Is Reaching Perfection Really Worth Losing Everything?

It may seem that eliminating society’s current problems such as diseases and undesirable traits would solve a world of issues. This could be true, but getting to this point is possibly very dangerous. The potential consequences of playing with someone’s genetic make-up are unknown to scientists, making any move in this direction very dangerous. On the surface this appears to be an opportunity that could end suffering and worldly problems, but when giving people this much control over life, it could lead to the end of humanity. Not only is genetic engineering morally wrong, its dangers could wipe out entire species. Nobel Prize winning biologist George Wald once stated that:

Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of some three billion years of evolution… It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain… for going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.[1]

The new dangers that these actions have the ability to provoke would bring forth problems to the likes of which we have not yet had to face. Because of the complexity of the human body, scientists are still in the process of piecing together all the details. It was discovered that “the human genome contains just 35,000 genes instead of the expected 100,000. So, rather than performing single duties, genes appear to multi-task and work in combination with other genes.”[2] With this knowledge that genes perform numerous functions as well as having effects on other genes, the changing or addition of a gene could have crippling effects on the genome as a whole. The methods currently used involve adding DNA instead of replacing the mutated genes.[3] Also, scientists have yet to perfect placement of new genes. According to the Institute of Science, Technology, and Public Policy, “Gene sequence is important, and there is essentially no control over where, in the human DNA strand, the foreign genes will end up.”[4] Every single move is crucial, not only because of the lack of understanding of genetic engineering in humans, but also because any mistake would be permanent. Ron Epstein of the Institute for World Religions and San Francisco State University states, “Results of flaws in this technology cannot be recalled and fixed, but become the negative heritage to countless future generations.”[5] This highlights the dilemma that if there are any missteps in the process, future societies will infinitely suffer the consequences. The Institute of Science, Technology, and Public Policy further illustrated this when stating, “Genetic surgery performed on fetuses would, with high probability, infect the germ line (egg or sperm) cells. As a consequence, any such genetic defects would be passed on to future generations, causing irreversible gene pollution and the potential for new genetic diseases.”[6] Irony can be found in this supposed “fix” for genetically-linked diseases in that it has the capability of causing new, more devastating genetic diseases that could spread very rapidly throughout our species. This new technology must be carefully studied and perfected before becoming an option for the public.

---

Photo taken from: http://www.public-domain-image.com/science-public-domain-images-pictures/petri-dishes.jpg.html

[1] Epstein, Ron. “Ethical Dangers of Genetic Engineering.” Synthesis/Regeneration. 22 Dec. 2009. Gateway Green Education Foundation. 11 Mar. 2010.

< http://www.greens.org/s-r/20/20-01.html >

[2] Leahy, Stephen. “Biotechnology Has Failed to Live Up to Expectations.” Genetic Engineering. Ed. James D. Torr. Farmington Hills: Thomson Gale, 2006. 49. Print.

[3] Chapman, Audrey R. and Mark S. Frankel. Designing Our Descendants: The Promises and Perils of Genetic Modifications. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2003. Print.

[4] “Genetic Engineering: A Cautionary Approach.” Institute of Science, Technology, and Public Policy. 15 Mar. 2010.

< http://istpp.org/genetic_engineering.html >

[5] Epstein, Ron. “Ethical Dangers of Genetic Engineering.” Synthesis/Regeneration. 22 Dec. 2009. Gateway Green Education Foundation. 11 Mar. 2010.

< http://www.greens.org/s-r/20/20-01.html >

[6] "Genetic Engineering: A Cautionary Approach.” Institute of Science,

Technology, and Public Policy. 15 Mar. 2010.

< http://istpp.org/genetic_engineering.html >

Is Genetic Engineering the new Nazi Eugenics?

Although the practice of eugenics in Nazi Germany was heavily criticized for its lack of respect for human life, the same path is being followed with genetic engineering. The Germans under Hitler used eugenics to try to create a superior race. Any person who did not meet the proper criteria was terminated. German doctors were trained in “race hygiene”. They were taught that by identifying and sterilizing those with supposed genetic diseases (such as manic depression, epilepsy, hereditary blindness, physical deformities, and chronic alcoholism), Germany could have a stronger, enhanced race of people. Also, selective breeding was encouraged as a way to repopulate the nation. In only six years before World War II, 400,000 German citizens were sterilized.[1] Even though genetic engineering may not be taking the lives of those who have already been born, it is still based on the belief that one life is lesser than another because of certain traits. No amount of sugarcoating can cover up the immoral disposal of imperfect human beings that is taking place. When dealing with genetic engineering, people’s lives can be chosen based on even more minor characteristics than genetic disease, such as gender. Already, parents have the option of choosing their child’s gender. One method involves separating the chromosomes. In each sperm, there are 23 chromosomes. There are two different types of chromosomes: X (female) and Y (male). The sperm cells carrying the X chromosomes are marginally heavier since the Xs are larger than the Ys. Scientists separate the chromosomes by weight then implant the chosen gender into the egg. The embryo is then tested to confirm that the chosen sex was created, and if it is incorrect the embryo is disposed of.[2] The appreciation of human life is slowly beginning to fade because of a new desire for perfection. Years of evolution have become insignificant as we head toward a world in which people may be pre-designed, their fates determined by someone other than themselves.

