In the year of 2018 roughly 609 thousand people will die of cancer, 940,000 people died of AIDS, and another 373 of Cystic Fibrosis patients in the CF Foundation registries (“World Cancer Day”; “CF Foundation”). Modern medicine has no guaranteed way of curing these diseases. The fact of the matter is that we as a society haven’t grasped even the surface of these, and some other life threatening diseases. As a result, more years of research need to be undergone in order develop unique drugs that may cure these, and other complex diseases . How long do you suppose it will take for a drug to come forth? Five, ten, thirty years? What if it doesn 't even exist? How many people do you suppose will die in the meantime? Now my point is not to make one think that there is no method to curing diseases similar to those previously mentioned. As a matter of fact, my point is to shine light upon a promising method that has been showing results: genetic engineering. With the advancements of science, genetic engineering is becoming a more and more developed procedure that has already saved the lives of those terminally ill. But where one problem is solved, another arises. With the ever growing social prominence of genetic engineering, ethical concerns are reaching a frenzied state. Many are weary of playing God, and the idea of changing one’s genetic makeup seems morally unjust. They see genetic engineering as a means of parents designing the perfect child, and everyone clustering towards a set of “desired” traits. As farfetched as this may sound, it 's actually a very reasonable concern. However, that doesn 't mean that the idea of genetic engineering should be abandoned altogether: its ability to save human lives is too promising to simply throw the technique in the trash. As a result, genetic engineering should be used only in life threatening medical occasions, and not for aesthetic or private gain.
I begin my argument with two general assumptions, that it is commonly accepted that human life is considered sacred, and, as a result, should be saved by any means, as well as that we all value personal freedom and the ability to make one’s own personal choices, if one is of age to do so. As a result, actions that would save human lives are considered to be “good” and should be pursued, while actions that would harm human lives are considered “bad” and should not be pursued. Subsequently, actions that promote one’s freedom and ability to make personal decisions at the appropriate age should be followed upon, while actions that do the opposite should be deterred. An example of my first assumption can be considered through the following: if a doctor were to be on his way to an important meeting and he sees a man in medical need, he should tend to the man, because doing so would be considered an action that is saving a human life. The doctor, in doing such an action, may face some minor harm himself, such as being late to his meeting, or getting his clothes dirty, but the fact that he is saving a life trumps these inconveniences that may deter one from intervening. Subsequently, if the doctor chose not to intervene, his actions would be considered bad due to the fact that he did not pursue an action that would save a human life. If committing such an action puts oneself in mortal danger, then it is acceptable for one to not follow through in the action.
Now for my second assumption, imagine a scenario where a child would need to undergo a necessary medical operation, but the child himself does not want to go through with it because he is afraid. Ultimately, his parents force him to have the operation performed on him, everything goes well, and the child makes a full recovery. Even though the child’s own wishes were not followed, and his own personal freedom and choice was ignored, the action is still considered to be favorable or “good” because the child is not of age to make the best decision for himself, and as a result, the decision must be made by another party that has his best interest in mind (in this case, his parents). This case, however, would be considered “bad” if the child was of legal age to make his own decisions, even if the decision was obviously harmful to himself. This is due to the fact that his personal choice and freedom are being hindered while he is of age to decide on his own. If lets say, someone were in a scenario where he has to chose between ending his life, or prolonging it by a means that would require him to stay in the hospital, and the patient chose the former while the doctor recommended the latter, not following the patient’s wishes would be considered bad even though his decision is obviously self harming. Now with that said, I devote the rest of my paper in developing my argument, but in order to effectively do so I must first explain the process of genetic engineering, specifically its two major types- Somatic and Germline.
Genetic engineering is the process of adding new genes to the genetic makeup of an organism (“UNL 's AgBiosafety for Educators”). When using genetic engineering in order to combat some form of disease or illness it is usually regarded as gene therapy (“Genetics Home Reference”). Regardless whether one genetically modifies a plant or a human, the same general process is followed: obtain a desired gene, place that gene into some sort of transportational vector, and have that vector insert the gene into the target’s DNA. Once properly inserted, the new gene will code for the proteins that express the desired trait (UNL 's AgBiosafety for Educators). Now when it comes down to genetically modifying humans, there are two major classifications of gene therapy; they are somatic gene therapy and, germline gene therapy. The major difference between the two, according to the American Medical Association, is that in somatic therapy, “the patient’s genome is changed, but the change is not passed along to the next generation”, while in germline, the “patient’s egg or sperm cells are changed with the goal of passing on changes to their offspring”(“Gene Therapy”). Development and use these types of engineering has the ability to effectively cure, or even eradicate many genetically based diseases such as cancer, and Cystic Fibrosis. According to the American Medical Association, about “4,000 diseases are traced to gene disorders,” of them include the ones mentioned previously, as well major killers such as heart disease and ALS (“Gene Therapy”). Given the fact that we as a people cherish human life and actively seek ways to preserve it, we as humans should allow the development of genetic engineering techniques in order to combat and effectively end the myriad of genetic disorders that take lives prematurely, and plague our society.
