Humans have been using primitive forms of genetic engineering for thousands of years, starting with selective breeding and advancing to precise manipulation of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as knowledge and technology has advanced. These changes that occurred as a result of human intervention have drastically altered the course of evolutionary history, causing new combinations of species to arise. In recent years, controversy surrounding the more technologically advanced forms of genetic manipulation has erupted throughout the world, beginning with the introduction of genetically modified foods and advancing to genetically modified animals. Understanding this fear and the reasons behind the resistance to technological advancement in the genetic field may help scientists introduce new techniques without harsh backlash.
The psychology backing the fear surrounding genetic manipulation stems from a concept called psychological essentialism. This concept “makes us think of DNA as an organism’s ‘essence’ – an unobservable and immutable core that causes the organism’s behavior and development and determines its identity” (Blancke, 2015). Common knowledge places DNA at the core of development; species would not exist without their own DNA that makes them unique. This also increases a level of fear, as transgenic modification, or combining the DNA of two separate species, was introduced and many against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) utilized it as a scare tactic (Blancke, 2015). Such exploitations include the anti-GMO organizations “publishing images of tomatoes with fish tails or by telling the public that companies modify corn with scorpion DNA to make crispier cereals” (Blancke, 2015). These fear tactics cause a negative response among the public, understandably, who feels that nature is being altered too drastically. Even if transgenic modifications occur, “Frankenfood” would not result as traits are carefully chosen to create better product by enhancing already existing traits (Blancke, 2015). The claims that GMOs can cause cancer, sterility, or the alteration of a perosn’s own DNA are not scientifically proven. Until the majority of people who oppose GMOs understand the science behind these changes, this fear will likely persist.
Another fear likely stems from the ambiguity surrounding the scientific community from the perspective of the general public. This distrust exists due to the level of intelligence held by many scientists and the lack of understanding about scientific topics among others. As a result, “genetic modification is deemed ‘unnatural’ and biotechnologists are accused of ‘playing God’” when they choose which traits are put into different species (Blancke, 2015). This fear, however, is entirely valid as some health risks develop as a result of trait selection. Scientists performed a study on mice in the late 1990s relating to increasing memory where a specific trait was selected in the hopes of increasing their ability to learn and retain information (Simmons, 2008). After observation, it was shown that “modifying this gene in mice greatly improved learning and memory, but it also increased sensitivity to pain”, a change that clearly poses as an undesirable trait (Simmons, 2008). This greatly deterred scientists from applying this genetic alteration to other species and prompted further discussion into the relation between different genes that can affect the expression of each other.
The alteration of the human genome elicits the largest amount of fear and uncertainty, and rightfully so. Contemplating the idea of perfect humans, with whatever traits scientists choose to express, appears as something out of science fiction novel. The ethics behind creating a race of genetically enhanced humans are, unsurprisingly, highly controversial and cause a great deal of fear in many people. Questions like “Will only the rich be able to afford ‘designer children’?”, “Will these traits affect the development of these children?”, and “Should parents be allowed to manipulate the genes of their children to select for certain traits when the children themselves cannot give consent?”, among others, all arise when the manipulation of the human genome is discussed (Simmons, 2008). With political tensions surrounding economic inequality already high, an upper class with genetically enhanced minds and bodies would likely increase this gap in an enormous way. Unsurprisingly, many genetic watch-dog groups and political organizations are extremely opposed to this use of genetic manipulation, as is much of the general public. Practical applications of this technology will likely have to occur before the acceptance of using the practice for personal reasons.
Instead of using genetic manipulation to create a race with aesthetically enhanced features, a perhaps more practical application of this advanced technology is using it to change genes coding for disease. A study published in Nature in July 2017 details how for the first time in history an international team of scientists “figured out a way to successfully edit the DNA of human embryos – without introducing the harmful mutations that were a problem in previous attempts elsewhere” (Stein, 2017). This study specifically focused on curing a genetic heart disorder that led to death and scientists are hoping “if future experiments confirm the techniques are safe and effective…the same approach could be used to prevent a long list of inheritable diseases” (Stein, 2017). These diseases include some of the most popular incurable diseases like Huntington’s disease, cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and certain types of breast and ovarian cancers (Stein, 2017). In the United States, anti-genetic manipulation groups have done enough lobbying that the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration both oppose this type of research, advising against “any experiments that involve genetically modified embryos” while also not providing any funding (Stein, 2017). If studies in other countries or through private entities continue, however, these policies have hope to change if the results are positive and consistent. The fear that a problem will arise with the gene is prevalent, especially when it is known that these genes will be passed to future generations (Stein, 2017). If undesirable mutations arise, the technology to fix the genetic code does not exist, prompting a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the practical application of this type of manipulation.
Scientific advancements elicit a fear due to the uncertainty surrounding the unknown. Despite research suggesting the genetic modification of some organisms, like plants in agriculture, are safe, it is difficult to determine whether these concepts are applicable to the human race. Unfortunately, the only way to truly know the safety of these practices is to study them through clinical trial, a fear inspiring thought of its own.