Ethics of Animal and Human Germline Genetic Modification - Term Paper Example

Ethics of Animal and Human Germline Genetic Modification Germline is a term that is used in the fields of biological sciences and genetics to describe a sequence of a germ cell that may contain material that is genetically passed from a parent to a child (Rasko & O’Sullivan, 2006). Changes in the genetics of a germline may also be passed on from the parent to the child. These types of cells are termed as immortal because of their ability to multiply within the body indefinitely. This is facilitated by the presence of an enzyme known as telomerase, which stops any negative impacts from affecting the performances and growth of these cells. A germline is usually used to describe a lineage of cells present in an individual that spans across many generations. The ethics of animal and human genetic modification are described and analyzed in the field of bioethics. This field describes the controversies that arise from the advances made in these fields (Gordon, 2003). This report examines the ethics behind animal and human germline genetic modification and tries to give an insight into which direction the government should take. Previous reports indicate that animal genetic modification has been possible with several successes being achieved in the field. The use of laboratory mice to test the use of the tumor suppressors showed that success could be achieved with other animal species. It was scientifically proven through numerous tests and long periods of observation that the modifications carried out were a success. Chimpanzees are mammals, which imply that they could have a different genetic makeup from mice. This implies that there could be unforeseen risks when experimenting with chimpanzees as opposed to mice (Schauer, 2001). Therefore, a research team should be very keen in their endeavors and ensure that they carefully observe the animals for any undesirable signs. The use of animals for conducting tests usually has many adverse effects, with some of them dying after experiencing a lot of pain. The safety of humans when performing genetic modifications in their bodies is considered to be of utmost importance (Kuhse & Singer, 2006). The process of making modifications in humans could bring unwanted changes that will eventually lead to adverse developmental results or death. The techniques applied in carrying out these modifications in humans will mostly involve manipulating a fetus before eventually placing it in the womb. These manipulations could eventually deter the growth and the development of the child in ways that are not yet understood. There could be major impacts on the child’s health, which could eventually lead to death. Research on chimpanzees will greatly assist the research to be performed on humans since both have almost similar genetic makeup (Schauer, 2001). Heavy criticism of human genetic modification has come from the religious leaders who claim that men are trying to play ‘God’. They raise the fears that modifying a human’s genetic makeup could affect his dignity and attitude towards the disabled. They would end up viewing the disabled as being liabilities to their families and communities. The practice of this act is unacceptable across many religions who preach against blasphemy and violation of God’s temple, which is the human body (Tokar, 2001). The cost of 120,000 to 140,000 dollars for every genetically modified (GM) baby implies that these children will only be reserved for the rich people. This will be because of the expenses incurred when developing the fetus with more desirable features. The development of these fetuses implies that only the rich people will have the chance of raising superior children. The act will greatly promote the inequality that exists within the society (Schauer, 2001). The use of modifications on the genetic makeup of humans could also be important to humans. Proponents of human genetic modification have recently attained respect and recognition for the practices of vitro fertilizations and the embryo implantation (Nordgren, 2001). However, it is feared that these advances might be used by powerful politicians in achieving their desired results no matter how inhuman they might be. In contrast, the opponents to genetic modification claim that the idea of creating people with desired traits could result in the passing of undesirable traits across generations (Schauer, 2001). They also argue that this modification in humans does not ease their suffering nor save the existing lives. They claim that it is designed to affect the lives of unborn children (Nordgren, 2001). Research indicates that the contestants also claim that standards will be set for being healthy which will be in line with the views of the wealthy and powerful. This would lead to discrimination against the poor and the weak in the society with the less fortunate being termed as damaged property. The results of this activity could increase the injustices and discrimination that exists within the society (Tokar, 2001). In addition, there are claims that we cannot be accountable for the harmful traits that the children of the future will inherit from the previous modified generations (Schauer, 2001). In germline modification, the current methods being put to use are ineffective. This is because they are said to require very many eggs for injecting with DNA before any one of them is successfully modified. The techniques used for performing the modification can also result in disruptions to the development of an embryo (Tokar, 2001). The success of the mice, when adding the tumor suppressant, to them was because their genes are different from the chimpanzees. This could result in very detrimental effects to the chimpanzees that will have similar modifications on their genes. Human and animal rights groups have recently raised stiff resistance to the use of animals in laboratory experiments. They claim that it is torturous to them and portrays humans as inconsiderate (Yount, 2008). The proponents for animal and human gene modifications suggest that the act is important since it enables parents to stop their offspring’s from inheriting undesirable traits. Germline modifications are normally used for cleansing undesirable genes thus helping to eliminate disastrous genes causing diseases such as diabetes and cancer. This act eventually helps in reducing the costs incurred by governments in fighting and controlling diseases (Tokar, 2001). Research indicates that germline modification assists in avoiding the need for a repetition of somatic modifications of genes. The act of modifying a humans or an animal’s genetics enables parents to monitor and improve the characteristics of their children. It also indicates that human genetic modifications will enable the creation of better humans (Yount, 2008). The councils responsible for the modifications on genes strongly oppose this act basing their opposition on science, ethics and the community’s concerns. They argue that since the unborn child’s development is internal and beyond the control of scientists, they cannot predict the complete effects of the modifications on humans and animals. They also claim that the elimination of characteristics that one does not desire will not necessary preserve the traits desired in a human being. This is because some disease causing genes in some animals could end up being beneficial to other organisms (Schauer, 2001). In addition to the above claims, the council also puts forward the notion that no human or animal is biologically perfect. This is because there are no set standards for determining which set of characteristics in humans and animals are undesirable (Tokar, 2001). The research that was conducted on mice ended up with 26% of the