Now the idea of genetic engineering is not simply theoretical; it already has been applied in many successful operations to cure genetic disorders. In one case, a newborn child- Nina Warnell-was born with a rare genetic disease called severe combined immunodeficiency, which resulted in her lacking her very own immune system (Innes). Commonly known as the “bubble boy” disease, those unfortunate enough to get this often fatal disease must be put in a sterile environment in order to survive (“Gene Therapy Scores Big”). Due to the fact that the victims of this disease lack an immune system, mild illnesses such as the common cold are often fatal (“Health Encyclopedia”). With very little options, doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital tried a somatic engineering to insert the necessary genes into Nina’s bone marrow cells in order to induce her very own immune system (Innes). The result? A child who is now two: full of life and joy like any ordinary two year old. Even though she is still being monitored and is sensitive to foreign pathogens, her recovery is considered remarkable and doctors say that she has a bright future ahead of her. Fortunately, this is not the only case where genetic engineering has triumphed; it has also had amazing results combating Leukemia. In a case with forty one patients who are suffering from leukemia, genetic engineering was used to combat the disease, and through much surprise, “all, had a complete remission, meaning no cancer could be found after treatment” (“Gene Therapy Scores Big”). For one child in the case- Emily Whitehead- her cancer was so advanced that doctors expected her organs to fail within days. Due to gene therapy, she was cured of her illness, and two years later, shows no sign of cancer (Gene Therapy Scores Big). But it doesn 't stop there:
1992: ADA-SCID is successfully treated through gene therapy on stem cells harvested from bone marrow. 2000: Announcement that two boys in France with X-linked SCID or "bubble boy" disease have been cured using gene therapy 2009: Eight-year-old Corey Haas, who has a rare inherited eye disease and is almost blind, gains normal vision following gene therapy to replace a retinal pigment protein.
2009: Progression of the degenerative disease adrenoleukodystrophy is halted in two boys using gene therapy 2010: An adult with blood disorder beta-thalassaemia no longer needs monthly blood transfusions following gene therapy to insert a corrected beta-globin gene into stem cells that make blood. 2011: Six people with clotting disorder haemophilia B see a reduction in symptoms after gene therapy on liver cells.(Geddes)
Now are there ways to fight these diseases without using genetic engineering? Sure there are. Chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants are commonly used in cases of cancer, but donors of any kind are always scarce, and both methods are dangerous and risky. Alongside the risk, these methods are extremely expensive, whereas gene therapy techniques range around “$25,000, without a profit margin” (“Gene Therapy”). Frankly put, somatic engineering saves the lives that modern medicine simply fails to.
Alongside somatic engineering there is also germline engineering. Germline, like previously mentioned, involves making changes in the embryonic level of development, and as a result, those changes will be passed on to future generations (“UNL 's AgBiosafety for Educators”). Because germline enhancement is still early in development, it has not been practiced on humans yet-only plants and small animals (DiPasquale). Many people have an issue with this type of genetic engineering due to the fact that it permanently changes one’s genetic make up without one’s consent. Even to eradicate a disease, the idea of reaching out into one’s genetic code and inserting something new into the DNA of the recipient, regardless if he wants it or not, serves as a major argument point for those who oppose this technique. However, lets recall how genetic engineering is generally done: obtain a trait, put it in a transportation medium, and have that medium insert the trait into the targets DNA so he can make the proper proteins. Now does this sound familiar to anything we commonly do today? It should because vaccines work in a very similar way. Now ask yourself, do you ask for the consent of a child on whether or not he or she wants to be vaccinated? Where you terrible upset that your parent’s vaccinated you without your permission when you were young? Ofcourse not. And why is that? Because as adolescents they are too young to know what 's best for them, and as a result those who have their best interest, their parents, must make the decisions on their behalf. Yes we are violating their personal freedom in a way, but they are simply too young to have a meaningful say. We are using our experiences and observations with these terrible disorders and making the best decisions on the behalf of our children, for our children. One cannot imagine a case where a child grows up and becomes terribly upset at his parents because they made sure he, and his future children, will never have to suffer from cancer. Germline has the potential of eradicating the most severe of disorders, and according to Chris DiPasquale, a member and past Chairman of the Board of Directors of St. Ann’s of Greater Rochester, Inc., a premier healthcare organization, germline engineering could one day be “ humanity’s one treatment cure all procedure” for disorders that “there are currently no treatments for…”(Dipasquale).