Genetic Engineering Power - Research Paper Example

Genetic Engineering, Cloning and Stem Cell Research Introduction Cloning is the creation of an embryo by the method of human somatic cell nuclear transfer. This procedure involves implanting DNA cells from an organism into an egg whose DNA nucleus has been removed then chemically treated so that the egg begins to behave as though fertilization has occurred. This results in the creation of embryonic growth of another organism that contains the complete genetic code of the original organism. Through this process, the cloning of mammals has resulted in, to date, hundreds of cloned organisms born. Though the process has produced many live successes, it has proved considerably less likely to produce successful pregnancies than those conceived through sexual reproduction. In addition, the majority of cloned animals have experienced some type of birth defect. Stem cell research is a subject that has generally been absent from the current public and political debates recently. The issue has been pushed aside by more immediate issues such as the economy, war on two fronts and healthcare. However, it wasn’t long ago that headlines were concerned with the ethical issues of using embryonic stem cells for scientific research. Advocates as well as opponents made very verbal emotional appeals in support of their position with neither side seeming to gain much momentum. The issue is sure to again be in the spotlight with Obama’s recent approval of limited research in this area. Ethics of Embryo Use Much of the controversy surrounding genetic engineering is bound up in the use of embryos to further science. If the majority of politicians determine that this use of ‘abandoned’ embryos is ethical, the question remains where should the limit of this type of research be drawn? Will the findings of research truly be able to combat the effects of spinal cord injuries or Parkinson’s disease? Or will it instead be akin to opening Pandora’s Box, releasing new terror on the world that can never again be contained? Are designer babies on the near horizon for the wealthy or super-humans about to be born as a result of Frankenstein-like scientific pursuits? Will science become able to make spare human parts that are superior to the original, reducing the ‘natural’ human to a level of subspecies? Where will this new technology lead? These and other unforeseen future scenarios present daunting questions that do not have clear answers and are likely not answerable. What does seem clear is that the benefits of gene manipulation to those already living seem too numerous to simply throw away in the debate. Stem Cell Research Objectives The three main objectives given for pursuing stem cell research are obtaining vital scientific information about embryonic development; curing incapacitating ailments such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s and for testing new drugs instead of having to use animals (Irving, 1999). Stem cell research is also expected to aid victims of stroke, spinal cord injuries, bone diseases and diabetes. The scientific techniques for obtaining stem cells could lead to unparalleled advances and even cures for these and other ailments. It has been substantiated from animal research that stem cells can be differentiated into cells that will behave appropriately in their transplanted location. For example, the transplantation of stem cells following treatments for cancer has found much success for many years. “Experiments such as the transplantation of fetal tissue into the brains of Parkinson’s patients indicate that the expectation that stem cell therapies could provide robust treatments for many human diseases is a reasonable one. It is only through controlled scientific research that the true promise will be understood” (Frankel, 1999). Embryonic stem cells possess the ability to restore defective or damaged tissues which would heal or regenerate organs which have been adversely affected by a degenerative disease. Cell therapy has the very real potential to provide new cures for diabetes, cancer, kidney disease, Parkinson’s, macular degeneration, multiple sclerosis and many other kinds of diseases. Cell therapy has also demonstrated a great potential to help repair and regenerate spinal cord injuries which would help paralyzed patients recapture lost body functions. The possibilities are limitless including greatly advancing the human lifespan because aging organs could be replenished. Dolly On February 23, 1997 Ian Wilmut, a Scottish scientist, with his colleagues at the Roslin Institute announced the successful cloning of a sheep by a new method. The technique concerned transplanting the genetic material of an adult sheep into an egg from which the nucleus had been removed. The resulting birth of the sheep, Dolly, was another landmark in mankind’s ability to rule over nature. The birth of Dolly and “the fact that humans might someday be cloned, created from a single somatic cell without sexual reproduction, moved further away from science fiction and closer to a genuine scientific possibility” (Wilmut, 1997). Dolly was the first successful clone of a mammal as the sheep contained the genetic material of just one parent. For more than 40 years, the practice of transferring a nucleus from a somatic cell into an egg using nuclei derivative from non-human embryonic and fetal cells continued. Evidence suggested genetic material contained in differentiated somatic cells may retain the potential to direct the development of healthy fertile adult animals. Biologists had examined whether, once cellular differentiation transpires, this process is reversible. However, until Dolly was born, the capacity to do so remained unproved. “The demonstration that nuclei from cells derived from an adult animal could be reprogrammed, or that the full genetic complement of such a cell could be reactivated well into the chronological life of the cell, is what sets the results of this experiment apart from prior work” (Di Bernadino, 1997). For the past decade, scientists have regularly cloned sheep