Final paper rough draft

Evan Kelly
Seminar in Composition
Final Research Paper

The battle over genetic engineering has been raging for over four decades. Proponents and opponents of it have debated aggressively over moral and ethical issues since approximately 1974. It is an extensive field, and man has only touched the tip of the iceberg, yet there is already endless argument. Inside of this broad argument lie dozens of sub categories and inside these, lie even more. What I plan to answer is where should the line in genetic engineering be drawn? To fully explain my answer, I must also consider many other questions that make up this question. What types of genetic intervention are ok? What is considered unethical and why? How will genetic engineering be regulated? This is why the debate will not cease. Not only are there numerous questions to be answered inside of this field, but also many of the questions do not have a clear-cut answer. To better understand why some of these questions are debated, we must first understand the different areas of genetic engineering.

There are three major types of genetic intervention. They are Somatic Gene Therapy (SGT), Somatic Gene Enhancement (SGE), and Germ-line Gene Therapy (GGT). SGT is defined by the online medical-dictionary as, “The introduction of genes into tissue or cells to treat a genetic related disease in an individual.” SGE however is introduction of genes in order to enhance an individual’s “normal” cells. From this could come the insertion of intelligent genes and other enhanced attributes. GGT is nearly identical to SGT and for this report, with just a few minor differences.

Another type of genetic engineering is stem cell research. A stem cell as defined by healthscout.com is “a "generic" cell that can make exact copies of itself indefinitely. In addition, a stem cell has the ability to produce specialized cells for various tissues in the body -- such as heart muscle, brain tissue, and liver tissue.” There are two separate kinds of stem cells. First there are embryonic stem cells, which are “obtained from either aborted fetuses or fertilized eggs that are left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF). They are useful for medical and research purposes because they can produce cells for almost every tissue in the body.” The second type are called adult stem cells. These are not as diverse for research because they are specific to a certain cell type. They can be for blood, intestines, skin, or muscle, but cannot be used for multiple purposes.

The final, most controversial area of genetic engineering is cloning. Cloning is defined as “the technique of producing a genetically identical duplicate of an organism by replacing the nucleus of an unfertilized ovum with the nucleus of a body cell from the organism.” In 1997, Dolly the sheep was the first ever adult mammal to be cloned. The only other mammal to be cloned was a lamb named Polly. The same scientists that created Dolly created her and she contained a human gene. Since these two experiments dozens of nations have banned cloning research.
Now that we have general background knowledge, we can begin to answer the question, where do we draw the line when it comes to genetic engineering? There is no definite answer, but opinions range from the banning of all genetic research to uninhibited testing. Many people believe that we should draw the line somewhere in the middle, including myself. I believe that we should allow all forms of genetic engineering previously mentioned, except for cloning. There are numerous reasons for this opinion.

The medical utility of SGT, GGT, and stem cell research could prove to be wondrous. Many non-genetic treatments will only prolong the effects of diseases such as AIDS and cancer, but genetic engineering could completely eliminate these diseases. I believe that GGT should be the first of these genetic treatments to be practiced as it has proven to be slightly safer than SGT. It would be wrong to deny help to parents whose child will be sick at birth. If the technology exists, it would be wrong to deny aid to a family willing to use it.