Genetic Testing and the Future of Humanity
Genetic testing is a type of medical test that identifies changes in chromosomes, genes, or proteins. It is not eugenics, immoral, or murder. It is merely a test. Contrary to what many critics will say, genetic testing and genetic manipulation can play a vital role in shaping humanities future and development and although some precautions should be put in place to ensure it is not used in an incorrect matter the benefits far outweigh the cons.
Genetics was first established by Gregor Mendel in 1866, where he then wrote a paper about the inheritance of pairs. He used peas to prove that certain traits were passed on through the generations and it became the base foundation for all research performed in the future (Bouche and Rivard). This discovery then led Friedrich Miescher to discover the presence of DNA in 1869, even though the importance of the discovery was not embraced by the academic community for a great many years. The first linkage map of DNA was created in 1913 and this lead to the eugenics movement. The eugenics movement was established in the 1930s and essentially wanted to create a perfect main race through the elimination of people with certain traits (Gayon). These traits included race (African American, Latino, Native American), intelligence level (people with Down syndrome were often put in homes), and athletic ability (those with genetic deficiency and couldn’t walk). The eugenics movement derived from the Nazis who wanted to exterminate the Jews and other groups. Where the two differed was that the Nazis actually went through with killing mass groups while in America, for instance, they had a sterilization program in California (Bouche and Rivard). For this reason, genetics has been considered negative and been associated with eugenics when that is not the case. The Nazis did this without even a remote understanding of DNA structure, for it wasn’t until 1953 that the actual shape of DNA (a double helix) was discovered. In the 1990s the true understanding of DNA was reached with the human genome project. The genome was a scientific research project that had the goal of determining the sequence of chemical pairs for molecular medicine and to learn more about human evolution (Bayon). In this project, they has discovered over 90% of the genes humans have and has been the base of the current genetic testing we have now.
There are three main types of genetic testing: first, there is the gene test which looks for individual genes, short lengths, RNA or DNA to be tested. Second there is the chromosomal test, which looks at the whole chromosome or very long lengths of DNA, and lastly, there is the biochemical test, which looks at protein levels or enzyme activities (Adejumo). The first tests look for a disorder in RNA or DNA which can include a missing strand altogether. The second test looks at the features of a person’s chromosome which include their structure, number, and arrangement. The third test looks at the amount or activity of key proteins within the body, a high or low level of certain proteins can signal that something is not going on correctly within the body (Adejumo). These tests can all come up with an accurate picture of whether the human body will be healthy or not. The question is what can one do about it once they’ve discovered an unhealthy gene? Genetic engineering is the answer to this.
There are currently a number of uses for genetic engineering. The first usage is gene therapy. Gene therapy uses DNA like a drug to treat diseases by delivering DNA into a patient's cells. The first gene treatment was used was approved in 2012 and will allowed to be used in the future (Koch, et. al.). Many athletes use gene therapy as gene doping in order to increase their athletic performance. Gene doping has been banned by the Olympics as well as many professional sports because it is against the fairness of the game and gives certain players a competitive advantage they would not otherwise have (Li, et. al.). Genetically modified foods have had specific changes made to their DNA in order to be able to produce a greater quantity and quality of product. Many say GMOs are a reason for someone to be in support of human genetic modification as there is a scientific consensus that GMOs crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional foods (Li, et. al.). Scientists have even been able to develop a type of organism that lives off a plastic, which would solve much of the Earth’s issue with the man made non-biodegradable product. In 1996, scientists were able to successfully clone a sheep thus making the path toward human cloning a possibility (Richmond-Rakerd). Attempts at cloning have also been made, which is a making a direct replica of an organism.
One of the main arguments against genetic engineering is that humanity is challenging God by manipulating or creating DNA and that humans should let their own health run its course. If that were the case, nearly all medicine should be banned as it gives humans a better chance to survive in a given environment. Parents should be giving the power to ensure their children are able to have a healthy and sufficient life, not one that is destroyed and assaulted by diseases that the child had no cause In the first place. An estimated 5,000 to 10,000 people carry mtDNA with mutations that lead to blindness, diabetes, dementia, and epilepsy (Richmond-Rakerd). What is not ethical is letting these people be born into something that humans cannot fix and then attempting to “challenge God” by keeping them alive using medical technology when they could have been cured of the diseases in the first place, moreover, humans have been genetically altering animals and plants for a great deal of time now and there is not nearly as much of a controversy. These plants and animals can create a larger food supply and be less immune to drought or frost. It is hypocritical for humans to have a superior life over animals and plants and yet we think we somehow should have the ability to mess with their DNA and not our own. On this point religion has no place in this argument about whether DNA should be altered or not, science is science and religion is religion. The two are separate. If someone does not like genetic engineering it is within their right not to participate in it and individuals have been known to use their own moral choice instead of the doctor when deciding if to use genetic technology.
