Debate of Human Genetic Engineering

When most people think of genetic engineering, they recall the heated debate surrounding genetically modified foods. However, genetic engineering is headed in a much different but still controversial direction. Scientists are currently working towards applying gene editing technology to human cells, particularly embryos. Recent technological advancements, such as CRISPR technology, have allowed researchers to not only identify genes in our DNA sequences but alter them by adding or removing sequences (Gale 3). As this groundbreaking technology is getting more and more precise, scientists are seeking to apply it in novel ways to improve our lives. Human genetic engineering is potentially a broad field, but the area that is likely to have the greatest impact involves human germline engineering, or the modification of reproductive cells. This entails altering cells before they develop into an embryo in utero so that the alterations are permanent (Gale 3). This means that the modifications made by scientists to an embryo are present in all cells of the body of the initially modified individual and are also passed onto future generations when the modified individual reproduces. With this technological application, there is great potential for both gene therapy, the treatment and prevention of disease, and for genetic enhancement, improving genes by making more optimal versions than the ones humans currently possess.

Like many other novel scientific advancements, including genetic engineering of plants for food, human genetic engineering is not without a considerable amount of controversy. Most people are unsettled by the idea that scientists have the ability to change the genetic makeup of a human being. Plenty critique the application of this technology, citing the potential adverse effects as reasons not to even bother experimenting with human genetic engineering in its initial phases. A 2016 poll found that 65% of Americans feel that it should be illegal to genetically engineer embryos to reduce their risk of disease, and 83% believe that it should be illegal to enhance embryos to produce desired or improved human traits (Gale 3). This is likely because people are influenced by the notion that altering our genomes is a novel concept and that changing our DNA would be a violation against nature. Even many scientists argue that it is unnatural and too risky to genetically modify ourselves and our children for either the purpose of gene therapy and genetic enhancement. However, human genetic modification should not be viewed in this light. People should have a more open and accepting attitude towards the potential application of genetic engineering to humans for several reasons. Genetic engineering in humans is arguably an extension of the natural process of evolution and its potential positive consequences are more concrete than the potential negative results. Therefore, genetically modifying humans is natural and not necessarily unsafe. Individuals should keep an open mind to human genetic engineering and not cause resistance in the scientific process also because the technology has great potential to improve millions of lives.

We should be open to considering human gene therapy for the reason that it has the potential to help a significant number of people. Although this evidence is rather obvious, it is nonetheless important to emphasize because of the scope of the potential positive impact of gene editing technology. Anyone can name several genetic disorders of diseases that have impacted their own lives or those of family and friends. This is due to the fact that there are thousands of genetic diseases and they are so pervasive among our list of health concerns. The severity of genetic disorders falls on an extensive range; some are nothing more than minor inconveniences that are easily resolved, while many others are so impactful on well being and quality of life that they are life-threatening (Torr). Genetic engineering would provide a new and perhaps more effective avenue for dealing with genetically based diseases of all kinds. Scientists can remove, correct, or replace faulty genes that are the underlying causes of genetic disorders and conditions (Torr). This would not only prevent the manifestation of the genetic disorder in individual whom they modify, but also all of their offspring in future generations. This gives us the power to eliminate genes that cause genetic disorders from the human population entirely (Torr). It is not difficult to comprehend the impact that is could have as it could benefit millions of suffering individuals and their families. Scientists would be able to prevent disease but also alter traits to make our lives healthier, happier, and overall greatly improved. In the long run, this has the potential to not only save lives but money as well. The scope of the positive impact of genetic engineering is clearly enormous. We have been trying to treat, prevent, and eliminate genetic diseases since the advent of medicine. Gene therapy just an example of furthering our attempts to treat disease. We have applied many different techniques eradicate disease, and now we have arrived at one that is perhaps most powerful. This supports the argument that human genetic engineering is not unnatural because it provides a broad scope of potential positive effects and is a method of using new technology to treat disease, a concept that is not new. In addition, it is consistent with the hot topic of preventative medicine, which involves preventing diseases before they manifest. The approach of preventative medicine has been popular recently because it can decrease the rates of disease and thus decrease their impact on human suffering. Human embryonic genetic engineering should not be dismissed because of its potential benefits that have broad scope in preventing thousands of diseases that cause suffering worldwide.

