Should Genetic Engineering Be Controlled by the Law - Essay Example

Genetic Engineering Introduction The creation of a dependable argument is contingent upon the successful completion of thorough research into the views of both sides of the argument. Analysis and assessment must occur before an informed judgment can be made. An informed judgment can only be made following an in-depth evaluation of both sides, which will answer the question: Should genetic engineering be controlled by law? Side A contends that yes, this technology should be stringently regulated and that deep consideration should be paid to the legal, ethical, and social issues scientists will face through pursuit of this technology (Rabino, 366). Side B says no, this technology should not be restricted and insists that genetic engineering will revolutionize the healthcare industry and propel medicine into the 21st Century (Rabino, 365-366). However, it is only through careful contemplation of both sides of this delicate issue that an informed decision can be made concerning this issue. Common ground The American Heritage Dictionary defines the term ‘genetic engineering’ as the “scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism” that “involves the production and use of recombinant DNA” and is used for the synthesis of human proteins and the creation of “transgenic organisms” (Genetic Engineering; Genetic Modification). The subject of genetic engineering is a highly inflammatory topic due to the nature of the power embodied by the mastery of such ability. One of the strongest arguments Side A poses against the allowance of genetic engineering is the “technological blindness” associated with the pursuit of technological advancements (Keulartz et al., 5). Opponents of genetic engineering fear the scientists will be so consumed with the possibility of performing acts never done before that the ethics of their ventures will be ignored and they will fail to consider whether their actions should be performed at all. The values, principles, norms, rules, and other societal considerations (Keulartz et al., 5) will be ignored in favor of the fame and wealth that is attributed to the ground-breaking advancements that have the potential to earn innovators millions. Genetic engineering will become a solely for profit operation and the dangers to humanity will be ignored. Those that favor Side B view the ability to genetically engineer living cells as the next step in the human evolutionary process (Rabino, 366). Such proponents consider genetic manipulation the next step following the advent of once controversial procedures like in vitro fertilization and assume the field of eugenics will soon follow this pattern of protest and then acceptance (Baird, 12). Attempts at self-modification through biological manipulation, for many, is the next natural step in an evolutionary process that has previously taken millions of years and can now be shortened to mere decades with the help of biological and technological advances (Baird, 13). Complex procedures like open heart surgery can now be done in less invasive manners thanks to laparoscopic technology and many feel that genetic engineering should be allowed to take the same natural steps towards growth. The medical implications for such growth present the possibility of curing many ailments that currently claim thousands of lives, which is one of the strongest arguments presented by Side A. Arguments for Side A see the ability to create life through technology as a threat to the safety of humanity, as exemplified by the eugenics practices of the Nazi’s, which led to the abandonment of eugenics studies for decades (Mehta, 223). The scars, both physical and emotional, left by the inhumane practices of scientists under Hitler’s command has created the belief that technology associated with the practice of eugenics should be outlawed (Mehta, 225). The prevalence of prejudiced beliefs maintains the threat that scientists empowered with this technology will resuscitate Hitler’s campaign of “racial cleansing” and cause the deaths of millions of people (Mehta, 224). The remnants of racism within societies worldwide make this fear a viable possibility should the wrong individuals become privy to the tremendous power that accompanies the potent science of eugenics. Opponents fear this technology will become the tool of 21st Century terrorists rather than the saving grace of mankind scientists herald it to be. Proponents for Side B insist that genetic engineering has the capability to save many human lives through the creation of artificial organisms. The process of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) or pre-implantation genetic selection (PGS) is the process by which an embryo is microscopically examined for indications of a genetic disorder and reproductive technologies allows families that cannot conceive on their own to conceive children (Baird, 13; Mehta, 227). The recent advances in embryonic tissue matching also allows the parents of sick children to seek cures in the DNA of their unborn children through the harvesting of tissue from the newborn’s umbilical cord blood (Baird,13-14). Through this process, embryos are tested for a tissue match with a sibling that has or is in danger of developing a genetic disease or disorder and when a match is found, the embryo is implanted into the mother through a process similar to in vitro fertilization and allowed to gestate (Baird, 14). Through this process, numerous lives can be saved and families can be spared the loss of a child with no harm coming to the baby cultivated for the purpose of crafting a cure for their sibling. Those in favor of Side A contend that genetically engineering children, no matter the purpose is a dangerous road to traverse. Critics insist that growing a child for the purpose of providing “spare parts” to a sibling is wrong and that no child should be brought into the world for such a purpose (Baird, 14). This practice presents an ethical