---

[1] “Eugenics.” High School Bioethics Curriculum Project. Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Greenwall Foundation, and Georgetown Univ. 15 Mar. 2010. Web.

[2] Moore, Pete. The Debate About Genetic Engineering. New York: Rosen Pub., 2008. Print.

The "Perfect" Society

Some people argue that genetic engineering could eliminate current diseases and disorders, thus creating a more perfect society. To live in a disease-free world could be much easier, but the steps taken to attain this could be more destructive than the diseases themselves. If genetic engineering was successful and every new human was born without imperfections, what would happen to the desire for overachievement? Scientists and doctors are using genetic engineering as a way to eliminate disease, although their methods are questionable at best. They bring the eggs and sperm together in a laboratory dish until it consists of about eight cells. One cell is then removed and tested for any disease-linked genes. If the cell is a carrier it is discarded.[1] Curing genetic diseases may seem like the ultimate solution to many problems, but is everything really meant to be “perfect”? Although overcoming disease and disability is a great challenge, the strength gained from such accomplishment sparks inspiration to overcome barriers. In our history, the people who we have rendered heroes and role models are those who have overcome trying obstacles to achieve their goals. Also, by eliminating those with disease, we are basically saying that they live less fulfilling, less valuable lives than the rest. Unless we have walked in another’s shoes, who are we to judge? It is possible that because of their circumstances they have learned to value their lives even more and make the most of their situation. It is unfair to say that one life is less significant than another.

---

Photo taken from: http://www.public-domain-image.com/science-public-domain-images-pictures/science-laboratory-work.jpg.html

[1] Moore, Pete. The Debate About Genetic Engineering. New York: Rosen Pub., 2008. Print.

Loss of Individuality & Equality

Individuality and equality are what our society has always been based upon. Individual rights and freedoms are the foundation of our Bill of Rights laid out hundreds of years ago. When writing this, our founding fathers could not have predicted that genetic engineering would develop and jeopardize people’s individual rights before they are even born. This doctrine was set in place with the belief that every individual has a place in society and the rights to make their own life. As Dr. Michael W. Fox, former vice president of Humane Society International, said, “Every creature has its own reason to be. All its parts have a direct effect on one another, a relationship to one another, thereby constantly renewing the circle of life”.[1] Not only could genetic engineering take away individuality, it could widen the social gap between the ‘improved’ and the ‘unimproved‘. Maxwell J. Mehlman, professor of law at Case Western University School of Law, stated that, “The social and political consequences [of genetic engineering] could be grave. We could become a society of vast inequality. If genetic enhancement reaches anything like its full potential, the enhanced… will enjoy decisive advantages over everyone else in all realms of life”.[2] Also, choosing all of a child’s features turns that child into a commodity. The characteristics a person possesses are what make them unique. Knowing that their parents selected their traits based on certain ideals and desires could cause a massive amount of unrest in the lives of those ‘improved’. A feeling of inadequacy caused by the knowledge that they were modified could emotionally devastate these individuals.

---

[1] Fox, Dr. Michael W. Beyond Evolution: The Genetically Altered Future of Plants, Animals, the Earth… and Humans. New York: Lyons Press, 1999. Print

[2] Mehlman, Maxwell J. “Wondergenes: Genetic Enhancement and the Future of Society.” Genetic Engineering. Ed. James D. Torr. Farmington Hills: Thomson Gale, 2006. 60-68. Print.

Where it all began...

Genetic engineering goes back to the 1800s when Gregor Mendel, an Australian monk who is sometimes referred to as the Father of Genetics, began his pioneering in the area of genetic science. He began in the field of pollination and paved the way for later scientists to persuade plants to exchange traits that they would not exchange naturally. A discovery in 1973, by Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer, sparked interest in genetic engineering, as they invented the technique of DNA cloning. This now gave scientists the opportunity to transplant genes between different biological species.[1] These discoveries have triggered in scientists the idea that genetic engineering could be used to create a better society, but what could be lost along the way poses an unprecedented threat to humanity.

"Medical Logo" by: Renjith, Krishnan R.

Taken from: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=6190&picture=medical-logo

[1] Taken from http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blgenetic.htm Original work: “Nature Bulletin No. 334-A: Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)”