Final Research Paper

Evan Kelly
Seminar in Composition
Final Research Paper
The Line Must Be Drawn
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. (9) 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? The answer is not clear-cut, but many including myself are strongly against cloning. This is where I draw, the line. Cloning is the only form of genetic engineering that I find unethical. Take the following example as a reason for opposition to the field of cloning.
Imagine that it is the mid-21st century and all genetic engineering bans have been lifted. Lincoln Six Echo is a clone, kept penned in a cloning corporation’s storage building. He and thousands of others are kept there and told that the Earth’s environment no longer sustains life. The only chance to leave the sanitary zone is to go to a place called the Island. This Island is supposedly the only region of the world that can still sustain life, but in reality it is where the clones are taken when their sick owners need a new body part. The clone’s organs are harvested and the bodies are discarded.
This is the setting of the 2005 blockbuster film, “The Island”. While it is purely a fictional piece, it still serves as a powerful reminder to what could happen if cloning is legalized. Though many moral standards still stand, how many people have been blinded by the desire to become unbelievably rich? Eventually, if cloning is legalized, some people will inevitably use it exclusively for monetary purposes, by harvesting and selling human organs. Keep in mind that clones will not be lifeless objects, but instead, they will think and feel just like the owner of their DNA. To harvest their bodies for organs would be the same as taking a human organ donor’s parts while he is still living. It would be cold-blooded murder.
Cloning has been covered very closely in the press throughout the past decade. Scientifically speaking, 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.” (8) 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, but Polly actually contained a human gene. (1) Since these two experiments dozens of nations have banned cloning research.
To better understand the benefits that could come through other forms of genetic engineering, we must first learn their definitions. There are two major types of genetic intervention. They are Somatic Gene Therapy (SGT) 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.” (8) GGT however, occurs before birth and is the 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.
Now that we have general background knowledge, we can begin to understand my reasoning for allowing all forms of genetic engineering, except cloning. To make reading easier, from this point on, somatic gene therapy and germ-line gene therapy will be classified as genetic engineering and cloning will be it’s own separate entity. The rewards that will come from advancing in genetic engineering are far greater than the consequences.
The medical utility of SGT and GGT 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. For decades now, doctors have been using a small-scale form of gene enhancement. We have all heard of vaccines. Almost nobody is naturally immune to smallpox, measles, polio, or any other diseases that we are vaccinated against. Dr. Ronald M. Green writes, “When we are inoculated, the DNA in our white blood cells undergoes irreversible genetic changes, initiating the synthesis of antibodies to many viruses and bacteria. Vaccinations make us superhumans, but no one ridicules enhancements of this sort.” (9) Vaccinations have become a resounding success and it is time to continue progressing. I believe that GGT should be the first gene therapy treatment to be practiced as it has proven to be slightly safer than SGT. (10) The hitch with this is that as we learned earlier, GGT is a treatment performed before birth. Therefore, many opponents view it as unethical to treat an embryo without it’s own consent. (4) Many others, and myself however, believe that 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. After all, if it remains legal to kill an embryo (i.e. abortions), how could aiding an unhealthy embryo remain illegal? Already, many researchers believe that GGT will become the greatest asset to curing cancer. It is also the more cost efficient treatment in that it will permanently fix the mutated gene. SGT would be required on all successive generations. Researchers with the World Future Society, believe that in the next few years, scientists will be able to recognize and eliminate most congenital diseases through a process that uses genetic engineering, called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). (9)
While the future of genetic engineering used for medical purpose is bright, it is also important that we are cautious when testing and advancing. There are countless dangers of unimpeded testing. We have witnessed many follies brought on by man’s curiosity throughout history and while genetic engineering may very well produce miracles, it may also produce tragedies. Already, in 1999, an 18-year-old subject died in an experiment involving gene transfers at the University of Pennsylvania. (10) The public’s call for increased caution and regulation has increased dramatically as a result of that unfortunate incident. People have been worried about genetic engineering ever since the beginning; when some scientists expressed concern about public safety. (10) I on the other hand believe that nearly anything can become successful and perfected as long as it is thoroughly researched and developed. We have been building catastrophic weapons for decades, yet these continue to be perfected and then replaced for an even more deadly substitute. This goes to show that with proper precautions, we can safely improve almost anything. It is imperative that the government remains involved in genetic engineering regulations, because as we have seen, an individual’s curiosity can compel him to make terrible decisions. Just like the decision to run tests at UPenn that were not thoroughly studied. With the proper precautions though, genetic engineering can flourish.
It is clear that the government should remain involved, but I believe that they should meet the scientists midway. Scientific freedom should be upheld to a point, just as it has been for centuries. A good model for the government would be similar to the invisible hand that they use in our economy. Ideally, a system like this would provide as much freedom as possible to researchers until they crossed into harmful territory. The pursuit of knowledge is something that man has valued for thousands of years and must remain this way. (4) At one point or another it will be necessary to cross into the unknown. The past decade has been spent learning to control testing environments and it is time for us to move on.
