Genetic Modification of Human Beings: Is it acceptable - Research Paper Example

Genetic Modification of Human Beings: Is it acceptable? Human genetic modification is simply a technique that attempts to create a permanent inheritable genetic change in offspring and future descendants of human beings (Resnik & Langer 1450). Some people view human genetic modification as a technique that offers hopes of futuristic therapy and fantastic human enhancement. There are those that have fears that it will create a world where eugenics is commonplace, and the human genome is corrupted (Frankel & Chapman 02). Consequently, such contradicting views have elicited a raging debate over the bioethics of conducting HGM. This research, therefore, seeks to present a case against HGM that makes it unacceptable; nonetheless, it recognizes that HGM is a momentous step in science as it points towards a time when human beings begin to direct their own evolution. Scientific Basis for Human Genetic Modification Germline genetic modification is a scientific process that is conducted in the laboratories. Through this technique, the scientists can manipulate cells. For instance, they can replace faulty genes using the “normal” copy in embryonic stem cells and then introduce them into early embryo; consequently, these can give rise to genetically modified sperms or eggs. The next generation resulting from such a modification will contain the “normal” copy of genes that were inserted in the initial manipulation. While this process has been successful in animals such as the mouse, it has not been largely applied in humans (Richter & Bacchetta 305-306). In humans, genetic modification process entails the introduction of a new genetic sequence into an individual’s germline cells that, with time are passed to the next generation. The process is quite significant in the sense that it could be applied in human stem cell research and human somatic gene therapy. In the latter case, the non-inheritable genetic changes are made to assist in the treatment of human disorders or diseases. Different studies have shown that the HGM could be highly essential especially in the doing away with genetic disease in a family. Disorders such as Cystic fibrosis, also called Huntington disorders could be eliminated by replacing the defective genes responsible for causing the condition with the normal copy of that gene (Wivel & Walters 537). Arguments advanced against HGM Safety Concerns of Human Genetic Modification Various pertinent issues have been raised concerning HGM that portray the technique as risky, and most of the risks affect the resulting child. The extensive alteration of the stem cells, eggs, sperms or the embryos before their introduction into the uterus has been found to interfere with the normal growth and development of the fetus. For instance, in the event that a gene fails to function to upon being inserted into the genome, the resulting child may have quite complex complications than it could have been if modification were not done. Also, in the event that the inserted gene malfunctions, there are high chances the resulting child would develop serious health consequences. If a gene gets inserted in a wrong region on the genome, it could lead to insertional mutagenesis; a case where the introduced gene leads to a mutation in an otherwise normally functioning gene (Frankel & Chapman 03). It has been established that HGM may have severe consequences on the parents. This is largely because the HGM technique mostly targets the ovaries or testes; consequently, it could cause damage to the cells responsible for generating mature eggs or sperm. Research shows that the techniques such as injection of viral vectors into testes for sperm modification can lead to male infertility. The similar case would also occur in females (Smith 249). The safety of HGM also remains questioned as some of its problems might not be imminent now. The problem may occur in the future or when the child grows to the adult stage and when some of the problems might have been passed to the next generation. In addition, it is not true that a transferred gene will function or that it will be passed on to the next generation. Therefore, in the event that the genetic modification is lost, the likelihood of the corrected disease recurring in the future generations is very high (Smith 251). Ethical and Social Objections to HGM Commodification: One of the ethical reasons why HGM is considered unethical is commodification. Opponents of HGM argue that designing of the characteristics of children may lead to them being seen as consumer objects or commodity. It should be noted that while natural reproduction leads to the creation of a unique individual following mixing of different genes, HGM is quite a controlled process in which one’s characteristics may be changed. As such, by beginning to design or selecting particular genes to manifest in babies, people will be in a position to build the same ethical relationship similar to that in the refrigerator. That people will be in a position to control how they want their children to be and in accordance to their wishes feels like an insult to human dignity (Richter & Bacchetta 305). The social implications that will come because of allowing the commodification of human beings may be quite significant. For instance, it will not just be a matter of profoundly distasteful trade in genetically ‘enhanced” human embryos. It is also a ground for creating market humanity where the principle of the market will be written into people’s genes (Richter & Bacchetta 307). Eugenics: Another reason for raising objections towards HGM is eugenics. Since genetic modification has the potential to change human characteristics, it also bears the greatest power to cause harm. For instance, it may be used as means of expressing harmful social forces, which may eventually be written into the basic physical mechanisms of the human body. HGM is seen as a way that will enhance people’s ability to compete by enhancing certain character traits in humans such as traits for being clever and being beautiful among others. It means people without such characteristics may find themselves being rejected by the society (Richter & Bacchetta 309-311). In addition, since the HGM is likely to be quite expensive, it means only the high class people in the society will be in a position to proffer their children with genetic advantages. The consequence of this is it will lead further divisions in the society in the future generations. This is morally wrong as the society is supposed to be united on all fronts (Richter & Bacchetta 313). HGM