What should genetic engineering do for us

The production of medicines through the use of genetically altered organisms has generally been welcomed. However, critics of rDNA fear that disease-producing, organisms used in some rDNA experiments might develop extremely infectious forms that could cause worldwide epidemics [ 7 ].

As more human genes are being used in non-human organisms to create new forms of life that are genetically partly human, new ethical questions arise. For instance, what percentage of human genes does an organism have to contain before it is considered human and how many human genes would a green pepper for example have to contain before it can be eaten without qualms.

Human genes are now being inserted into tomatoes and peppers to make them grow faster [ 8 ]. This suggests that one can now be a vegetarian and a cannibal at the same time.

For meateaters, the same question could be posed about eating pork with human genes. What about the mice that have been genetically engineered to produce human sperm [ 9 ]. Transgenic plants also present controversial issues. Allergens can be transferred from one food crop to another through genetic engineering. Another concern is that pregnant women eating genetically modified products may endanger their offspring by harming normal fetal development and altering gene expression [ 10 ].

In the National Academy of Sciences released a report calling for a legal ban on human cloning [ 11 ]. The report concluded that the high rate of health problems in cloned animals suggests that such an effort in humans would be highly dangerous for the mother and developing embryo and is likely to fail. Beyond safety, the possibility of cloning humans also raises a variety of social issues like the psychological issues that would result for a cloned child who is the identical twin of his or her parent.

Another frightening scenario is the destructive use of genetic engineering. Terrorist groups or armies could develop more powerful biological weaponry. These weapons could be resistant to medicines, or even targeted at people who carry certain genes.

Genetically engineered organisms used for biological weapons might also reproduce faster, which would create larger quantities in shorter periods of time, increasing the level of devastation [ 12 ].

Despite all of these current concerns, the potential for genetic engineering is tremendous. However, further testing and research will be required to educate society on the pros and cons of genetic engineering.

There is no doubt that this technology will continue to present intriguing and difficult challenges for 21st century scientists and ethicists, and education and meaningful, respectful discourse are just the starting point of what is required to tackle such complex ethical issues.

With the newfound breakthroughs in cloning, the capabilities of changing human characteristics are unpredictable. We can then anticipate intense cross-disciplinary debate and discussion as new life forms are emanating through science and medicine [ 13 ]. Author Guidelines Submit Manuscript.

The danger objection points out that a few recent attempts at gene therapy in clinical trials have made headlines because of the tragic deaths of some of the people participating in the trials. It is not fully known to what extent this was due to the gene therapy itself, as opposed to pre-existing conditions or improper research techniques, but in the light of such events some critics have called for a stop to gene therapy until more is known.

We just do not know enough about how gene therapy works and what could go wrong. Specific worries are that. The discrimination objection is as follows. Some people who are physically, mentally, or emotionally impaired are so as the result of genetic factors they have inherited.

Such impairment can result in disablement in our society. People with disabilities are often discriminated against by having fewer opportunities than other people. Be removing genetic disorders, and resulting impairment, it is true that gene therapy could contribute to removing one of the sources of discrimination and inequality in society.

But the implicit assumption being made, the objection claims, is that people impaired through genetic factors need to be treated and made normal.

The objection sees gene therapy as a form of discrimination against impaired people and persons with disabilities. The irrelevance objection is that gene therapy on reproductive cells may in some cases already be superseded by in-vitro fertilization and selection of embryos. If a genetic disorder is such that can be detected in an early embryo, and not all embryos from the parent couple would have it, then have parents produce multiple embryos through in-vitro fertilization and implant only those free from the disorder.

In such a case gene therapy would be unnecessary and irrelevant. Ethicists have generally been even more concerned about possible problems with and implications of enhancement genetic engineering than they have been about gene therapy. First, there are worries similar to those about gene therapy that not enough is known and there may be unforeseen dangerous consequences. These worries may be even more serious given that the attempts are made not just toward normalcy but into strange new territory where humans have never gone before.

We just do not know what freakish creatures might result from experiments gone awry. Gene therapy is becoming a reality as you read this. Genetic engineering for enhancement is still a ways off. Plenty of debate is sure to occur over both issues. Columbia, MO Contact. All rights reserved. DMCA and other copyright information. For website information, contact the Office of Communications. Contact the MU School of Medicine. Thus, rigorous social science research by individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds is crucial to understanding people's perceptions and establishing appropriate boundaries.