Genetic enhancement is also consistent in principle with what humans have been doing for thousands of years with regards to altering themselves and therefore should not be considered unnatural. The implementation of genetic engineering technology to enhance our natural states would not be a major shift considering the fact that humans have attempted to and successfully changed themselves since the emergence of the species. People participate in a variety of activities in order to enhance themselves every single day. We change our natural state for the better by learning social cues, getting an education, and altering our physical bodies. We go to the gym, wear makeup, cut our hair and even get plastic surgery to change the way we naturally are in order to make ourselves better. It is even argued that we develop and use most technology for the purpose of enhancing our intellectual, physical, and psychological capabilities (Cho). We not only mold ourselves, but we shape our children after they are born in countless ways. In theory, genetic enhancement would just be another way of doing this. Altering our child’s genome so that they have optimal traits for health and happiness through gene therapy or enhancement would occur before the child is born rather than occurring after birth. This demonstrates how genetic enhancement is in line with our current philosophy of enhancing ourselves and would not be a major shift in our approach to ourselves. The ways in which we alter ourselves in everyday life can be just as permanent as altering our physical DNA. For example, if you think about the psychological impact a parenting style can have on a child's development, you will realize how greatly the experiences provided to us by our parents can change us forever. Genetic enhancement should not be opposed on the basis that it is unnatural and would be a paradigm shift in how we treat ourselves because it is just an addition to the extensive collection of ways in which we alter ourselves. Genetic enhancement would indeed be permanently changing the natural form of our children, but people deliberately do this every day in a variety of ways that are not deemed unnatural or unethical. Genetic enhancement is a more technical and scientific way of changing ourselves and our children, but it is in fact very similar in principle to how we have changed ourselves in the thousands of years of human history. Therefore, it is not accurate to argue that the process of modifying human genes is unnatural.

It is also important to note that human genetic modification should not be considered unnatural because it involves changing our genetic makeup which itself would be unnatural. It is a well-substantiated scientific fact that our DNA is not a fixed substance. Most people have been influenced by the notion that one is born with specific genes they inherit from their parents who inherited them from their parents and that these genes have been consistent through time and will therefore not change in their lifetime either. Members of the public tend to believe that the genes you have were passed onto you unchanged from generations before and will be passed on in the same way for generations to come and therefore it would be unnatural to make an attempt to alter them. However, despite the fact that it is widely believed, this view of genetics is very incomplete and in a sense inaccurate. Our DNA was indeed inherited from our ancestors, but it is in no way set in stone. Our genomes are in fact constantly changing, both over long periods of time and in our lifetimes. Indeed the mechanisms involved in causing changes to our genome, which are much more common than people are aware (Coker). Evolution is a well-substantiated theory supported by a large body of evidence that points to the idea that our species descends from a common ancestor as changes in our genetic makeup accrue over time. The human gene pool is constantly in flux because of the accumulation of random mutations and the influence of viruses and bacteria which can add or changes genes in our collection (Coker). Therefore it is sufficient to say that DNA by nature is not only unfixed but is actually constantly changing. The mechanisms of evolution and changing our DNA, have for a long time been out of our control and they are under the influence of chance and occurrences in nature. However, now we have the ability to use genetic engineering to control our evolution by changing our genetic makeup ourselves instead of leaving the change to processes out of our control. Because of this evidence that DNA is constantly changing, altering our genomes by means of genetic engineering would not be a strange and unusual concept. We would not be “messing” with something that has remained the same for thousands of years. Instead, we would be harnessing the power of a natural process and taking our evolution into our own hands. Therefore, genetic engineering should not be considered unnatural because in reality, it is a new form of a natural process that we can harness and use to our benefit.

