It may not be possible to discuss the subject of genetics in any depth without reference to ethics, human and environmental, health and safety, to politics and trade.
Many people against genetic engineering may dispute that it is not right to interfere with nature. These people may feel that genetic modification is tampering with nature in that it is different from traditional selective breeding because you are mixing genes from species that could never interbreed naturally. These people may feel that scientists are altering the world God created and for this reason it is not only wrong but also completely immoral. However those who agree with genetic engineering believe so because it is ‘for the good of mankind’ in that it can benefit the growth of crops and help in medicine with the development of cures for those incurable diseases.
Another concern with genetic engineering is the risk to the environment. People opposed to genetic engineering assume that Genetic pollution could occur. Over time, all kinds of plant and animal genes may spread uncontrollably throughout the environment with unwanted consequences. Also these people deem that although crops have been modified to be unaffected by weed-killers. This could lead to the gene being passed on to weeds and these may become resistant to the weed killer as well. Creating a large weed problem and possibly the need for the use of stronger chemicals, which will in turn harm the environment. Another argument for the opposition would be that agriculture and the environment would be irreversibly altered. Genetically modified crops, and anything they breed with, could have a competitive advantage and drive out natural plants and animals. However those supporting genetic engineering will claim that all genetically modified crops must be carefully assessed for their impact on the environment before they are planted. These people also feel that it will benefit the environment as better use can be made of agricultural land because crops could be modified to grow where they possibly could not survive before, in hostile conditions, such as drought and this will help to feed the world.
“Should it be used on humans?” This is a question that even those in support of gene technology have to ask themselves. This issue is so controversial because some people may feel that a second-class human being could be created. The whole area of eugenics seems to have a lot of opposition for the reason that we could change our DNA so we have particular characteristics. Opposition feel that the result of this is, we will, in the future have designer babies. Those against gene technology and more importantly eugenics may not think this idea is very ethical because when they look back in history they could see similarities between this and the master race which Hitler tried to create. Also religious groups may oppose transgenic organisms because of their beliefs. (E.g. Hindus believe cows are sacred and Jews see pigs as unclean.) Those against Gene Technology also imagine that Genetic disorders which are screened before birth will cause huge dilemmas on whether the foetus should be aborted or not. Also adults may be screened for genetic disorders and again opposition groups may believe this will lead to second class humans as insurance companies will discriminate against people who may potentially get these disorders, even though they are in perfect health. Individuals supporting the use of gene technology in humans understand that there are many ethical and religious concerns, but again will argue that it will be beneficial to mankind. They will remind us that many disorders, which cause a lot of deaths, could be treated thru eugenics. They will reason that at the moment it is very difficult to obtain replacement organs and thru genetics we could gain countless amounts of organs from other animals. These people believe that screening of people will be valuable as this means that treatment can be started before the disorder actually shows up.0
Should companies be allowed to exploit it? Opposition to genetic engineering believe that the development of animal genetic engineering has also led to attempts to 'patent life', as researchers and multinational companies have sought to maximise their profits from this new technology. They believe that Biotechnology in recent years has been progressing by leaps and bounds and that it represents a quantum leap in the exploitation of animals, allowing humans to move genes from one species of animal into another totally different species. They feel this exploitation is occurring because the biotech industry wants make valuable products more easily so that they are more profitable. Also they feel third world countries will be exploited because they will be highly charged for this new technology and it also means that any profit these countries were making from selling crops will now be lost because MEDC’S can now develop these crops thru genetic engineering. This will push LEDC’S further into debt. However many large companies will argue that they are not exploiting the new technology but are using it to improve the lives of many people, especially those in LEDC’S with lack of food. Some large companies will also dispute that they have the right to make a large profit from this technology, as they are the ones who invested, researched and developed gene technology. Also they believe that without any profit they would soon go bust because they would be spending so much money on research and not receiving anything.
Scientists feel that because they developed the technology they should be responsible for the control of it. They believe that they know everything there is to know about genetics, therefore they should control the direction in which genetics goes and should be able to decide how far they take it. Large companies also seek control because they are the ones who invested all the money in research and therefore feel that because they paid for it they should own it. Then there is the public although they might not know as much about the technology they feel that they should control it because they by far out weigh the large companies and scientists and also because they will be the ones most affected by gene technology.
So in summary I will have to say that I don’t agree with the whole idea of genetic engineering because imagine what it would be like in the future where your life started with your parents designing your genes. Then there is the biosphere invaded and distorted beyond recognition by genetically engineered trees, plants, animals, insects, bacteria, and viruses, both planned and run amok. Also Illnesses will be very different. Most of the old ones will be gone or mutated into new forms, yet most people will be suffering from genetically engineered pathogens. This future is a lot more plausible than you might think and will be brought about by a shortsighted quest for short-term profit by corporate businesses. I feel that unlike most other technologies, genetic engineering does not leave room for mistakes. Results of flaws in this technology cannot be recalled and fixed, but become the heritage to countless future generations. I understand that genetic engineering does have it benefits in the fact that genetically modified food can be made quite easily and there is no evidence of problems with it but I strongly feel that this technology is too hazardous and immoral to carry out on a world wide scale especially when it involves playing around with sperm and ovaries of animals. In the matter of control I believe that there should be a worldwide council including scientists, executives of large companies and also members of the public from around the world. The amount of each group should be proportional to total amount of each in the entire world. Then they can make decisions on what is and isn’t acceptable
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Engineering genesis by Donald Bruce & Ann Bruce
C
by John Harris
http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/bi/1994/jurassic.html