and cows from embryo cells but Dolly was the first animal that matured to a fully developed state by the usage of the nucleus of a somatic cell from one animal. Dolly Dilemma The event was a momentous scientific occurrence with profound moral implications as it brought society nearer to the realities regarding the responsibilities involved in the new ability to create human clones. The issues surrounding the cloning of human beings have been a disquieting topic of philosophical, scientific, legal and ethical debate throughout all areas of society. Some observers have postulated that the uproar provoked by the modern opportunities cloning presented as a result of Dolly is well out of proportion to many of the issues it has brought forth. Similar concerns were mentioned during previous cloning experiments and were simply budding again in a uniquely more conspicuous manner. Regardless of that, it is essential to recognize the possibilities raised by this unprecedented and radical step as it has had the most impact on the discussions regarding human cloning and its implications to society. The new technique of cloning involved three original developments: “the replacement of sexual procreation with asexual replication of an existing set of genes; the ability to predetermine the genes of a child; and the ability to create many genetically identical offspring” (Di Bernadino, 1997). Scientific Autonomy It is hypothesized that the current state of gene engineering is already capable of producing astounding results in a number of ailments and illnesses that were previously untreatable. Should this prove to be the case, it is also hypothesized that further research will prove significant in reducing or eradicating human genetic disease. The freedom of the ethical and responsible pursuit of knowledge is supported by scientists and non-scientists as well. Historically in the U.S., scientific experimentation has been encouraged but many argue that simply because there may be importance attached to science that is free from constraints, this does not mean the pursuit of science without regard to a measure of limitation based on society’s ethical and moral standards. All acknowledge the immense public gain in maintaining the ‘sanctity of knowledge and the value of intellectual freedom.’ However, “international statements about the ethics of research with human subjects, such as the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki, make it abundantly clear that science, however valuable, must, as scientists and non-scientists agree, observe important moral boundaries” (Robertson, 1997). For example, scientific study must not jeopardize rights or safety of the public or impose unnecessary distress to animals. At present, both federal and state governments regulate the researcher’s methods so as to monitor community safety concerns and to ensure the rights of research subjects. It is a socially and legally accepted precept that research may be restricted, to guard the subject’s sovereignty by requiring their consent, for example. “If the government can show that restrictions on cloning and cloning technology are sufficiently important to the general well-being of individuals or society, such restrictions are likely to be upheld as legitimate, constitutional governmental actions, even if scientists were held to have a First Amendment right of scientific inquiry” (Robertson, 1997). Consequently, even if scientific experimentation were found by the courts to be a constitutionally protected right, the government could regulate this activity in order to protect the public against harms it might inflict. An example is the bodily risks created by use of somatic cell nuclear transfer methods to produce human children. Government regulation may not disallow research in an effort to stop the development of novel invention or knowledge but it may conditionally restrict or even forbid the means used by researchers if those means involve harm to individuals or the public at large. “The freedom to pursue knowledge is distinguishable from the right to choose the method for achieving that knowledge, since the method itself may permissibly be regulated” (Robertson, 1997). Researchers themselves are ultimately liable for upholding ethical and scientific principles and must endeavor to incorporate this within the performance of their work. Moral Concerns Moral concerns have generated new ethical apprehensions regarding the impressive advances in biomedical science. Society has become increasingly perceptive to the dangers of cloning research and its future consequences, particularly to human participants. Although there have been exceptions, scientists and their innovative experimentations, for the most part, have benefited from a great deal of autonomy in regards to the direction and regulation of their research plans. Since the mid-twentieth century however, public demand for peripheral regulations of scientific experimentation techniques have amplified. This is because, in part, much scientific exploration is publicly funded, especially in the biological sciences and therefore requires an additional degree of answerability to the public. According to Bernard Davis of Harvard Medical School “society sometimes seeks to regulate or restrict research when it poses the specters of dangerous or unfamiliar products, powers, or ideas” (Davis, 1980). The regulation of science has justifiably become accepted as necessary, especially for those science programs that accept federal funding. Scientists are compelled by societal needs to observe animal, human and environmental protection concerns by tolerating restrictions on specific forms of experimentation. Scientific applications impact public ventures therefore society recognizes that the unrestrained sovereignty of scientific experimentation is not an unconditional right. The public expects scientists to perform their research according to the generally held ethical principles of prevailing public opinion. Most agree that there are certain situations where boundaries on scientific liberties must be defined, even