Many people have argued that genetic engineering is unsafe because the technology itself is inherently unsafe. For example, King describes human genetic engineering as a “pressing threat” and argues that since there have been cases where gene editing technology has been unsuccessful in other organisms, it would be too dangerous to implement the technology into actual human cells (King). King discusses how the use of genetic engineering in crops illustrates that there are often adverse, unanticipated effects of genetic modifications that were supposed to be beneficial. He argues that because there is no possibility of ensuring that the risks of genetic engineering are nonexistent, using this technology in humans would always be unsafe. However, this argument is not well substantiated because most, if not all, of our medicines and technology come with risks. Scientists work to minimize risk as much as they can at any given time, but in almost every instance, risks are still present however minute they may be. We have to weigh the potential benefits and negative consequences to make informed decisions about the use and application of technology. This is something we do every day whether it’s deciding to use a car or use a drug. For example, medical technology such as vaccinations and chemotherapy can have adverse effects and the associated risks are certainly not zero. But we choose to seek out the potential benefits by using these medicines and technologies nonetheless. History has proven that just because a technology is risky doesn’t mean that it should be completely stopped before it is explored further. If all of our medical technology was halted in the early stages when it was still risky, we would not have the advancements we have today. Medicines and technologies may be dangerous at first but are not approved without rigorous testing to ensure that the risks are as low as possible before they’re released to the public. The FDA’s regulations would not allow something incredibly unsafe to get into our hands. Like other medicine and technology, scientists would not offer human genetic engineering to the public until they have reduced the risks and maximized the benefits. The technology would have to go through rounds upon rounds of rigorous testing in animals before it is cautiously applied to willing human participants. Additionally, we continue to make further improvements as time passes that make our technology better and safer. Take vaccinations as an example. They were once not as safe as they were today, but as time has passed, scientists have accumulated more knowledge to improve our technology and minimize risks to maximize safety. Arguing that genetic engineering is unsafe just because the technology is unsafe in its early stages is not a convincing argument. Our body of scientific knowledge increases every day as researchers make groundbreaking discoveries that change the world we live in. Any new technology is likely to come with risks, and that is why there is a choice involved when it comes to using it, especially early on in the process. We have the freedom to make informed decisions to use technology for its benefits despite the risks and over time the risks are minimized even further. Therefore, the argument that human genetic modification is too unsafe because CRISPR technology that is employed poses too many risks does not hold much ground. In other words, human embryonic genetic modification should not be considered unsafe just because its technology is in the earliest stages and in its current state is unperfected.

Critics of genetic engineering, both gene therapy and genetic enhancement, often claim that it is consistent with the eugenics movement and is, therefore, both unnatural and unethical. The eugenics movement generally has a negative connotation and thus brings stigma to the concept of genetic engineering. Eugenics developed out of the pre World War II idea to force sterilization on those who were deemed genetically unfit and encourage the reproduction of only those who were deemed to have the best genes to create an improved human race (Torr). For example, the Nazis used the principles of eugenics to justify their extermination of millions of Jews and the United States government sponsored the sterilization of the mentally ill and intellectually disabled. In the past, eugenics has led to inhumane and unnatural actions, so associating genetic engineering with this ideology would prime one to think that genetic engineering itself is inhumane and unnatural. However, associating genetic engineering with the eugenics movement and the Nazi party brings too much negative emotion into the equation and draws an inaccurate comparison. More recently, it has been argued that human genetic modification is not in line with eugenic principles at all, but rather is consistent with the principles of transhumanism. The transhumanist movement evolved out of humanism, the mode of inquiry that values humans as individuals, which have been around for centuries. Transhumanists believe in progress that enables people to become more autonomous in shaping themselves and their lives (Torr). This is consistent with both gene therapy and enhancement because the technology would allow humans to choose new ways to improve themselves. Transhumanism is also distinct from eugenics because it does not involve coercion but choice and rejects its racist and classist assumptions (Torr). Therefore, genetic engineering should be associated with transhumanism rather than eugenics as its ideology is more consistent with the former. Genetic modification of embryos would not be imposed in a eugenic-like manner, but offered to those who wish to improve themselves and their children, aligned with transhumanist principles. Therefore, genetic engineering is not to be considered inhumane and unnatural like the eugenics movement because it is very distinct from it.

