As more and more genes are being inserted into foreign organisms, most will agree that it is only a matter of time before we start implanting human genes into them. Scientists are excited at the prospect of growing a viable human organ in another mammal. This would eliminate the need for organ donors and waiting lists. Skin, brain cells, hearts, livers, lungs and kidneys could all be produced and harvested faster than we could ever imagine. We could also redesign plants to be “natural” sources of insulin and hormones that our bodies need, but cannot always produce efficiently. But this begs the question: what percentage of human genes must a life form contain before it is considered human? After all, human genes would have to be present in these organisms to produce viable results. If human beings have special ethical status, does that mean the presence of a human gene in an organism changes its rank? Suddenly pork-eaters will be forced to take a second look at the morals behind their food. Sitting at the dinner table, we could have qualms about eating a green pepper. Soon, a pet banana could become a reality.
But then how do we cure disease? Well, we can safely say that the origin of many diseases are genetic. Our genes are the code to everything in our bodies, whether good or bad. Without genes, there would be no cancer. Without genes, there would be no heart disease or diabetes. And without genes, there would be no life. Science has made incredible advances towards treating the diseases that plague our species. But with genetic engineering, we have a new possibility. Instead of traditionally treating patients after birth, we could use the process of eugenics (genetic alteration before birth) to cure these diseases before they even have a chance to emerge. This process is seemingly harmless. During a normal pre-natal checkup, a fetus would be tested for genetic abnormalities. With this information at hand, doctors would be able to pre-determine if a child was carrying the gene for Down Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, Apert Syndrome, etc. They could even conclude the color of the eyes, the texture of the hair, or the size of the lips. The parents would then be armed with this information and the option to alter their child’s genes. They could change anything and everything. If they wanted their child to have blue eyes and brown hair, they could simply put in a request. If their child was bound to suffer from an incurable disease, they could simply have the gene that causes it eliminated. Science could finally produce “perfect” children!
While wonderful in theory, take a closer look and we’ll realize that the science of eugenics is a frightening one. Yes, it could give infertile couples a chance to hold their own flesh and blood - something many people around the world struggle with. But, if every infertile couple could have children, where would that leave orphans hoping for loving parents to give them a home? These children would grow up without role models and security. Studies have proven that this can lead to violence from these individuals, and an increased crime rate. While many people could use eugenics for the greater good or curing disease, many people could abuse it. A classic example is that of the Duchesneau case. Sharon Duchesneau and her lesbian partner, Candace McCullough, did everything they could to ensure that their son, Gavin, would be born deaf. They chose their sperm donor on the basis of his family history of deafness so that they could increase their chances of having a child who was deaf like them. They wanted him to have the “cultural” experiences they did. So, they consciously attempted to create a major sensory defect in their child (Source C). This is the procedure of which science has dubbed creating “designer babies”. If we allow this to continue, we will soon be faced with a whole new type of discrimination: one that’s not based on the color of your skin, your gender, or by your mother tongue but instead by your genes. Just because is kept private doesn’t mean that genetic information will soon be kept in the same context. For instance, going to a , they may not care about what you HAVE done. They will only care about what your genes say you COULD do. Now think of the huge difference between what you could do and what you can do. It is substantial. No longer will every child born into this world be given the same expectations. No longer will every child be given the same equal opportunity to shine. Again, people in favor of this technology will question, if every child is the same, why would this matter? In this case, another issue is raised: we will lose our bio-diversity. No longer will you have people of different heights, , eye colors, and so forth. Through the abuse of genetic technology, we could create a completely monotonous world. Would individual humans be considered as valuable if they were all alike? Why would someone care if ‘John’ were to die? We could simply create an identical John the second.
We must stop this process of selective breeding before it gets out of hand! There is clear evidence that it will lead to horrific ramifications on society. Already, the use of negative eugenics has banned people across the world from conceiving children due to their medical or disabilities. This exploitation of power means that the people found to have ‘undesirable’ genes could be ostracized, even sterilized, becoming outcasts in society. It could lead to genocide, forced abortions and , marriage restrictions, and a whole new realm of segregation. Instead of developing in the comfort of a mothers’ womb, babies could be generated in laboratories across the country. Sounds like something out of a movie? Well it’s not. Negative eugenics takes place today and has taken place throughout history. It happened in Nazi , where Nazis sterilized millions of mentally and physically ‘unfit’ people, or murdered them. In 1907, certain individuals in institutions and rehabilitation centers in the U.S.A. were sterilized. Sixty thousand Americans have been involuntarily sterilized in all. In Canada, the sterilization kept going until 1972!
