Is Human Genetic Engineering (HGE) safe and ethical?

Genetic engineering is defined as the direct modification of an organisms

genome using techniques that exploit biological processes, which are referred to as

biotechnology. The genome of an organism is its DNA, the sequence of nucleotide

bases that are often referred to as the Secret of Life. Every single organism on

planet earth develops according to the instructions provided to it by its DNA. The

size, number of legs, color, reproductive strategy, etc. of the organism is

determined by its DNA. It follows then that the genome is responsible for the

special characteristics an organism has and the genome is unique to that organism.

The history of genetic engineering dates back to 1972, when the first direct

manipulation of DNA was accomplished by Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen.

Working together, Boyer and Cohen successfully transformed the DNA of a bacterial

cell. Transformation is the transfer of DNA from one bacterial cell to another. This

first endeavor into genetic engineering paved the way for a future in which it is

possible to directly manipulate the DNA of an organism for mankinds benefit. An

example of the benefits includes the creation of genetically engineered bacteria

that produce insulin. This research is a benefit for the health care industry because

it allows patients with diabetes who require insulin injections to attain their insulin

for a price cheaper than what they used to pay before. The health industry clearly

stands to benefit from genetic engineering in many ways, however another industry

that has seen promise with the advent of genetic engineering is the agricultural

industry. Genetically engineered crops can produce higher yields with resistance to

problems such as drought, disease, and infestation. The genetically engineered

crops are a big win for farmers and populations alike. The higher crop yields drive
the cost of food down, which benefits all populations, especially those in developing

countries who tend to lack sufficient food resources. It is clear that genetic

engineering has the potential to solve many problems for the human race. Some

scientists even believe that genetic engineering can solve problems that humans

face with their own physiology. For example, it has been proposed that germ-line

gene therapy be used to eradicate certain

nasty diseases that are borne out of

problems within our DNA. Germ-line gene therapy is

defined as the manipulation of genetic

information in egg or sperm cells. Some

scientists believe that this form of genetic

engineering can solve the problems

associated with cancer, vascular diseases,

Human genetic engineering can rewrite
neurological disorders, etc. that stem from the genetic information in DNA [8]

problems within our own DNA. However,

the potential benefits associated with Human Genetic Engineering (HGE) far

outweigh the safety risks involved, and scientists who support HGE have failed to

successfully address the ethical concerns associated with HGE as well. The use of

HGE, however enticing it may be, has far too many safety risks and ethical concerns

associated with it that renders itself too dangerous and impractical to be used today

by the human race.

Proponents of HGE argue that the technology can be used to solve the

problems associated with certain genetic diseases, if not cure the diseases

altogether. Researchers at MIT have reported upon the success of gene editing

techniques that allows them to modify genes responsible for disease in mice. [1]
Potentially, they are able to cure the disease by modifying the pieces of DNA

responsible for the disease so they no longer continue to cause problems within the

mice. Since the preliminary research has been done on mice, the goal of these

scientists would be to one day apply these HGE techniques to humans in order to

solve problems with the human genome. The research is promising, however to

apply this research to humans introduces a bevy of problems. Scientists believe

gene interactions to be extremely complicated, and modifying the genes

responsible for disease will undoubtedly have unanticipated consequences later in

the developing stages of the human embryo, if not later in its adult life. [2] In HGEs

current state, the technology is not at the level it needs to be in order to be

successful. In fact, 25 countries belonging to the European Union have agreed to

prohibit human germ-line gene editing, 25 countries have signed up to an

agreement that prohibits the editing of human germline DNA because they have

recognized that the technology is too new, safety information too limited and the

potential for harm too unknown. [9] For a consortium of this size and scale to come

together and agree upon limitations to be impose upon HGE, really says something

about the importance of the issue. Scientific progress is a goal for many groups,

however to reconcile safety and science requires limiting types of research done

until safer methods are available to the scientific community.

An ethical concern with HGE is that of the development of genetically

superior human beings by way of germ-line gene editing. This refers to eugenics, a

movement aimed at improving the genetic quality of the human population.

Eugenics is not a new concept; it has been proposed as far back in time as when the

famed philosopher Plato existed. Modern proponents of eugenics, including the

British scientist Francis Galton and the Americans Alexander Graham Bell and
Margaret Sanger, have established the goals of modern eugenics to end certain

disease and disabilities (negative eugenics) and to develop a healthy gene pool by

encouraging the mating of individuals with good health and genes and discouraging

the mating of those with less favorable traits; A form of unnatural selection. [3]

However, history has proven that if there is an opportunity to make a positive

change in the world, somebody will come along to exploit the opportunity for

negative, if not downright evil reasons. The eugenic goals proposed by the Nazi

organization during WW2 promoted the health of the German population at the

expense of populations considered to be unhealthy and undesirable by the Nazis. In

the Nazis pursuit of their idea of eugenics, over six million Jewish people were

killed. [3] In todays world, the concerns with eugenics do not parallel those

atrocities committed by the Nazis, however the concerns are still very real. Some

scientists believe the potential for the practice of eugenics through germ-line HGE

to be a problem for the future of HGE. Eugenics writer Marcy Danovsky agrees,

citing the patterns of enforcing injustice and discrimination as a reason for concern,

