Genetic Modification- Final Paper
Dana Collings
Professor Lipani
English 111 W-B
12/12/18
Thesis: I do not believe that genetically modifying children should be legal.
Introduction:
Genetic modification is a relatively new and briskly evolving science. Genetic modification is intended to take an embryo and sperm and they are genetically modified to create the “correct” or “ perfect” DNA of the child, a child that they will be be creating in a lab, a child that will be born after the modifications to the child’s health,, physical features and brain, and possibly even personality are made.
Paragraph 1:
I believe that genetic modification is non- beneficial. I believe that changing the DNA of an unborn child is not what nature or God intended. When a child is conceived, the child is made with equal parts of his/her mother and father and this should not be tampered with. I see genetic modification as tampering with what type of person the child may have been. When you change almost everything that the child was expected to be born with, you are changing human nature. There is a question that should be thought about, “What if the child was intended to be born with certain personality traits from its mother, or physical traits from its father?” I believe that after the child is born, what if the parents have formed an assumption of what the child would be like, but as the child grows up, the parents can’t see any of the traits that they assumed they would see in their child. This would affect the parents and there would be a possibility of the parents not having the same type of love/ affection for their child, and the possibility of not being able to emotionally/mentally connect with their child. Although yes, there is a point where parents may choose to modify their child based upon trying to prevent diseases/ illnesses that could be passed down to the child. This to me, is not the same as purposely changing a child’s nature or a child’s physical features simply to improve the looks of the child to satisfy the parents. I believe that there should be a “scale” so to speak, about the levels of genetic modification and what should be allowed and what should not. It is my belief that modifications that are made to prevent diseases or illnesses that can shorten a lifespan, should be allowed in certain extenuating circumstances with the permission and recommendation of a doctor and the parents that want to modify the child should have to undergo a psychological evaluation to make sure that it is for the correct reasons. I don’t think that any physical or emotional or personality changes should be made to a child, no matter the circumstances.
Paragraph 2:
There are instances in which there are already steps being taken to start this experiment. “In fact, it’s about to happen at Harvard University. At the school’s Stem Cell Institute , IVF doctor and scientist Werner Neuhausser says he plans to begin using CRISPR, the gene-editing tool, to change the DNA code inside sperm cells. The objective: to show whether it is possible to create IVF babies with a greatly reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease later in life.” (Genetics and Society.org) This is proven evidence that Harvard has been taking steps towards genetic editing although the experiment have not been conducted, they are only in the research stage. Since they are still in the research stage since 2016, it may suggest that this may simply be a feat that cannot be pulled off due to concerns and the well-known controversial/ ethical prohibition/ argument.
There are pros and cons to this argument. Some pros are; it can increase the human lifespan up to 30 years, it is known to help scientists experiment and push the boundaries on medicine and development of infants, the parents can’t be stopped by the government if it is legal due to the government not having the right to control reproduction. The cons are; genetic engineers have only been researching this for a limited period of time and have not mastered the procedure, there is a high risk that the embryo may not implant if there were too many contradicting modifications, the child that was modified never had the ability to give consent on something that will affect the child, not the parents, which could be viewed as ethically wrong since the child has no choice, since this technology is so new, we would not know the possible side effects as the child goes through puberty and adolescence, there could possibly be new diseases created since GM ( Genetic Modification) is not an exact science and there is a high risk of something going wrong.
Paragraph 3:
Just like any new experiment, there are going to be risks and consequences with all new developments. Although, a majority of studies/ articles that have been published are implying that there are higher risks than there are rewards from genetic modification. “The social argument against designer babies is that if this technology becomes a realistic and accessible medical practice, then it would create a division between those that can afford the service and those that cannot. Therefore, the wealthy would be able to afford the selection of desirable traits in their offspring, while those of lower socioeconomic standing would not be able to access the same options. As a result, economic divisions may grow into genetic divisions, with social distinctions delineating enhanced individuals from unenhanced individuals.” This quote has express evidence that “designer babies” may be too far advanced for our society at this moment in time. It also expressly states that “it would create a division between those that can afford the service and those that cannot” which could cause an uproar in communities that may believe they need the service of genetic modification but cannot afford it. I strongly believe that there are already enough problems in our society that stem from economic statuses, that if we added something so experimental and new that has not been proven to work, this would cause many more economic discrepancies and issues. The risks of genetic modifications are too great for us to deal with in the time period and the society that we live in. In this article , it goes in depth about the dangers and consequences of GM ( genetic modification). “Experiments with human germline intervention could lead to miscarriages, maternal injuries and stillbirths. Genetically modified children who seemed healthy at birth could develop serious problems later in life, some perhaps introduced by purported “enhancements.” Harmful consequences of germline modification might only present themselves in subsequent generations. Scientists have used previous-generation genetic engineering tools to produce GM animals, including rabbits that “glow in the dark” because of an inserted jellyfish gene, mice that run mazes faster than their unmodified counterparts, and goats that produce spider silk in their milk. Researchers have recently used CRISPR gene editing to produce genetically modified monkeys, to alter 62 copies of the same gene in pig embryos in efforts to make them suitable for organ transplants into humans, and to remove a gene in dog embryos to produce beagles with double their normal muscle mass, with proposed uses including novelty pets and enhanced police and military canines. But experience with cloning suggests that responses to genetic engineering vary considerably among species.”
Conclusion: Talk about my thesis, if I believe it was proven right/wrong with the evidence I included, talk about the multiple studies I researched and reiterate my view.
Citations:
How Much Do Stem Cell Treatments Really Cost? | Center for Genetics and Society, www.geneticsandsociety.org/internal-content/should-we-genetically-modify-our-children.
Chan, Sarah. “The Ethics of Changing Genes in the Embryo.” Eurostemcell, 4 Nov. 2015, www.eurostemcell.org/ethics-changing-genes-embryo.
Chan, Sarah. “The Ethics of Changing Genes in the Embryo.” Eurostemcell, 4 Nov. 2015, www.eurostemcell.org/ethics-changing-genes-embryo.
“Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos?” National Geographic, National Geographic, 26 Nov. 2018, www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-gene-editing-pro-con-opinions/.
Sample, Ian. “Genetically Modified Babies given Go Ahead by UK Ethics Body.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 17 July 2018, www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/17/genetically-modified-babies-given-go-ahead-by-uk-ethics-body.
“Should We Genetically Modify Our Children?” How Much Do Stem Cell Treatments Really Cost? | Center for Genetics and Society, www.geneticsandsociety.org/article/should-we-genetically-modify-our-children.
White, Michael. “As Technology Gets Better, Ethical Prohibitions on Genetically Modifying Human Embryos Are Getting Weaker.” Pacific Standard, Pacific Standard, 15 Nov. 2017, psmag.com/social-justice/ethical-prohibitions-on-genetically-modifying-human-embryos-are-getting-weaker.
“The Embryo Project Encyclopedia.” Temperature-Dependent Sex Determination in Reptiles | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia, Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia., embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies.
..