The future of genetic engineering could change the world as we know it. One controversial issue is the eventual development of “designer babies”. These would be embryos that receive genes before birth that could potentially enhance traits such as intelligence. Opponents of this process argue that by enhancing our genes we will lose our individuality and eventually become exactly the same. (4) I view this opinion as absurd. There is no way that we could enhance all of our genes to be exactly the same. Even if we did, there would be differences in skill and personality. Implanting added intelligence into two separate embryos will not cause them to think and act in exactly the same manner. This is where the role of nurture can come into play. Two enhanced individuals could A, learn from different individuals, with separate beliefs and distinctive methods of teaching. As well as B, process knowledge differently and apply it in their own unique ways. Both of these previous scenarios promote individuality. Take twins for example. Twins share the same exact genetic make-up yet can often times be exact opposites of each other. My twin cousins are good examples of this situation. One works hard in school, works out consistently, and is a bioengineering major. The second always takes the easy way in school, surfs every day, and majors in art history. The lifestyles that they have lived and continue to live are completely separate yet they share the same genetic make-up. We see the snowflake effect in humans as well. No two can ever be identical.
As we have seen, genetic enhancement does not have the capability to reduce humans into a series of identical beings. Humans will always have thoughts of their own. What germ-line gene therapy in particular can do is increase the production of society as a whole. It may be that the rich will be the only one’s to benefit from expensive gene therapy at first, but isn’t this the case with all new technology? Society will never be equal as long as we live in a free market economy. Eventually though, this technology will become cheaper and sooner or later, many if not all new-borns will receive these enhanced genes. If anything, this will increase equality between the rich and poor. Each following generation will receive the same upgrades and therefore, produce at a relatively similar level. Not only will more people produce at this increased level, but also whatever substance they do produce will likely be more advanced than it would have been had they not received genetically enhanced intelligence. Technology and general quality of life would increase by leaps and bounds.
Why stop at intelligence though? If intelligence can be enhanced then it is plausible that many traits can be enhanced. Imagine a society of people that contain genes enhancing honesty, determination, and sympathy. It is a scientific belief that most women maintain higher levels of sympathy than do men. (5) If that gene were implanted into males then half of the world would become more sympathetic and less aggressive. In addition to this, a recent survey of 16,000 males and females reports that females are 17.5% more likely to be physically assaulted by a partner of the opposing sex than are males. (3) The male body contains far more testosterone than the female body. Testosterone is known to increase aggression. (5) If a gene that can balance the violent effects of testosterone can be implanted into males, the levels of all types of violence worldwide would decrease dramatically. Genetic intervention will not only enable humans to cure disease and increase our production value, but it may also lead us into an era free of violence. This ideal scenario is impossible without genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering does not only apply to humans. We already see genetic modifications in many of our crops. Genetically modifying plants and crops is cost effective because they require much less maintenance. Modifications can also save plants from inclement weather that humans cannot protect against. University of Minnesota forage agronomist, Craig Shaeffer believes that traits developed through genetic engineering hold the best promise of reversing alfalfa’s acreage decline in the Midwest. “I’m really concerned about the future of alfalfa,” said Sheaffer at a recent symposium in Wisconsin. (6) He goes on to say, “We have a great environmental crop that can improve sustainability of agriculture if used in crop rotations, but I think it may well become a minor crop here in the next 10 years.” (6) If we want our agriculture market to thrive, then genetic modification could be the best method of crop maximization.
Opponents of genetic engineering argue that when we tamper with genes it is morally wrong because we are playing the role of God. (4) I disagree with this for one main reason. When treating broken bones or infected areas of our bodies with medical procedures and medicines we tamper with our bodies, but nobody argues against this. With somatic gene therapy and germ-line gene therapy we are simply treating our illnesses in a new and improved way. Cloning on the other hand could be considered as playing the role of God because essentially we are taking the creation of life into our own hands. When Jerry Hall cloned the first human embryos in 2001, the Vatican’s L’Osservatore Romano warned that such experiments could lead humanity down “a tunnel of madness”. (2) Science fiction movies may be a bit far fetched, but it seems like every movie involving clones ends up with a clone army determined to overthrow whatever government is in place. I believe that we should heed this warning.
The potential benefits of genetic engineering are endless. There is risk involved, but no more than there is with anything that could have significant impact. As American author Gail Sheehy writes, “If we don’t change, we don’t grow. If we don’t grow, we are not really living.” (7) There are some things worth taking risks for, and the benefits that could come from genetic engineering are worth these risks. Within the next 50 years, disease could essentially be wiped out. People could become more productive and technology could take quantum leaps forward. We can also strengthen our plants and crops to yield more product. The possibilities of genetic engineering will break barriers that we have long believed to be unbreakable. As long as we don’t cross the line and enter into the dangerous territory of cloning, I believe that we have sufficiently researched how to contain GE testing. If the government sets effective laws against cloning, scientists will have enough new material to work with for centuries. Society is on the brink of world changing research. Let’s begin.

Works Cited
1. "Cloning Timeline." About.com. 5 Apr. 2009 .

2. Dewitt, Philip E. "Cloning: Where Do We Draw the Line?." Time World. 24 June 2002. Time. 5 Apr. 2009 .

3. Disley, Vnni. "Male/Female Violence Statistics." DailyStrength. 26 Jan. 2009. 5 Apr. 2009 .

4. "Genetic Engineering: Playing God?." 4 Apr. 2009 .

5. Messerschmidt, James W. "Making Bodies Matter: adult masculinities, the body, and varieties of violence ." Ebscohost. Apr. 1999. 5 Apr. 2009 .

6. Sheaffer, Craig. "Genetic Modification of Crops." Lexis Nexis. 5 Apr. 2009 .

7. Sheehy, Gail. "Change Quote." 1937. 5 Apr. 2009 .

8. "Somatic Gene Therapy." The Free Dictionary. Farlex. 5 Apr. 2009 .

9. Tucker, Patrick. “Genetic Ethics and Superbabies”. 2007. Yale University Press. World Future Society. 4 Apr. 2009



10. Weiner, Charles. "Drawing the Line in Genetic Engineering." 2001. The Johns Hopkins University Printing Press. 4 Apr. 2009 .