Promoting a future of genetically engineered inequality legitimizes the vast

existing injustices that are socially arranged and enforced. [4] If the purpose of

eugenics is to improve the genetic quality of the human race, will this improvement

be shared over all classes of society? Does all of society stand to benefit from the

technological advances that come along with HGE? Many scientists do not believe

this will be the case. The eugenic practices of the Nazi organization have reminded

people that no matter what, there will be groups of people who aim to exploit and

exact their power over other groups of people. Whats to stop something of this

effect from occurring with the advent of more powerful HGE technology? Will those

groups of people who have lots of money and power decide to practice safe
eugenics, or will they instead take advantage of eugenics for the purpose of driving

a wedge into social and economic inequality by the creation of genetically superior

human beings? As history has proven, the latter scenario is more likely, and it is for

this reason that practicing HGE is unethical.

The power of HGE technology is not to be understated. For the first time in

history, scientists have the power to open the instruction manual to human

development and rewrite it. Surely the human race stands to gain huge benefits

from the practice of HGE. However, there is a divide between groups of people who

support HGE in one form or another. There are two types of HGE. Germ-line gene

editing is the practice in which the DNA of the sperm or eggs is modified to produce

permanent change in developmental future of an embryo. These genetic changes

will also be passed down to future generations after reproduction. The other type of

HGE is somatic cell gene editing. This is the practice of inserting DNA into particular

cells of a fully developed human in order to fix a problem. This genetic change does

not affect the development of the human, and the change is not passed down to

future generations. [5] Germ-line gene editing presents ethical issues unlike those

associated with somatic cell gene editing. One of the ethical arguments is of that of

intergenerational consent. [6] Is it ethical to alter an embryos future development

by way of HGE? What if the HGE produces changes that render the future being

disabled in its mental and physical faculties? Some believe this lack of consent

provides a threat to human dignity. Somatic cell gene editing does not face this

issue of intergenerational consent because the genetic change is not passed down

to future generations after reproduction. This is just one example of how different

aspects of HGE do not share the same ethical and safety concerns. The safety of

germ-line gene editing, as discussed in the second paragraph, is another example

of the differences in concerns between the two types of HGE. As discussed before,

the germ-line gene editing has the potential to produce unforeseen consequences in

the development of a modified embryo due to the complexity of genetic

interactions. However, this safety concern is not shared with somatic cell gene

editing. Somatic cell gene editing does not modify the DNA in all cells of organism,

only the targeted cells. If something were to go wrong in the engineered cells, the

damage would likely be local and

not cause damage on the scale of

the entire human body. Therefore,

the same concerns applied to

germ-line editing are invalid when

applied to somatic cell editing.

Relating back to the discussion on

eugenics in the third paragraph,

eugenics as an ethical issue that

Differences in HGE technologies [7]
presents itself in the case of germ-line gene

editing. In somatic cell gene editing, the concerns for eugenics are invalid because

this type of gene editing does not alter future generations, nor does it have the

ability to produce a race of superhumans. The somatic cell gene editing cannot be

used to produce a race of super humans or designer babies, therefore the

ethical concern of HGE is invalid in this case. This purpose of this paragraph is to

show that HGE is not a black and white issue, and that certain ethical or safety

concerns that are relevant to some applications of HGE are not relevant to other

applications of HGE.
 Human genetic engineering promises a future in which humans have the

power to manipulate their genetic makeup for the benefit of their health and

success of future generations. The technology only has room to improve, and many

scientists and health professionals alike will find HGE to be an important part of

future medical intervention. However, at this point in the current understanding of

HGE, the scientists and health professionals with strong sensibilities about them

should choose to avoid the practice of HGE for its serious ethical and safety

implications. Only with further knowledge and understanding of HGE will we be able

to properly address the ethical and safety concerns. To avoid the aspects of HGE

discussed in the essay at this point in history is the correct choice.

References

1: Trafton, Anne. "Curing Disease by Repairing Faulty Genes." MIT News. MIT News, 01 Feb.

2016. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.

2: Lanphier, Edward. Don't Edit the Human Germ Line (2015): n. pag. NATURE, 10 July 2016.

Web. 19 Apr. 2017. <http://kcsschmidt.com/BME2016/Nature-Don'tEdit.pdf>.

3: Goering, Sara, "Eugenics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), 2

July 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 17 2017.

<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/eugenics/>

4: Danovsky, Marcy. "The New Eugenics: The Case against Genetically Modified Humans."

Center For Genetics and Society, 3 Apr. 200. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.

<http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=260>.

5: Griffiths, Anthony JF. "Somatic versus Germinal Mutation." An Introduction to Genetic

Analysis. 7th Edition. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21894/>.

6: Sugarman, Jeremy. "Ethics and Germline Gene Editing." EMBO Reports. John Wiley & Sons,

Ltd, Aug. 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552475/>.

7: https://www.slideshare.net/damarisb/gene-therapy-27039196

8: http://www.evolutionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/mt-

import/Dollarphotoclub_51057290.jpg

9: "Germline Editing Debate." Home. European Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, 17 Sept.

2015. Web. 21 Apr. 2017. <https://www.esgct.eu/Congress/Germline-Editing-Debate.aspx>.