is medically unnecessary but will lead to “enhanced” designer babies.” Many people view HGM as unnecessary practice although it will lead to “designer babies.” One of the reasons for practicing HGM is to try to cure genetic disorders. It is, however, important to realize that while this is a noble cause, it is unnecessary. A number of disabled people’s organizations that have opposed this new development. Such people have come out publicly and condemned what they see as a continuation of the eugenic philosophies. These eugenic philosophies aimed to sanitize the world by eliminating the genetic differences and the physically challenged people in the society of which are perceived as a burden. Their argument is that human diversity should be seen as a benefit and not a burden; consequently, the world should do all it can to welcome them and prevent them from being born. HGM is seen as having a great deal of sympathy for these people and would rather prevent them from being brought to the world (Resnik & Langer 1452). While every parent is at liberty to decide whether to have children with genetic conditions or not, opponents of the practice argue that there do other ways of achieving the same without necessarily having to use HGM. Such alternative methods include parents opting to remain childless; parents deciding to do child adoption; use of egg or sperm donation and lastly insisting on having children who are 100 percent genetically their own. Proponents say that especially those opposed to abortion and, as such, favor HGM may disfavor the above options. However, the fact is that HGM also involves destruction of surplus embryos upon implantation that is “wrong” practice (Resnik & Langer 1454). The opponents of HGM also argue that once the practice is given the leeway to treat diseases, it will be quite difficult to stop it from being used for “enhancement.” In the current world where people are trying to change themselves using practices such as cosmetic surgery, genetic “enhancement” therefore, will be most welcome. Genetic selection of embryos only choose the ‘best’ of what a couple’s genes can offer. In contrast, HGM can produce, real “enhanced babies” with genes derived from other people; in extreme cases, even from other species. Consequently, opponents of the practice argue that production of “designer babies” and not the avoidance of genetic disease will be its main market (Frankel & Chapman 03). While the proponents of HGM argue that regulations may help curb practices such as the use of HGM for production of “designer babies,” this may not be completely possible as unscrupulous entrepreneurs may provide such services for fertility tourists. Following the impact this practice may have on humanity, opponents argue that the only way to stop misusing the practice would be to avoid HGM altogether (Smith 252). The argument about “reproductive liberty” Opponents of HGM argue that the practice is likely to interfere with the parents’ “reproductive liberty.” Although it is often said that women have exclusive rights to reproduction, there are limitations. For instance, while a woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy citing medical reasons; choosing favorable characteristics for the child is not a woman’s exclusive right. Consequently, the opponents of HGM argue that while the practice increasingly subject reproduction to medical control, on the other hand, HGM decreases women’s personal autonomy, rather than increasing the same (Smith 264). Arguments in Support of HGM Although many arguments have been made which seek to discredit HGM, proponents of the technique believe that HGM is an important practice, which may help humanity in many significant ways. Consequently, they cite the following as the critical roles that HGM will play in enhancing human life. Treatment of Diseases Proponents believe that the HGM technique will serve a critical role in the treatment of human diseases that are difficult to treat. An example of such diseases is the mitochondrial disease. The disease is usually because of a genetic disorder that often causes a variety of malfunctions in the body including increased risk of heart attack, diabetes, and other neurological problems. The disease is common in children who are below ten years and could lead to the development of age-related diseases such as Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis. The cure for the disease is not yet known, and it is advised any woman who suffers from the same should refrain from having children with her eggs. In such circumstances, HGM can help as it can be used in ensuring aiding in mitochondrial DNA and ensuring that a woman suffering from the disease gets her own, healthy biological children. In addition to preventing mitochondrial disease, the technique can also be used to prevent sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis and thalassemia in children of two carriers (D’Souza & Weissig 318-323). Position of the Paper Following the case presented and the different safety, ethical and social objections rose against human genetic modification, it is clear there are many issues that remains to be done concerning HGM. It, therefore, the position of this paper that HGM remains unacceptable until the issues surrounding the practice is resolved. Conclusion While human genetic modification seems to offer significant remedies to different diseases and conditions affecting human beings, the technique equally raises serious health and safety issues that are yet to be resolved. Consequently, there needs to be a sober discussion on the issues surrounding HGM, and which should involve all stakeholders including the public and policy makers. Unless such issues and implications of HGM are made clear, the practice should remain unacceptable in the society. Works Cited D’Souza, G. G. and Weissig, V. ‘Approaches to Mitochondrial Gene Therapy.’ Current Gene Therapy, 2004, (4), 317-328. Frankel, M. S. and Chapman, A. R. ‘Human Inheritable Genetic Modifications: Assessing Scientific, Ethical, Religious, and Policy Issues.’ 2000. Washington, DC, AAAS. Resnik, D. B.; Langer, P. J. ‘Human Germline Gene Therapy Reconsidered.’ Human Gene Therapy, 2001, (12), 1449-1458. Richter, G. and Bacchetta, M. D. ‘Interventions in the Human Genome: Some Moral and Ethical Considerations. Journal of Medical Philosophy. 1998, (23), 303-317. Smith, K. R. ‘Gene Therapy: Theoretical and Bioethical Concepts.’ Arch. Med. Res. 2003, (34), 247-268. Wivel, N. A. and Walters, L. ‘Germ-Line Gene Modification, and Disease Prevention: Some Medical and Ethical Perspectives.’ Science 1993, (262), 533-538. Read More