conundrum that critics of genetic engineering fear will cause the blurring of lines that should not be crossed. Development of the means to remove undesirable traits, like disease, may lead to developments in ways to remove other traits, like skin color and eye color. The clouding of these ethical lines at the early juncture in the development of this revolutionary technology leaves critics fearful that these ethical lines might disappear altogether once the technology is perfected. Groups that agree with Side B stances argue that the ability to cure or prevent diseases that are considered terminal is a priceless commodity and such abilities should be developed for the betterment of mankind. Through these innovations, genetic disorders such as Downs Syndrome, Tay - Sachs disease, Sickle Cell Anemia, Cystic Fibrosis, and Huntingtons disease can all be identified and the embryos discarded in the in vitro process, producing healthy children despite the presence of embryos that, if allowed to develop normally, would produce children with chronic or fatal diseases (Baird, 13). Many other diseases can be identified through this process, which is no different than the process of genetic screening through amniocentesis (Baird, 14). The ability to prevent children from being born with debilitating diseases or crippling disorders is a goal medical practitioners have been trying to accomplish for centuries. The ability to achieve this goal is currently at hand and geneticists insist that the development of these methods and the potential that is possesses to save many lives is worth the risks associated with development of the technology. According to the views of proponents of Side A, ventures like the human genome project (HGP) present extreme dangers to society in increasing the belief that such procedures have the power to cure all illnesses when, in actuality, they are still in the only in the process of developing knowledge (Rabino, 369). Additional worries arise in the form of concerns regarding the wisdom of attempting to add and remove genetic information within embryos due to the threat of genetic accidents (Mehta, 226). Critics insist that such a practice is highly immoral and can lead to dangerous practices due to an anticipated knowledge of what may occur. The safety is also questioned, since the ramifications of such a practice are as of yet unknown since it has never been done (Stevens and Newman, 5; Baird, 16). Those in favor of Side B insist the benefits of the HGP should be fully explored before they are discounted. Mapping of the entire genetic structure of the human being could allow scientists to increase positive traits, like intelligence and health, and potentially eliminate negative traits, like violence and vulnerability to age and disease (Mehta, 226). The ability to control personality traits can potentially lead to the prevention of mental illness and various emotional disorders (Mehta, 226; Rabino, 370). The HGP project has numerous scientific and medical implications that could potentially allow humans to evolve at a significantly higher rate than normal (Mehta, 227). The cataloging of the human genome will give professionals the knowledge to eliminate genetic anomalies from the biological fabric of man and create the ability to produce flawless people. Groups that agree with Side A propose that religion deems using assistive technology as a “morally illicit act” (Mehta, 227). The practice of genetic manipulation of any sort is considered highly undesirable by many religious sects, even blasphemous, and the scientific as well as medical practices regarding genetic engineering is frowned upon (Mehta, 227). Genetic makeup is considered to be the decision of God alone and religious entities also consider it wrong to tamper with an embryo, believing life begins at the moment of conception (Rabino, 369). The interference with the natural growth and development of a fetus and the decision to dispose of one due to known genetic conditions is thought to be a level of control that should not be given to man. Many opponents to genetic engineering strongly disagree with the concept based on this aspect of the practice. However, supporters of Side B insist that such religious notions are archaic and the ability to avoid giving birth to a child that would suffer the pains of a life afflicted with Cystic Fibrosis or one of the many genetic abnormalities prevented through genetic screening processes is a blessing in itself. Proponents of genetic engineering insist that the technological advances now available to couples looking to conceive and are unable to allow these people to have biological children (Mehta, 227) and are able to ensure that these children are born healthy. Technology even allows parents to choose the sex of their babies and has changed the way people conceive their children (Mehta, 227). It is also suggested that God would not have inspired man to create such technology if it were not His intention that they use it. The use of eugenics will eventually become a worldwide normality and the ability to prevent disease will usher man into a future of health. Additional arguments posed by Side A deem the use of reproductive technology as risky, painful, and expensive procedures with a small percentage of actually conceiving a child (Mehta, 227). Women are required to endure hormone injections on a daily basis in addition to the painful processes of extracting the eggs from the woman’s ovaries and implanting the eggs into the uterus once they are fertilized (Mehta, 227). If the man’s sperm is to be used, it must be collected and stored, which can be a difficult trial as well if the man is unable to leave specimens in the facility and must bring them to the facility from home. The procedure is also very expensive, costing up to $10,000 per treatment and there is no guarantee that the procedure will be successful the first or even the fifth time (Mehta, 226). Supporters of Side B insist the benefits to using