Over the years, the desire for better sports performance has driven many trainers and athletes to abuse scientific research in an attempt to gain an unjust advantage over their competitors. Historically, such efforts have involved the use of performance-enhancing drugs that were originally meant to treat people with disease. This practice is called doping, and it frequently involved such substances as erythropoietin, steroids, and growth hormones Filipp, To control this drive for an unfair competitive edge, in , the International Olympic Committee created the World Anti-Doping Agency WADA , which prohibits the use of performance-enhancing drugs by athletes.

WADA also conducts various testing programs in an attempt to catch those athletes who violate the anti-doping rules. Today, WADA has a new hurdle to overcome—that of gene doping.

This practice is defined as the nontherapeutic use of cells, genes, or genetic elements to enhance athletic performance. Gene doping takes advantage of cutting-edge research in gene therapy that involves the transfer of genetic material to human cells to treat or prevent disease Well, Because gene doping increases the amount of proteins and hormones that cells normally make, testing for genetic performance enhancers will be very difficult, and a new race is on to develop ways to detect this form of doping Baoutina et al.

The potential to alter genes to build better athletes was immediately realized with the invention of so-called "Schwarzenegger mice" in the late s. These mice were given this nickname because they were genetically engineered to have increased muscle growth and strength McPherron et al.

The goal in developing these mice was to study muscle disease and reverse the decreased muscle mass that occurs with aging. Interestingly, the Schwarzenegger mice were not the first animals of their kind; that title belongs to Belgian Blue cattle Figure 1 , an exceptional breed known for its enormous muscle mass. These animals, which arose via selective breeding , have a mutated and nonfunctional copy of the myostatin gene , which normally controls muscular development.

Without this control, the cows' muscles never stop growing Grobet et al. In fact, Belgian Blue cattle get so large that most females of the breed cannot give natural birth, so their offspring have to be delivered by cesarean section. Schwarzenegger mice differ from these cattle in that they highlight scientists' newfound ability to induce muscle development through genetic engineering, which brings up the evident advantages for athletes.

But does conferring one desirable trait create other, more harmful consequences? Are gene doping and other forms of genetic engineering something worth exploring, or should we, as a society, decide that manipulation of genes for nondisease purposes is unethical? Genetic testing also harbors the potential for yet another scientific strategy to be applied in the area of eugenics , or the social philosophy of promoting the improvement of inherited human traits through intervention.

In the past, eugenics was used to justify practices including involuntary sterilization and euthanasia. Today, many people fear that preimplantation genetic diagnosis may be perfected and could technically be applied to select specific nondisease traits rather than eliminate severe disease, as it is currently used in implanted embryos, thus amounting to a form of eugenics.

In the media, this possibility has been sensationalized and is frequently referred to as creation of so-called "designer babies," an expression that has even been included in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Although possible, this genetic technology has not yet been implemented; nonetheless, it continues to bring up many heated ethical issues. Trait selection and enhancement in embryos raises moral issues involving both individuals and society.

First, does selecting for particular traits pose health risks that would not have existed otherwise? The safety of the procedures used for preimplantation genetic diagnosis is currently under investigation, and because this is a relatively new form of reproductive technology, there is by nature a lack of long-term data and adequate numbers of research subjects.

Still, one safety concern often raised involves the fact that most genes have more than one effect. For example, in the late s, scientists discovered a gene that is linked to memory Tang et al.

Modifying this gene in mice greatly improved learning and memory, but it also caused increased sensitivity to pain Wei et al. Beyond questions of safety, issues of individual liberties also arise. For instance, should parents be allowed to manipulate the genes of their children to select for certain traits when the children themselves cannot give consent?

Suppose a mother and father select an embryo based on its supposed genetic predisposition to musicality, but the child grows up to dislike music. Will this alter the way the child feels about its parents, and vice versa?

Finally, in terms of society, it is not feasible for everyone to have access to this type of expensive technology. Thus, perhaps only the most privileged members of society will be able to have "designer children" that possess greater intelligence or physical attractiveness. This may create a genetic aristocracy and lead to new forms of inequality. At present, these questions and conjectures are purely hypothetical, because the technology needed for trait selection is not yet available.

In fact, such technology may be impossible, considering that most traits are complex and involve numerous genes. Still, contemplation of these and other issues related to genetic engineering is important should the ability to create genetically enhanced humans ever arise. Baoutina, A. Developing strategies for detection of gene doping. Journal of Gene Medicine 10 , 3—20 Barton-Davis, E. Risks of genetic engineering Transfer of the selected gene into other species.

What benefits one plant may harm another. Some people believe it is not ethical to interfere with nature in this way. Also, GM crop seeds are often more expensive and so people in developing countries cannot afford them. GM crops could cause allergic reactions in people.