Milestone in the Biotechnology: Human Genetic Engineering
8th April, 2008
Modern biotechnology has been venturing into the world of the human genome. Researchers are at the forefront of creating complete artificial parts of human beings in their labs using genetic engineering technology. Synthetic biology has enormous potential in the fields of modern agriculture and pharmaceuticals. The introduction of new gene therapies through this technology has the potential to dramatically change the world by providing cures for incurable diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and Huntington’s disease, as well as by cultivating transgenic crops. However, the drawbacks of human genetic engineering cannot be overlooked, as genetic modifications made through engineering do not guarantee control over an individual’s social and biological characteristics.
Modern genetic engineering technology modifies the genetic material of an organism to create a genetically modified organism (GMO). This technique is also known as recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology, where the molecules of DNA from various sources are combined to create a new gene through an in vitro procedure. The ultimate goal of this technology is to treat human diseases by replacing defective genes with new ones. In other words, the procedures aim at correcting the sequence of a genetic disorder in a genetically defective individual or adding new genes to the defective cells to maintain the proper function of the cell body (Reich 908).
The assessment of genetic engineering is attached to genetic therapy and genetic enhancement. In terms of therapy, we can treat various diseases in the same manner as other therapies do. However, therapy also has two types: germline gene therapy, which uses sperm or egg cells to modify genes to transplant healthy genes to other human cells to prevent diseases, and somatic cell gene therapy, in which the gene is modified in a somatic cell. In spite of these advantages for curing human diseases, there are several destructive aspects of human genetic engineering as well.
Firstly, the whole process of human genetic engineering goes through in vitro germline gene therapy. I still stand firm against human genetic engineering because it destroys unborn life, just as I believe that the advantages of human embryonic stem cells and human reproductive cloning do not justify the destruction of unborn human life. A fetus should not be destroyed before being used as a means of treatment for an individual. It is impractical and immoral to twist the Word of God for the advancement of any individual as a band of people embraces the technology to subdue the earth. God has made us to subdue his creation (Gen. 1:28). Yet, we should know that He has not commanded any individual to commit murder or destroy the sanctity of their lives. We are God’s ambassadors (Eph. 6:20) and are here to subdue the earth. Therefore, killing unborn life for our own sake is ridiculous for a representative of God.
Second, the risk associated with genetic engineering negatively impacts our contemporary social harmony, particularly when the engineering is focused on enhancement. Scientists who model new genes for intelligence, memory, and other characteristics follow instructions for gene enhancement. In this regard, gene enhancement appears to provoke more conflict and present greater problems than therapy, as this technique focuses on transforming humans into superhuman beings by modifying their characteristics through genetic intervention (Post 937).
Genetic engineering might also pioneer social and racial discrimination among various ethnic groups based on biological differentiation. It mainly affects the developing world and the economically disadvantaged people groups all around the world. Human genetic engineering may also promote racism and sexism once the technology becomes widely available in the public marketplace, similar to other therapeutic options. The genetic engineering aimed at enhancement will merely be a blissful gift for the rich. Stephen G. Post, the editor of the Encyclopedia of Bioethics, also agrees that “then differences in economic class may become biologically entrenched. The rich not only may be healthier, but they also may be brighter, stronger, prettier, and so on” (938). Minority people groups will never have access to the technology. At the same time, the social boundary will be dismantled as economically lower-class individuals live in a state of inferiority while their wealthy neighbors achieve significant success, knowledge, and a broader outlook. Then, the linguistic scientists had better eliminate the word “competition” from the dictionary. There will be no more competition with those genetically modified human beings.
Thirdly, the genetic engineering itself is a mystery for researchers, too. They also do not know the precise consequences of inserting new genes into a complex organism. In this case, the result could be more devastating than we have expected. Genetic engineering is probably unable to measure the instability of feelings and emotions of a genetically modified individual. The reason behind this kind of emotional instability is still unknown. For this reason, Robert Cooke, a social scientist, writes that “helping people understand the genome project will be a big job, however, because the genome itself is in many ways still a major mystery” (8). Furthermore, Post adds that alteration of genetic engineering to increase memory capacity is positive, but alteration in the trait possibly makes an individual emotionally unstable or interferes with some other beneficial trait (938). Therefore, we also should keep in mind that embracing the technology without knowing much is like fishing in shallow water where we do not know if there is a snake with the fish.
Finally, the genetic engineering that involves receiving any gene from a human being should be banned because the University of Nevada has created the first human-sheep chimera that possessed 15 percent human cells. The main purpose was to create animals with human organs for transplantation into human beings. At that time, animal welfare was not considered, and no one ever thought about ethical considerations. However, the US Commissioner of Patents denied approval for the patent application in 1998. Mark Dowie, columnist for Mother Jones, affirms the excerpt of the speech, stating:
On April Fools’ Day 1998, within hours of reading U.S. patent application No. 08/993,564, the Honorable Bruce Lehman did something no other commissioner of patents had done in the 200-year history of America’s oldest government agency. He stepped before a cluster of microphones and announced that the patent would never be approved. No half-human “monsters” would be patented, Lehman declared angrily, or any other “immoral inventions.”