So what can we do? The utilization of human genetic engineering is analogous to Pandora’s Box. As attractive as the idea may seem, opening Pandora’s Box and unleashing this new technology would have severe and devastating ramifications on our society. Many say that the government should ban all genetic testing. Unfortunately, legislation will only force it underground. Instead of carrying out genetic testing in sterilized labs and altering fetuses in the safety of hospitals, this intricate science will be demoted to the back rooms and basements of houses and private businesses. Better yet, if the government does try to ban certain eugenic maneuvers, some wealthy parents-to-be could visit clinics in more permissive nations, then come home to bear their tip top children (Source A). Regrettably, we can’t legalize it unless we agree to fund it. When scientific studies are privately funded, the researchers have no obligation to inform the public or government of its findings. As a result, we will be cutting ourselves off from this important advancement and will have no way of regulating it. The Hinxton group addresses this issue saying that, “It is essential that scientists and policy makers consult each other and the public in the attempt to develop regulatory regimes for stem cell research that strike the best possible balance between free scientific inquiry and social values”. We need to find the delicate balance immediately. Because if we don’t, we will soon find ourselves trying to survive in the world we tried to prevent.
There has to be another option. Although it feels like we’ve tried everything, there is one major option we’ve overlooked. Prevention. We have become convinced that the only way to combat disease is through CURING them. We spend nearly twice as much on health care (per capita) than any country in the world. And yet, America has surpassed its competitors to officially become the unhealthiest nation on the planet. This is not a simple process of evolution. The dramatic rise in heart disease is not caused by the calendar years past 2000. We began the war on cancer nearly 30 years ago, and now after pouring nearly $6 BILLION a year into research, cancer successfully kills an additional 210,000 Americans a year. Women across the country are now giving birth to an astonishing number of children with mental and physical deformities and abnormalities. 25 years ago, Type 2 diabetes at one point was rarely seen in children; thus, it was referred to as adult-onset diabetes. Now, 45% of the Type 2 diabetic patients are under the age of 17. Half of the American adults report taking at least one prescription drug every day! People are beginning to believe that death from disease is inevitable. It’s not.
So what can be the cause of these devastating statistics? Could it be that we are exposed to thousands of new environmental hazards that didn’t exist 50 years ago? Could it be that now 2/3 of Americans are overweight, and half of these are obese (a number that has doubled in only 20 years)? Or, could it be that we now consume more food than ever before -- processed, refined and modified foods that we cannot identify the ingredients of? Already, one genetically engineered soybean was found to cause severe allergic reactions. Bacteria genetically engineered to produce large amounts of the food supplement, tryptophan, has produced toxic contaminants that have killed 37 people and permanently disabled 1,500 in the USA. Breast fed babies are now developing severe allergic reactions to their mothers milk. Science has linked this to chemicals consumed by the mother through genetically enhanced cow’s milk. We are unconsciously destroying ourselves, and genetic engineering is NOT the answer. We need to look at the differences from what we were doing 50 years ago and what we are doing now. These new and increasingly prevalent diseases are not just inexplicably appearing from nowhere. They have been present for a very long time, but our new lifestyles are provoking them to surface.
Genetic engineering would seemingly offer a quick-fix; a term much of the world has become all too familiar with. But at what cost? To safely lessen the occurrence of most illnesses, we must get to the root of our problems. We must change our lifestyles while we still have the chance. Yes, it may seem inconvenient. It may seem inconvenient to give up a sedentary lifestyle. It may seem inconvenient to have to read the labels of the food we consume. But, I wonder how convenient it is to be at risk of getting, or even to have, a lifelong incurable condition that will inevitably end in premature death. Radically changing our lifestyles may be “inconvenient”, but it also might be worth it.
If you’re still someone who is in favor of genetic engineering, consider this: scientists and engineers in China are set to release the first human robot to the public in less than ten years. This amazing feat of technology would be capable of cleaning your house, driving your car, and now thanks to genetic engineering, will be capable of all the thoughts that humans are. It will be immune to disease, bullet proof, and could build a family for itself, without human assistance. For the first time in history, we could become a species inferior to our own creation. But you can’t turn this off like the “Twilight Zone”. As of now, our world is getting closer and closer to the regular use and abuse of genetic engineering. Who knows? One day it may become nothing out of the ordinary: something so commonplace that it won’t even be worthy of mention. Instead of this innovative science helping to feed the hungry, it could ultimately be harming them. Instead of curing the sick, we are encouraging disease. Instead of making the unattractive more beautiful, we are becoming purveyors of monotony. Genetic engineering is slowly progressing towards a narrow definition of perfection. Albert Einstein said it best: “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity”.