Contrary to popular belief, human genetic engineering is not something of the distant future. It isn’t a far off concept that will only occur generations from now in the lives of our descendants. It is happening now. Recent events highlight that we are indeed beyond the cusp of applying CRISPR gene editing technology to humans. Dr. He Jiankun, a research in China, claims to have created the world’s first genetically engineered human embryos that were implanted in a woman and born just last month (Kolata). He alleges that he used CRISPR to prevent the cells of two embryos from expressing a gene that allows them to be infected by HIV, which essentially means they are resistant to the virus (Kolata). This prevents the cells from being susceptible to AIDS although they are exposed to the virus from the sperm of their infected father (Kolata). The claim from Dr. He has sparked controversy from scientists and nonscientists alike as many news sites are actively covering and debating the story. Some people have questioned the validity of Dr. He’s claims, but most scientists agree that it is very likely that the first genetically modified humans have been born as a product of his manipulation (Kolata). Critics are now citing Dr. He evidence for the case that human embryonic engineering should be suppressed because he carried out his research in an unsafe way. Dr. He did not go through the proper procedures of the scientific process and did not follow the proper laws and regulations that are in place to protect us when applying genetic engineering to humans. When any technology or medicine is conceived to be applied to humans, it is not usually implemented in human subjects for many years. This is because there are dozens of safety precautions taken to prevent harm to humans. First, the technology is applied to cells in vitro, which means in a laboratory outside the body, posing no risk to humans or animals. Next, the technique is applied to model organisms, animals that are similar enough to humans so that we may go through trial and error of the actual application, again without causing harm to humans. Then, the process must be reviewed by a committee before heading to an even more tightly regulated human clinical trial. These trials are very rigid to ensure that we are providing the general public with only the best and safest technology. Finally, if the technology has made it this far by passing all the necessary safety checkpoints, it is approved for application in humans.

It is clear that the way Dr. He carried out his experiment was not up to regulations and did not follow the expected scientific procedure, so it is correct to say that it was thus very unsafe. He did not conduct extensive cellular research, carry his work over to animals, or get approval for a clinical trial before he implanted two modified embryos into a woman. It would make sense that if the application of human genetic modification was carried out in this manner, it would be deemed unsafe. However, this one scientist’s approach this should not be blanketed for all of human embryonic modification experiments. One scientist’s failure to follow the integral steps of the scientific method should not be used to stigmatize his area of research. The majority of researchers will, under regulation, take embryonic genetic engineering through the necessary steps of the scientific processes. The majority of future attempts at human genetic modification will be carried out in a much more tested, regulated, and overall safer manner. Indeed, if genetic engineering is carried out in the way of Dr. He, a private scientist basically doing whatever he pleases, it will be unsafe. However, many scientists are calling Dr. He a “rogue scientist” because genetically engineering to human embryos before the “proper time” (Topol). This means that this group of scientists is not opposed to human germline modification, but think it is far too early to be applying the technology to human embryos in utero. They believe that we should carry out this research but as with all other technologies that are destined to be applied to humans, it should go through all of the necessary steps to ensure safety. Genetically modifying human embryos will not be carried out in the same manner as “rogue scientist” Dr. He if proper regulations are put into place. Therefore human germline genetic engineering should not be deemed unsafe because the majority of researchers will approach in a regulated scientific manner, just like other drugs and technology, so the positive results will likely be shadowed by few and minor risks.