if such definitions are perceived as unnecessary limitations by the scientific community. Suitable ethical constraints are a subject for both scientists and the public to together devise and apply. However, limits on freedom of scientific experimentations must be reasonable and justifiable while allowing a continuing public discourse to reconsider legislative limitations as scientific and public knowledge advances. Most also agree that scientific boundaries should not encroach upon long established rights and freedoms, that impositions on any freedoms should always satisfy certain conditions. Limitations should not ever be arbitrary in nature or gratuitously oppressive and should only materialize from the thoughtful harmonization of both cost and benefit to humanity (Robertson, 1997). Religious Considerations The history of man is marked with countless occurrences where the public, or papal, outcry of ‘playing God’ has at least attempted to impede the advancement of science. This catchphrase is generally used to define a moral boundary not to be crossed by science or medicine on the basis that it draws uncomfortable distinctions of human’s role within God’s tenets. Surprising no one, the announcement of successful somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning in mammals has again caused this argument to be vocalized. Those that believe that people should not ‘play God’ are opposed to the scientists investigating the dark mysteries of life, which are only God’s to control and that humans lack the divine authority to decide when life begins or ends. In other words, the fallible human does not have the knowledge, especially knowledge of future outcomes, attributed to divine omniscience and would make a disaster in the attempt. “Men ought not to play God before they learn to be men, then, after they have learned to be men, they will not play God” (Ramsey, 1970). The proponents of human cloning might surmise that the faction who are opposed to ‘playing God’ evaluate scientific and medical developments according to a narrow, partial, and self-interested perspective. For the major religious organizations of the world such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the pursuit of scientific knowledge is not generally regarded as theologically intimidating. For example, Islamic scholars emphasize that scientific discoveries are simply the continuation of divinely ordained revelations to man. Sheikh Fadlallah, a Shiite Muslim jurist, stated that cloning of Dolly occurred “because God allowed it” (Fadlallah, 1997). Abdulaziz Sachedina, an Islamic scholar, concluded that “cloning may be a divinely given opportunity for human moral training and maturation” (Sachedina, 1997). A statement in the Calvinist tradition suggests that humans receive glimpses of God within the sciences. The broad diversity of religious traditions and beliefs characterizes the American culture. There is no single religious view on the subject human cloning because religious outlooks on human cloning vary in their individual premises and methods of reasoning and therefore draw different conclusions. Conclusion Despite the human health and economic advantages of embryonic stem cell research, the ‘moralists’ of the right wing refuse to give up their flawed reasoning. This is likely the result of refusing to become educated on the issue while employing a neutral, unbiased frame of mind. These are the same people, no doubt, who think that the theory of evolution is a vast liberal conspiracy designed to undermine religion and is a tool of ‘the devil.’ Inevitably, stem cell research will be commonplace and hopefully sooner than later but until then many people will continue to suffer with debilitating diseases and paralysis. Where is the morality in that? Who are these people that consider the life of a living human being less important than a four or five day-old embryo? It’s easy for these people to cling to false morals unless it affects them or their family directly. Remember, the Reagan’s did not acknowledge AIDS during the 1980’s for political reasons when this epidemic was ravaging the gay community and likely would also have opposed stem cell research for the same reason. Advocates of genetic research should do a better job of educating opponents so that government’s funds can be allocated to further this new science. If we, as a country can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on an unnecessary war that benefits no one, we can spend much less on research that will benefit us all. References Davis, B.D. (1980). “Three Specters: Dangerous Products, Powers, or Ideas.” Genetics and the Law II. A. Milunsky and G.J. Annas (Eds.). New York: Plenum Press. Di Bernadino, M.A. (1997). Genomic Potential of Differentiated Cells. New York: Columbia University Press. Frankel, Mark. “Stem Cell Research and Applications: Findings and Recommendations.” (November 1999). Stem Cell Research and Applications Scientific, Ethical and Policy Issues. American Association for the Advancement of Science and Institute for Civil Society. Retrieved May 16, 2009 from Fadlallah, S.M.H. (March 13, 1997). As cited in “Cloning Should be Punishable by Death or Amputation: Saudi Cleric.” Agence France Presse. Irving, Dianne N. (October 15, 1999). “Stem Cell Research: Some Pros and Cons.” Written on request of Fr. Thomas King, S.J., Ph.D., Department of Theology, Georgetown University; President, University Faculty For Life, for their newsletter, UFL Pro-Vita. Ramsey, P. (1970). “Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control.” New Haven: Yale University Press. Robertson, J.A. (March 14, 1997). “A Ban on Cloning and Cloning Research is Unjustified.” [Testimony Presented to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission]. Sachedina, A. (March 14, 1997). “Islamic Perspectives on Cloning.” [Testimony before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission]. Wilmut, I; Schnieke, A.E.; McWhir, J.; Kind, A.J.; & Campbell K.H. (1997). “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells.” Nature. Vol. 385, pp. 810-13. Read More