also risk human survivability due to the lack of diversity. Genetic diversity is “the genetic variability among organisms” (Dulson et al, 682). It is measured by genetic uniqueness, “which diminishes in a population when the number of different phenotypes [physical traits] or the number of different combinations of genotypes [genetic makeups of individuals] decrease” (Wolfe). The problem with designer babies is that certain traits will be selected for (such as blond hair, attentiveness, etc.), which the majority of the population will then end up possessing, causing the same types of genes to be flick on or off for everyone; thus losing genetic diversity. The issue with this is that “genetic diversity has a direct relation to the fitness and survivability of various species and population; as genetic diversity decreases within a population, so does the fitness and survivability of that population” (Wolfe). So, if the majority of humans have the same genotypes/phenotypes, as selected for through designer babies, everyone becomes more susceptible to the same disease, making it a possibility for one bacterium to wipe out an entire population.

While the technology used for HGE may be new, the concept of modifying organisms, whether it involves humans or not, and the debate that comes with, is far from being modern. Ever since first farmers “some 10,000 years ago began to domesticate wild species by selecting seeds of wild plants for cultivation” to form early staple foods, or “selectively breed wild animals” to create species such as the dog or mule, we have been altering the course of nature (“A History of Genetic”). Our desire to design better humans is also old. “In Plato’s Republic, Socrates [pictured above and to the left] calls for a state-run program to get the best citizens to mate” so that the population could be improved. “By the 19th century, the ideology of eugenics [...] had taken such a hold that countries were passing laws for such programs. Before World War Two, 30 states in the US had passed some form of eugenics laws that mandated sexual sterilization of those deemed unfit (typically the mentally ill)” (Rathi). Throughout the past 200 years, genetic pioneers such as Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel (as picture above and to the right), Friedrich Miescher, James Watson, and Francis Crick, made breakthroughs in knowledge and technology that shaped the principles of genetic engineering. However, it isn’t until the 70’s that genetic engineering is technologically practiced for the first time. In 1978, the first “test-tube” baby was born, and the first mammals were germline engineered. The first gene therapy trials on humans occurred in 1990 (“A Brief History of Genetics”). Dolly the sheep, (as pictured below), the first cloned mammal, was born in 1996. 

In 2001, the UK passed a regulation to allow the cloning of human embryos for the purpose of disease research (“A Brief History of Genetics”). The first genetically-selected baby “was created in the  US in 2000” to “save [a couple’s] sick child” by picking an embryo with an exact cell match to their daughter who had a genetic disorder (“Designer Babies”). When their designed baby was born, they used the stem cells in the umbilical cord to replace the ones in their daughter’s bone marrow to cure her. In 2003, the Human Genome Project completely sequenced the human genome, mapping over 30,000 genes to better understand genomic roles. Note how rapidly the field of genetics has been growing over the last 30 years. Recently, humanity seems to be pushing more and more boundaries when it comes to revolutionizing the healthcare sector. Knowing that there is such rapid expansion in technology, as well as the history of society’s ability to test the limits of nature, I believe that there is a high chance HGE will continue to expand, and eventually become a very mainstream and dominant topic.

In essence, HGE is a powerful technology that, depending on where the line is drawn, will heavily influence the direction of our society for better or worse. There are clear benefits to this technology, but also countless safety and ethical concerns. Of course HGE is unnatural, but so are organ transplants, prosthetic limbs, and injectable insulin. If humanity was happy “with the way nature and circumstance” damaged the human body, “we would have never invented medicine” (Saulter). Looking back in history, the concept of altering living beings seems to be a consistently present theme. With the way technology continues to advance further and further, it is likely that the field of HGE will only grow. Therefore, in order to steer society away from a dangerous path, it is very important that we, as the general public, discuss this issue as much as possible. By taking the matter into our own hands, weighing the pros and cons, and generally becoming educated on the issue, we can see if this is really something humanity should, or should not, be getting into. After all, if we were not stopped from continually advancing in the past, what will stop us now?

Resources

“A Brief History of Genetic Modification.” gmeducation.org. N.p., July 2012. Web. 21 Jan. 2016. <http://www.gmeducation.org/faqs/p149248-20brief%20history%20of%20genetic%20modification.html>.