reproductive technology far outweigh the costs or any discomforts associated with the procedure. Couples that can’t conceive naturally but still want a child see the procedures associated with reproductive therapies as a saving grace. Genetic manipulation to ensure their child will be healthy is additionally seen as a wonder due, especially, to the costs associated with the procedures. Who wants to pay $10,000 for a child born with a genetic defect that can potentially cost $100s of thousands of dollars or more over the child’s lifetime? Or worse, the child may die at a young age. Genetic manipulation assures parents that seek reproductive therapies that the embryo’s being implanted are healthy and will produce healthy children and can do so sooner than an amniocentesis could without the woman having to actually carry the child and then make the decision whether or not to terminate the pregnancy once a defect is detected. Another argument from Side A concerns the prevalence of field-released genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) and the effects they have on the environments they are introduced into (Snow et al., 377). The numerous effects include the creation of pests and pathogens more invasive than the natural strains or the hybridization of the naturally occurring strains with the GEOs, creating transgenic organisms (Snow et al., 377). Additional concerns arise through the potential damage GEOs can cause to non-target species and the disruption this would cause to the natural environment and ecosystems in which they are introduced (Snow et al., 377). These organisms have the potential to cause irreparable damage to the environment through alterations of the established biological diversity of the native species (Snow et al., 377). The bioengineering of various organisms, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, grass, algae, fish, shellfish, trees, and various other organisms may have unknown and unanticipated effects on the environments in which they are introduced, requiring diligent monitoring of their effects on the ecosystems (Snow et al., 377). Those that support Side B counter this argument by emphasizing the numerous benefits that can be obtained through the engineering of GEOs. These organisms can have a positive effect on agriculture, aquaculture, bioremediation, and forestry when managed properly (Snow et al., 377). The introduction of GEOs can positively impact the advent of sustainable agriculture in underdeveloped countries with positive effects when properly managed (Snow et al., 377). When subjected to appropriate risk management, the potential negative effects can be determined and minimized (Snow et al., 377). The potential gains of the use of GEOs can far outweigh the risks associated with their use when the proper management techniques are implemented (Snow et al., 377). Another improper use of genetic manipulation, according to supporters of Side A, is the use of biosynthetic milk hormones BST and BHG in cows to increase milk production (Hertzel, 14). Much of the objection to use of biotechnological products in the manufacturing or growth of food is due to the relatively unknown effects that these additives can possibly have on consumers (Hertzel, 11). Since the addition and production of biologically engineered products intended for human consumption is a relatively new concept, consumers do not feel comfortable or safe buying and eating beef treated with these hormones or drinking the milk they produce (Hertzel, 12). Additionally, many large supermarket chains and companies that produce a wide array of popular dairy products have publically announced that they refuse to use the milk from cows treated with the hormone and accept shipments of milk that comes from cows treated with the hormone (Hertzel, 12). Although proposals have been drafted seeking legislation to mandate that products from animals treated with these hormones be added to products, dairy farmers a re reluctant to agree to such guidelines and, since their is no way to tell the difference between products from animals treated from the products of animals not treated, there is no way to enforce such mandates (Hertzel, 12). Although there are many arguments for both sides of the debate whether genetic engineering should be controlled by law, the concerns of Side A are strongly valid. Considering the violence and racially motivated crimes still prevalent in countries all over the world, developments on manipulating genes, whether they be human or otherwise, should be closely regulated against improper use. The potential power of choosing human traits or creating an inexhaustible food supply can have significant and unanticipated consequences for the entire planet. Works Cited Baird, Stephen L. “Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options?” The Technology Teacher (2007): 12-16. “Genetic Engineering”. American Heritage Dictionary. 2011 Yahoo! Education. 28 Jul. 2011 . “Genetic Modification”. “Science-Dictionary.com”. 2011 Science-Dictionary .com 28 Jul. 2011 . Hertzel, Leo J. “Genetic Engineering I: Supercows at the Supermarket”. The North American Review 275.1 (1990): 9-26. 28 Jul. 2011 . Keulartz, Jozef et al. “Ethics in Technological Culture: A Programmatic Proposal for a Pragmatist Approach”. Science, Technology, & Human Values 29.1 (2004):3-29. 28 Jul. 2011 . Mehta, Parendi. “Human Eugenics: Whose Perception of Perfection?” The History Teacher 33.2 (2000): 222-240 . Rabino, Isaac. “Genetic Testing and Its Implications: Human Genetics Researchers Grapple with Ethical Issues”. Science, Technology, & Human Values 28.3 (2003):365-402. 28 Jul. 2011 . Snow A. A et al. “Genetically Engineered Organisms and the Environment: Current Status and Recommendations”. Ecological Society of America, Ecological Applications, 15.2, (2005): 377-404. 28 Jul. 2011 . Stevens, M.L.T. and Newman, Stuart A. “Crossing Lines: Breaching Human-Animal and Left-Right Boundaries”. The Humanist (2007): 5-7. Read More