One of the most controversial topics recently covered by the media is the progress of genetic research. There are clearly benefits to this research and this branch of science shows great potential. However, there are many who protest this kind of development; it seems that every sect has some reason why this area of technology should not be allowed to progress. Many are fearful of the possibilities of disastrous, unseen consequences of genetic development and the possible breaches of safety this progress could produce. Others think this manipulation will have negative impacts on the environment. No matter what the reason for denying the world the benefits of genetic research, it is narrow-minded to say that there can be a problem produced by genetics that can not be remedied by the same research of which it is a byproduct. Although, like other technologies, there are risks involved this technology, the benefits far outweigh these risks. For each problem, there are multiple solutions.
Any person reading this paper has
seen the benefits of genetic research and development, regardless of them
knowing it. Our medicine and
agriculture are the areas that have profited most from this. Ironically, man has practiced genetic
engineering to an extent throughout history.
Humans have selectively bred livestock, plants, pets, and even
ourselves. Farmers breed cows they
think will produce more meat or milk and breed corn they think will produce a
better crop or be hardier. In most
cases, mate choice in humans is determined by one individual preferring one
individual over another due to a set of traits that individual possesses. Upon mating, each individual passes on at
least some of those traits to his or her offspring. Modern genetic engineering is just a more accurate, complete, and
more efficient way of doing this.
Although there is a need for regulation of this kind of development and
though it shouldn’t be taken lightly, there are few logical and realistic
arguments for the complete rejection of this technology.
Perhaps the most imminent
controversy surrounding genetic technology is that of genetically modified
organisms (GMO’s) in agriculture. This
technology basically involves altering the genetic code of food organisms to
decrease input and increase output. By
genetically modifying food organisms, the nutrition of the organisms can be
increased while they can be raised in a way that decreases energy consumption
and impact on the environment. Recently,
however, there has been concern with the negative health and environmental
implications of GMO’s. Most of these
can be avoided with precautionary measures and a modicum of foresight. For example, recently there was a recall on
a food product made from genetically modified corn. The genetic code of this corn contained information from bacteria
that makes it poisonous to a certain species of insect and could possibly cause
an allergic reaction in some individuals.
To some, this is an indication of the dangers associated with genetic
engineering and proof that it should be avoided. However, this is really an example of bad corporate policy, not
of bad science. Any product that is
understood so little should not be sold without more research, testing, or even
labeling. In addition, many of the
bacteria being studied for this technology are already sprayed on crops in
large amounts. It is hard to believe
that the same chemical, produced by different organisms could somehow have
different effects warranting different regulation.
Most
people look straight at the problems of this scenario and fail to see the
benefits and how a better marketing policy would have made this situation
avoidable. Genetically modifying food organisms is a very effective way to
lower the cost and increase the quality of foods. Given more time, the company responsible for this strain of corn
could have improved it so it was known to be safe, yet still resistant to the
insect. This would decrease the use of
insecticides, which, so far, have shown to be far more dangerous that any
genetically modified organism. There
are other benefits to genetically modified agriculture that far outweigh the
potential costs, which can be avoided.
Also, many current fears are unfounded and are based only on the
imagination of those who oppose genetic progress.
. A related argument against GMO’s is that one
plant containing the genetic material from another may carry the same ability
to cause an allergic reaction in certain individuals. For example, a corn plant containing genes from soy that make it
contain more protein may also enable the plant to create allergic reactions in
those who are allergic to soy. This
does not mean that there will only be GMO corn available in the future. This will simply allow those who aren’t
allergic to soy to obtain more nutrients from the same diet. Compare this to way food companies process
different foods on the same equipment. The
company labels its products to alert customers that the food they are about to
eat many contain trace amounts of food to which they are allergic. There is a potential for danger, but it is
readily avoidable. If these products
were not labeled, the same outcome could ensue. Should these companies buy and maintain separate facilities for
each and every type of product they make?
This would only increase the cost for those who aren’t allergic and give
those who are allergic another reason not to buy the product. As long as consumers know what they are
getting, there is no reason why the benefits of this new concept should not be
had. As our already large population
continues to grow, we will need to use this technology to grow the amount and
quality of food that will be necessary to adequately feed the human population.
There
are many aspects of GMO’s that are beneficial to the environment as well.
Currently, there are GMO’s that possess insect resistance, viral resistance,
and fungal resistance. This means that
some crops can be grown without the use of chemicals that may be harmful to the
environment. Many ecologists believe
that creating insect resistant GMO’s will cause insects to adapt to the plants
and the resistance will be negated.
This is believed because a similar phenomenon was actually observed with
the overuse of antibiotics. Bacteria
are quickly adapting to our antibiotics and gaining resistance to them. However, there is no concrete evidence that
these insects will adapt as quickly as bacteria, some of which have a
reproductive doubling time of twenty minutes.
Insects, whose doubling time is much longer, would take an incredibly
long time to adapt to such a situation.
In addition, if a species of insect can become resistant to a chemical
produced by a GMO, it can most likely become resistant to the same chemical
when manufactured by man. In other
words, genetically engineering the organism to produce this substance is not
what environmentalists object to. They
really object to the use of the chemical itself, which, there will probably be
no regulation of.
Another
fear of ecologists is that genetically engineered organisms will be released
into the wild and allowed to ruin the natural populations. To make sure that GMO plants do not get
released into the wild and pollute natural populations with engineered genes, a
new technology is being developed.