All in all, human genetic engineering should not be considered unsafe or unnatural and should not be opposed because it is a new technology in its early stages. It is alike many of the ways we currently treat disease and enhance ourselves, and is, therefore, an extension of our current ideology that should not be considered a violation against nature. DNA is unfixed and modifying it ourselves would just be harnessing the natural process of our evolution for our benefit. Additionally, The scientific process revolves around intense testing and heavy regulation, so it is accurate to assume that any gene editing technology that does get approved for use in humans would have low risks, even if it means approval doesn’t come quickly. Of course, researchers must proceed with great caution, but people should not opposed to the concept of human genetic engineering as a whole. We are constantly changing ourselves and our DNA is constantly changing so altering it with genetic engineering technology, taking evolution into our own hands, would not be an unnatural shift from our current actions to change ourselves. We should be open to the possibility of exploring the application of gene therapy and enhancement to humans as there are numerous possible benefits. Indeed the concept may be foreign and daunting for many, but most technology is. With time and further advancements, scientists may be able to prevent diseases that devastate millions of people and allow humans to better themselves, so they choose, by more effective means. If we close our minds to the possibility of human genetic modification, we would be abandoning a technology that like many other is daunting at first, but could eventually improve so many lives.

References

Green, Ronald M. "Human Genetic Engineering Should Be Allowed." Genetic Engineering, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com.avoserv2.library.fordham.edu/apps/doc/EJ3010138292/OVIC?u=nysl_me_fordham&sid=OVIC&xid=235247d9. Accessed 25 Oct. 2018.

"Designer Babies." Opposing Viewpoints in Context, vol. 2, 2017, pp 1-3. http://link.galegroup.com.avoserv2.library.fordham.edu/apps/doc/PC3010999192/OVIC?u=nysl_me_fordham&sid=OVIC&xid=40d79b09. Accessed 31 Oct. 2018.

Cho, Hemmy. "Enhancing Humans Through Science Is Beneficial." Designer Babies, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com.avoserv2.library.fordham.edu/apps/doc/EJ3010850209/OVIC?u=nysl_me_fordham&sid=OVIC&xid=bef572ba. Accessed 31 Oct. 2018.

Coker, Jeffrey Scott. "Genetic Engineering Is Natural and Should Be Pursued." Genetic Engineering, vol. 46, no. 1, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com.avoserv2.library.fordham.edu/apps/doc/EJ3010138290/OVIC?u=nysl_me_fordham&sid=OVIC&xid=0a13d0f9. Accessed 31 Oct. 2018.

Torr, James D. "Genetic Enhancement Can Improve Humanity." Genetic Engineering, vol. 40, no. 2, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com.avoserv2.library.fordham.edu/apps/doc/EJ3010212235/OVIC?u=nysl_me_fordham&sid=OVIC&xid=4c35f0da. Accessed 31 Oct. 2018.

Long, Heather. "Selecting a Child's Genetic Traits Will Create a Privileged Elite." Human Genetics, vol. 50, no. 5, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com.avoserv2.library.fordham.edu/apps/doc/EJ3010916210/OVIC?u=nysl_me_fordham&sid=OVIC&xid=64b4ebdf. Accessed 31 Oct. 2018.

King, David. "Human Genetic Engineering Is Risky and Should Be Stopped." Genetic Engineering, edited by David M. Haugen and Susan Musser, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com.avoserv2.library.fordham.edu/apps/doc/EJ3010138265/OVIC?u=nysl_me_fordham&sid=OVIC&xid=f2c72449. Accessed 31 Oct. 2018.

Kolata, Gina, et al. “Chinese Scientist Claims to Use Crispr to Make First Genetically Edited Babies.” The New York Times, 26 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/health/gene-editing-babies-china.html. Accessed 5 Dec. 2018.

Topol, Eric J. “Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First.” The New York Times, 27 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/opinion/genetically-edited-babies-china.html. Accessed 5 Dec. 2018.