Clapper, Rayshell. “Human Genetic Engineering: A Very Brief Introduction.” redOrbit.com. N.p., 9 Apr. 2013. Web. 20 Jan. 2016. <http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2013/04/human-genetic-engineering-a-very-brief-introduction-2572398.html>.

“Designer Babies.” Designer Babies. Weebly, n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2016. <http://mcsdesignbaby.weebly.com/backround-info.html>.

Designer Babies Barcode Image. Drakalogia. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Jan. 2016. <https://drakalogia.wikispaces.com/PERIOD+1+DESIGNER+BABIES>.

DNA. WordPress.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2016. <https://abieleanor.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/dna-image.gif>.

“Dolly and Bonny.” The Roslin Institute. U of Edinburg, n.d. Web. 25 Jan. 2016. <http://www.roslin.ed.ac.uk/public-interest/dolly-the-sheep/a-life-of-dolly/>.

Dulson, Jacqueline, et al. Biology 11. Toronto: Nelson Education, 2011. Print.

“Gender Ratio at Birth in China (1970-2014).” China Daily. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2016. <http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-09/17/content_21901190.htm>.

“Gender Selection of Babies.” Gender Selection of Babies. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2016. <http://staff.esuhsd.org/danielle/english%20department%20lvillage/CAHSEE%20English/Gender%20Selection%20Of%20Babies.pdf>.

“Gene Therapy.” National Institutes of Health. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2016. <https://history.nih.gov/exhibits/genetics/sect4.htm>.

Genetic Engineering cartoon. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. N.p., Aug. 2015. Web. 25 Jan. 2016. <https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/bioengineering/genomics-and-human-genetic-engineering>.

Green, Hank, dir. The Science behind “Genetically Modified Humans.” By SciShow. YouTube. N.p., 20 Mar. 2015. Web. 24 Jan. 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAmHoCbhyaw>.

“Gregor Mendelality.” Wikipedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Jan. 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#/media/File:Gregor_Mendel_oval.jpg>.

“A History of Genetic Engineering.” sciencegroup.org.uk. N.p., 23 Apr. 2005. Web. 21 Jan. 2016. <http://www.sciencegroup.org.uk/ifgene/history.htm>.

King, David. “The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering.” Human Genetics Alert. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2016. <http://www.hgalert.org/topics/hge/threat.htm>.

Lombardo, Crystal. “Five Key Pros and Cons of Human Genetic Engineering.” nlcatp.com. N.p., 18 Feb. 2015. Web. 21 Jan. 2016. <http://nlcatp.org/5-key-pros-and-cons-of-human-genetic-engineering/>.

Rathi, Akshat. “2015 Was the Year It Became OK to Genetically Engineer Babies.” Quartz. N.p., 22 Dec. 2015. Web. 25 Jan. 2016. <http://qz.com/574731/2015-was-the-year-when-we-decided-it-was-ok-to-genetically-engineer-human-babies/>.

Saulter, Stephanie. “Trusting the Future? Ethics of Human Genetic Modification.” Live Science. N.p., 6 May 2014. Web. 24 Jan. 2016. <http://www.livescience.com/45392-ethics-of-altering-human-genetics.html>.

Simmons, Danielle. “Genetic Inequality: Human Genetic Engineering.” Scitable. Nature Education, 2008. Web. 24 Jan. 2016. <http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-inequality-human-genetic-engineering-768>.

Statue of Socrates, Greek Philosopher. Encyclopaedia Britannica. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Jan. 2016. <http://www.britannica.com/biography/Socrates>.

Wolfe, Christian. “Human Genetic Diversity.” Ohio University. N.p., 27 July 2009. Web. 24 Jan. 2016. <https://www.ohio.edu/ethics/2003-conferences/human-genetic-diversity-and-the-threat-to-the-survivability-of-human-populations/>.

“Women on the streets fight for their rights.” Discrimination against Women in India. Weebly, n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2016. <http://a-aim-discrimination-against-women-in-india.weebly.com/pictures.html>.