Paste your essay in here…Akira Ontsuka
Aly Nichols
11/28/18
Second Revised Draft
Morality Or Immortality
You just got off the phone with your close friend who just found out that they are going to have a baby! You are so happy and excited for your friend and you hope that the baby is happy and healthy. Hundreds of thousands of children are born each day, and UNICEF predicts that this year (2018), “Approximately 386,000 babies will be born on New Year’s Day”. Despite how many babies are born, “In all, 2.6 million children died before the end of their first month. Among those children, more than 80 percent died from preventable and treatable causes such as premature birth, complications during delivery, and infections like sepsis and pneumonia.” According to the, March of dimes: global report on birth defects, the hidden toll of dying and disabled children, “Roughly 6% of all births have a serious birth defect, which is genetic or partly genetic in origin. Birth defects can create life altering circumstances for an individual that can make daily life a struggle. If we could reduce the number of genetic birth defects, should we? There are currently “gene editing techniques [that] could virtually eradicate genetic birth defects, thereby benefiting nearly 8 million children every year”. Despite the amazing work that genetic editing could do for the planet, people are still concerned and baffled by the recent development of gene editing.
Genetics and altering the natural order of evolution is the topic of controversy for many science fiction novels. Films like Blade Runner have explored the ethics of bioengineering enhanced people to do the jobs that normal people are incapable of doing. As scientific research advances, genetic editing and bioengineering has more influence over our current lives. The future of bioengineering and the laws and ethics surrounding it are topics that are important to address sooner, rather than later. A world capable of creating genetically modified people may be closer than we realize. So the question remains, “Is the genetic modification of human beings ethical?”
According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, CRISPR-Cas9, a new form of genetic editing, is an efficient method of altering DNA that is easier and more accurate than other genome editing systems. Despite the exciting advances in the bioengineering field, there are ethical dilemmas that arise with altering DNA. Although most of the genome editing is currently being done on somatic cells, it is possible to alter germline cells. Somatic cells alter an individual’s existing tissues, while changes to germline cells alter the genes of an embryo. Altering the genes of an embryo can lead to those genes being inherited by future generations. Currently, editing the genomes of an embryo is illegal in many countries.
If it is legal to modify the genetics of a living organism that will not be able to pass on these changes, why is it illegal to change the genetics of an embryo that could pass on genetics? If the difference is simply that one type of genetic alteration can be inherited and the other can’t, then what is the problem with giving or removing genetic information from a embryo? The individual that could come into existence with or without genetic editing, has no say in what their genetics could be like, and the decision to change their genes is just as fair as the decision not to do so, because a person’s genetics is not something that they are able to decide upon. However, altering a person’s genetic code to make the ideal person would be forced evolution because, under natural circumstances, “survival of the fittest”, which was a theory of evolution created by Charles Darwin, states that only the strongest individuals survive long enough to reproduce, leading to the evolution of a species. Although it is important not to change the natural order of things by forcing evolution, the natural order of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was already destroyed by humanity’s ability to allow for all members of its species to live in an environment that does not threaten their existence.
Some people argue that genetic editing should be legal. As a philosopher and the director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Julian Savulescu researches the ethics of new technology associated with reproduction, the enhancement of physical and cognitive abilities, and gene editing. The scientific journals Nature and Science have discouraged genetic editing, because they believe that the technology has unpredictable side effects and could be exploited. Savulescu makes an argument that all new technologies could have side effects on people and the human experience. Information technologies have drastically changed human interaction and cognitive function. Smartphones and social media could have a negative effect on future generations, however this has not lead to their ban.
It is difficult to question the ethics of genetic editing without questioning the ethics associated with smartphones, technology, and other advancements that were implemented without conflict. The genetic modification of the food that we eat is something that was done to supplement the growing population. Scientists found ways to make plants and animals grow bigger or be more resilient in order to prevent losses when it was time to harvest. Additionally, the system that we have made as a species to allow for our population to grow without conflict is a clear violation of the natural order. The arguments regarding gene editing and why it should not be allowed are being argued for problems that are already in existence due to other changes that humans have made to the world. However, legalizing gene editing on people may radically accelerate the issues that currently exist in society such as, class divide, equality, the death of Darwinism, and an uncontrollable population. It is hard to argue that genetic editing is not ethical when, as a species, we are allowing for so many unethical behaviors, that disrupt the natural order of things, to be practiced.
Why have people allowed other unethical advancements to exist? Ethics and scientific advancement follow a similar pattern in the sense that, as one changes, so does the other. However, ethics are not something that people are willing to disregard altogether. It is only when a problem arises, that requires an unethical solution, that science is accepted as the ethical solution. Initially, people were against the genetic modification of animals. But as the population grew and people needed more food, it became an acceptable solution to the population problem. The evolution of ethics over time is proportional to the problems that arise that require unethical solutions. It is important to notice the pattern that certain things are considered unethical at a certain point in time, but as times change, people change and society changes and new problems present themselves. When this happens ethics change. Maybe it is only a matter of time and circumstances before genetically editing people is considered ethical.