embryos used in the test being destroyed. This can be deemed unethical since it resulted in the destruction of many innocent lives (Kuhse & Singer, 2006). The research proved successful in mice despite the huge embryo losses. The loss of such large amounts of embryos among chimpanzees would have very detrimental effects to their future. This is because the female chimpanzees produce fewer eggs as compared to the female mice during the course of their lives (Yount, 2008). The effects of the enzyme rTP53 have been untested among chimpanzees and could become lethal to them. The diverse effects that would result from the modifications cannot be reversed, which suggests that all the future generations of chimpanzees will bear the undesirable effects. Research by animal activists suggests that scientists who work with animals in laboratories are not mindful of their welfare. They claim that the animals are left to endure pain and suffering because of their withdrawal from their natural habitats. The use of large amounts of animals for laboratory tests implies that scientists will also require many chimpanzees and humans to effectively determine the results of a modification (Kuhse & Singer, 2006). In case bad results are derived from the results, this would mean violating human rights as genocide would ensue. Scientists who do not conform to the animal welfare standards in their experiments should also not be allowed to experiment on humans (Tokar, 2001). Scientific research is vital in finding solutions to the many problems that humans and animals encounter in their everyday lives (Kuhse & Singer, 2006). For example, from the case study, mice were used in an experiment that was designed to test resistance to cancer. The results of the experiments showed that the mice would evade the harm of cancer through the modifications. This suggests that both humans and animals can be used in experiments for the benefit of the existing and future generations. This will in turn make these experiments be considered as ethical for their efforts in eliminating human and animal suffering (Schauer, 2001). Research on animals has been an important accompaniment in scientific research as it helps in the accurate determination of results from various experiments. It is not ethical to perform engineering on the genes of humans because this procedure does not guarantee their safety. It is almost impossible for the team of scientists working on animals and humans to guarantee that their specimen will not develop adverse characteristics. There are fears that have also been raised by experts who claim that success on human modifications might be abused by powerful politicians for their own selfish ends (Tokar, 2001). Research indicates that there are no formal ways of controlling the effects of gene modifications, meaning that harmful and irreversible changes could result in undesirable changes to man’s nature of doing things (Schauer, 2001). Immoral behavior could be adopted by the resultant beings, which may not experience any emotions or feelings. Germline genetic modification performed on animals and humans have numerous benefits that will make them seem ethical to the human race. They help in eradicating certain diseases along family lines through the alteration of the parent genes. The methods used for carrying out these procedures on the two parties have been classified as unwise, causing destruction to the environment and unsustainable (Gordon, 2003). This is because a large amount of specimens is required to accurately determine the effects of each experiment. As previously stated, such a venture will result in the extinction of various animal and human breeds. This makes the process of carrying out genetic modifications on humans and animals to be considered unethical. The cost involved in disposing the destroyed animals will be too high. It will consume a great deal of the taxpayers’ money in a country, money that could have been put into alternative and more beneficial means for the country (Rasko & O’Sullivan, 2006). The development of alternative approaches by other companies may result in the technology’s abuse or falling into the wrong hands. Upon the expiry of the patent protection, other developers may indulge in developing similar technologies that may bring adverse effects (Gordon, 2003). It can be considered unethical since it will result in the abuse of human rights and violation of their basic living rights. The lack of adequate regulation of animal and human genetic modification may result in the development of strange diseases, which have no cure. A good example is the development of HIV which research indicates was developed in a laboratory by scientists. Reports indicate that the genes causing the disease were carelessly stored, which eventually resulted in their spread (Rasko & O’Sullivan, 2006). According to bioethics, which analyzes the effects of the modifications in humans and animals, there are four principles that guide the experts in the field. This includes the respect for an individual and his ability to come to a decision concerning their health and futures. It also includes the definition of the people or animals likely to benefit from the actions along with their intention not to bring harm to a party. Finally, they suggest that justice should be brought to the community because of the action’s consequences (Schauer, 2001). From these principles, it can be said that human and animal gene modification, whose results are uncontrollable, is not ethical. This is because their results cannot be certified as benefiting man or providing justice before an experiment is completed. The success of the experiments that were conducted on mice does not guarantee the success of experiments to be performed on chimpanzees. In case of failure, the project team will have wasted resources that would have been put to use that is more beneficial to the community. Despite the objections to gene modification, scientific research is credited with creating solutions to various problems that man encounters in his daily endeavors (Tokar, 2001). The proposals by the government on modifying the genes of animals and humans should not be permitted since they are unethical and go against their integrity. The proposals do not respect human and animal rights; therefore, they should be discarded. The government should consider other alternatives of handling the difficulties that man and animals encounter. The project will also be unethical and should not be carried out since their products will only be available to the rich and able people (Schauer, 2001). This is because of the high prices charged for the products, which would be unaffordable to many people. The project is also very difficult to implement in terms of expenses and maintaining the required standards of successfully carrying it out. The government should consider adopting other cheaper alternatives of developing solutions to the problems animals along with human’s experience. References Gordon J W 2003, The science and ethics of engineering the human germ line, the Mendel’s maze, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Kuhse H & Singer P, 2006, Bioethics, an Anthology, Wiley-Blackwell, New York. Nordgren A, 2001, Responsible genetics, the moral responsibility of genetics for the consequences of human genetic research, Springer, New York. Rasko J E J & O’Sullivan G, 2006, The ethics of inheritable genetic modification, a dividing line, Cambridge University Press, London. Schauer A J, 2001, Ethics in medicine, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Berlin. Tokar B, 2001, Redesigning life? the worldwide challenge to genetic engineering, Zed Books, San Francisco. Yount L, 2008, Biotechnology and genetic engineering, InfoBase publishing, New York. Read More