“Terminator genes” are inserted into the plant which make it infertile
and thus unable to breed with natural plants.
Similar technology could be used with animals and bacteria. This demonstrates the multiple capabilities
of genetic engineering; any problem associated with it can be easily corrected
with a small amount of time, creativity, and research.
Similarly,
advantages of genetic development in medicine are boundless. Once the human genome is completely understood
and we are able to manipulate it, many current medical problems will be
solved. However, many see this as the
most frightening aspect of the genetic revolution. Yet, much of the medicine we have now is based on the
understanding of the genetic code of organisms such as bacteria and fungus as
well the non-living entities, viruses.
For example, the manipulation of bacterial DNA allows us to get large
amounts of insulin and penicillin from microorganisms at a much lower cost than
previously. Developments concerning the
human genome will only expand this medical ability. Many others fear the breech of privacy that mapping the human
genome may bring. However, with the potential
loss of privacy comes the potential to correct the genetic mistakes that have
been programmed into one’s body.
Large
groups of people believe that this technology will produce an onslaught of
cloned human beings. Although recent
developments, such as the cloning of other animals, demonstrate this
possibility, only a small minority believes that whole human organisms should
be cloned. True, human organs could be
cloned for transplants, but the widespread opposition to cloning entire humans
will prevent it from happening while the beneficial research and development
concerning the human genome will be allowed to proceed. A related topic, the production of
genetically modified human beings is a bit more realistic. However, the ability to do this is a
necessary byproduct of the aforementioned beneficial technology and it is
unlikely that this will ever become commonplace.
An
extreme example of modifying a human being is the creation of “designer babies”
by altering one’s germline (the genes passed to offspring) genes. Many fear that this will only increase the
gap between the upper class and the rest of the world by allowing them to
create healthier, smarter, better-looking babies. Such a technology would be too risky for individuals to take into
their own hands. It is unrealistic to
think that such an act could happen without the intervention of others. Again, this is a scenario born out of the
fear of those who oppose the progress of genetics. This technology is too useful in others ways to discard it
because of such a fear. There are many
possibilities for engineering the human genome. Understanding and being able to manipulate the human genome will
enable us to do things that will help mankind on individual and societal
levels.
Already, genetic screening is used to detect
the presence of abnormalities in fetuses, which if allowed to develop, may
create a suffering, possibly very short life.
Various kinds of gene therapy are being researched to cure many of the
physical and psychological problems that plague our society. It would be a fantastic breakthrough to eliminate diseases like Huntington’s
disease, Parkinson’s disease, or cystic fibrosis. Should we place the future generations at risk for these genetic
disorders because we fear the consequences that we’ve seen in science fiction
movies?
By
eliminating psychological disorders at the genetic level, we will reduce the
chance of future afflictions as well as the costs to society. Many psychological disorders have, or are
believed to have, a genetic basis. By
eliminating these genetically, a great service will be done to the individuals
who will have otherwise been afflicted with the disorder. Society will also benefit from such a
technology. Many violent crimes are
carried out because the individual who committed the crime suffered from an
abnormal psychological condition. These
could be reduced with some kind of genetic manipulation. Other, more frequently encountered problems,
such as alcoholism, drug dependency, and depression could also be attacked with
such a technology. It would be a crime
to ignore such positive potential just to eliminate the possibility that some
individuals may want to genetically engineer their offspring to be more
beautiful or that some employers may be so nosy that they would require DNA
screening as part of the application process.
This
brings us to another example of the frenzied conceptions about human gene
technology: that of insurance companies or potential employers analyzing one’s
DNA. Some believe that insurance
companies will do this to screen for health risks so they can charge higher
rates for individuals in a higher risk category. It is also believed that companies will do this to determine if a
potential employee is “genetically fit” to work in the company. It is preposterous to believe that there
will be no governmental regulation of such issues. Again, there is no proof this will happen and this is not a
problem with the technology, but with the companies exploiting it.
In
summary, most of the opposition to the genetic revolution is based on fears,
not facts. Also, the problems predicted
by those who oppose are generally not problems with the technology itself, but
with the regulation and exploitation of this technology. There is a way to solve any problem
associated with genetic engineering.
Much like cars have been improved upon to make them safer and laws have
been passed to regulate this safety, the field of genetics must be regulated,
too. However, ignoring a technology
with such promise would a decision that would later be regretted. It is obvious that the human race has
reached a point where we can no longer rely solely upon the bounty of “nature”
to support us. We have already changed
nature to an almost irreversible state and with our rapidly increasing human
population, it would be impossible to live without this technology. We are part of nature and it has become
necessary for us to manipulate our environment to support our species.
Anderson, Luke. Genetic Engineering, Food, and Our Environment. Chelsea Green Publishing Company, White River Junction, Vermont. 1999.
Borger, Julian. “Who’s Testing Our Genes- and Why?” September 19, 2000 The Guardian Unlimited Website, http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/genes
Burley,
Justine. The Genetic Revolution and
Human Rights. Oxford University
Press, New York. 1999.
MSNBC Staff and Wire Reports. “Kraft stops making taco shells with corn
lacking OK for humans; Taco Bell also responds” September 22, 2000. MSNBC
Website. http://www.msnbc.com/news
Shakespeare,
Tom. “Brave New World (II)” January 5, 2000. The Guardian Unlimited Website,
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/genes
Stock, G. and Campbell, J. Engineering the Human Germline. Oxford University Press, New York. 2000.