When humans look for a mate, they are looking for desirable traits in an individual. For instance, humanity has continually gotten taller over time due to the desirability of tall mates and thus more and more tall babies are born. Humans all naturally want to be tall, beautiful, and funny so there should be no limit to what we can be. There is even a technology known as “in vitro eugenics” which is the deliberate breeding of humans in vitro by fusing sperm and egg derived from different stem-cell lines to replicate different generations of humans (Gayon). The inherent flaw with people assuming that all humans will look the same is the fact that we already all do look the same do to societal pressure to conform. Humans dress, eat, and make our hair all in some fashion of the same way and no DNA can change that. It has also been shown in research that the study of genetics and biology has shown that the significance of race and class is negligible when talking about positive and negative genetic traits (Koch, et. al.). If a parent wants their child to have certain traits it is within their constitutional rights to do so, humans have free will and should be stressed to use it even if there choices may differ than another’s.
The scariest argument against genetic engineering is that the rich will be the only ones to have access to this technology. There should be restrictions put in place preventing this but in the end the possibility of there being a gap between rich and poor has always been there. With all new technology comes expense and just because some members of society can’t afford it right away is not an inheritably bad thing. The cost of the technology should go down over time like all things and the lower and middle class will have access to it. But even if the rich were able to gain a greater deal of access due to cost restrictions it’s not really any different than how things are now, where much of the newest technology is deemed to be too expensive for the poor and access is only given to the wealthy (Richmond-Rakerd). This is not an American version of rich vs. poor but rather a 1st world vs. 3rd world argument, where industrialized countries have insurance to afford a lot of medications and underdeveloped countries do not have the means to produce or obtain said medical technology. These concerns are for a broader topic of conversation in medical costs and not one for a specific technology.
One of the major reasons to be for genetic engineering is to be for progress in a general sense. Genetics will allow humanity to delve deeper into the spectrum that is biology and with it comes with many new ideas and concepts (Adejumo). Imagine if there was the computer but no internet. Things would be completely different. The amount of amazing things that scientists can do if they are given the tools and means to do it are endless. It’s impossible to actually describe these breakthroughs because they haven’t been discovered yet but through the past we know there is a great possibility they will arrive and soon. The last thing that can be afforded is to stagnate when the potential is there to expand into a realm of biology never before seen. It would be as if we invented the computer but just stopped there and never went into the development of the internet because we were afraid of worldwide communication instantaneously. Imagine what the world would be like.
By promoting genetic engineering there is also the chance health care costs will go down in the future. Instead of having long term care for people they can instead be productive citizens where they otherwise would not have been able to. This will lead to Medicare and Medicaid costs and thus the taxpayers of America will benefit. Health insurance costs should also go down as the risk for the long term care for diseases will all be eliminated. The counter side to this is that there will be more aged citizens thus increasing health costs. Take Medicare, for example, the program that supplies senior citizens in The United States with health insurance. In that program, 10 percent of the beneficiaries account for over 70% of program spending.
Humans will also have the ability to live longer giving the opportunity. If many of the genes that affect aging and disease could be altered to almost reverse them humans have the possibility to live a great deal longer. So instead of having the maximum age be 70-100 there is possibility to live 100-150 years old (Koch, et. al.). This will allow many great minds to continue living but also provide many challenges such as social security benefits and Medicare issues. Contrary to many peoples belief altering the DNA will also make humans more Genetic diverse and can be increased to a certain extent with the help of genetic engineering (Adejumo). This will help in producing alleles that varies a lot from each other, and then other species can also be implanted with the crossed over genetic diversity (Zeaiter, Zahraa, et. al.). Genetic engineering is essentially providing humans the tools to speed up natural selection in a way that makes sense, so instead of waiting for evolution to adapt for us there are means to do it otherwise.
Consider that many people are born with diseases that they have absolutely no say in getting. Isn’t it human’s responsibility to attempt to help these people get better? By screening and adapting genes humans can alter the fate of a newborn's existence giving them the ability to live when in other places they might have died. This in itself is the most humane and ethical way to deal with death, not by being afraid that things that are coming in the future. It has been shown that people with diseases have been known to heavily discriminated against (Li, et.al.). It has also been shown that scientists do not have a positive outlook when treating the disabled. If genetic engineering is to be continuously allowed humans will have the capacity to get smarter with gene manipulation. This will allow for humans to be able to make more groundbreaking breakthroughs then they would have previously been capable of. This will also allow for humans to obtain jobs such as those in STEM career path because they will have the analytical ability to do so.
One of the main obstacles that lie in the current progress of genetic engineering are the pharmaceutical companies. Combined, the top 11 pharmaceutical companies made over $85 billion dollars off of prescription in the United States. Consider if all diseases could possibly be eradicated the continuous influx of money would no longer be received and thus the profits would go down. There has been a great deal of speculation of whether companies are intentionally hampering the discovery of research to keep the income going. Another issue is that people are using their own personal beliefs to get into the way of scientific development. For example, former president George W. Bush banned the funding for embryonic stem cell research due to his personal beliefs. “My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs,” he said. “I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator.” (Gayon). These people are able to have their beliefs but whether one person should be able to impact a policy issue such as this is up for debate.
Genetic engineering has great potential like many things. It has also has great danger. Although there is a possibility negative things may occur with genetic engineering it is also clear that there is a lot of hope that can come from it too. With federal regulation, hopefully many of these negative things can be ousted but in the meantime, the possibility to cure diseases such as Alzheimer’s and to live a very long and healthy life are too great of a possibility to not accept. Society has to embrace technology, because we cannot let time pass us by without making a meaningful mark for the future to be proud of. These are the things we actually have control of so we should use them.