The approval of the patent will lead us to redefine the meaning of “human.” A global question will be raised about the half-human organism in its new identity. The online version of the news site of the President’s Council on Bioethics also published the success story of the genetic engineering of the first human-animal chimera through human stem cells in 2004. But some of the commentators on the website have argued that a manmade chimera is a pseudo-chimera and does not talk like a human being, although it has some human genes. Regardless, not talking and being modified by scientists do not make her a pseudo-chimera. If it is the case of pseudo, then what do we say about human clones who speak but have no biological parents? Should we call them pseudo-human beings, as they are also modified? This argument leads us to discover a new word for generalizing the meaning of “human being” again.
Additionally, there will be another question regarding consuming these kinds of organisms. Since they possess human genes, eating these organisms will be equivalent to going back to the world of cannibalism. If we agree with the supposition that the unit of cell is a human being, the least percentage of inserting human genes through genetic engineering into any animal definitely confines the dignity of humanity. This situation also raises moral concerns about consuming those animals. In our culture in Nepal, many people do not kill their cattle by themselves, as they have established emotional relationships with cattle. They are loved, and when they are sold, the owner and his family feel drained inside. People in western countries also love their pets. They can never think of harming their pets. Then, why are they not reluctant to kill and consume such human-animals?
Except for the following considerations, we also should think far beyond the devastating result of the wrong handling of genetic engineering. It could be as destructive as nuclear power is if the technology is delivered to wicked people. They can use the technology for their profit and victory in the war on terrorism as well as civil wars. The military and militias can use genetically modified animals like monkeys, dogs, and other domestic animals as suicide bombers. Science has proven that sending a gorilla into space is a historic achievement. Could we then use these gorillas by modifying their brains for another purpose?
Despite these convictions, I agree that genetic engineering should be used to transfer somatic cell genes for the treatment of crucial diseases. Still, there will be more conflict over determining the seriousness of diseases. Reich acknowledges that “what distinguishes a serious disease from a ‘minor’ disease or from a genetic variation” (912)? A lot of homework should be done to differentiate the nature of diseases that need gene splicing or genetic engineering technology. Once scientists fail to make a distinction between major and minor diseases, no one will be able to control the rational usage of the technology.
Another tempting issue will be the selection of an individual for gene transfer. How can this challenge be resolved when individuals seek treatment? What is the basis of selecting individuals for treatment? Reich also inquires about the bases of selecting patients for treatment, stating:
If individuals are carriers of a disease (e.g., sickle-cell anemia), would they be pressured to be treated? Would they have difficulty in obtaining health insurance unless they agree to be treated? Finally, we must face the issue of eugenics, the attempt to make hereditary “improvements.” The abuse of power that societies have historically demonstrated in the pursuit of eugenic goals is well documented. Might we slide into a new age of eugenic thinking by starting with small “improvements”? It would be nearly impossible to determine where to draw a line if enhancement engineering were to begin. (912)
The above statements have made clear how significant the accurate selection of patients for gene transfer treatment is. Suppose the process of selection were messed up; what the world would look like then! Then, one thing is very sure: bioethical issues do not make any sense, but the iniquity of human beings will prevail upon humanity and shake the foundation of communal harmony of the world.
Therefore, I strongly believe that gene transfer can be a remarkable blessing of life from God, but failure to properly handle the genetic engineering technology also can be catastrophic to humanity. There should be a global debate on the pros and cons of the issues before implementing them in practice.
Human nature tends to be so fragile that he seeks alternative ways to get relief from pain and grief rather than celebrate joy with the Lord. No one wants to die, but death is inevitable. By embracing this truth, we should seek options in God. The psalmist urges us to avoid self-righteousness, to revere the LORD, and to avoid wrongdoing. Such faith will bring health to our body and nourishment to our bones (4:22). Our bitterness, aloofness, loneliness, individualism, sinful and lustful thoughts, and activities have nourished sin. If we really do believe in God, we are not to worship and bow down to other gods. But we have many gods in our lives that we demonstrate more devotion to than worshipping our living God. He has promised to show His love to our thousand generations if we love Him and keep His commandment (Exo. 20:5-7). Today, we are suffering because of our sins.
Work Cited
Cooke, Robert. “Biotechnology.” Vol. 72. Milestone for Humanity: Scientists
Decode the Blueprint of the Human Body. Ed. Lynn Messina. New York: The H.W. Wilson Company, 2000. 4 vols.
Dowie, Mark. Fight to Patent a Human-Animal Chimera. Jan/Feb 2004. The Foundation for National Progress, Invest. 2 Apr. 2008 <http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/chimerapatent.htm>.
Holy Bible: New International Version. Colorado Springs: International Bible Society, 1984.
PCBE Transcripts: (March 4, 2004). 5 Mar. 2004. PCBE. 2 Apr. 2008 <http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/march05/session6.html>.
Post, Stephen G. “Genetic Engineering, Human.” Encyclopedia of Bioethics. 3rd ed.
2004.
Reich, Warren T. “Strategies for Gene Therapy.” Encyclopedia on Bioethics. 2nd ed.
1995.
