Mike Boyle & Kathryn Senior 3 outlined the following two current practices of genetic engineering:
For many years farmers have been using hormones to increase milk production by enhancing the level of bovine growth hormone (BGH) in cows. Genetic engineering has enabled scientists to produce a recombinant form of this protein (rbST). When this hormone is injected into cows, they produce more milk. Those opposing the use of this hormone say that milk produced from treated cows should be labelled so that consumers are given a choice about whether to drink it or not. Another disadvantage is that the cows treated with this hormone tend to suffer from more udder infections than untreated cows, and the antibiotics used to treat them gets into the milk.
Gene therapy involves replacing abnormal genes with healthy ones. An example of successful gene therapy was the first person to be given it, Ashanti DeSilva. She had severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). She was given infusions of cells containing the working gene that she lacked. She now needs regular injections but lives a normal life. 4
Scientists have found several ways to transfer healthy genes into cells containing the faulty gene. Viruses are often used as vectors (carriers). The reason viruses are used is because they can penetrate cells so can transfer genetic material into the host. Before the virus can be used as a vector the genes that code for proteins that the virus uses to reproduce itself must be removed. When this is complete, the virus can no longer cause illness.
Possible drawbacks are that once the genes enter the cells, they can insert themselves randomly into the DNA. For example, if the gene disrupts a tumour suppressor gene that normally protects the body against cancer, a tumour may be formed. Also if gene therapy became widespread, where would we draw the line? People could want to use it to change aesthetic features and to alter racial characteristics. We need to first understand the long-term effects and possible side-effects that could result from gene therapy. However, once this occurs gene therapy could prove to be a major breakthrough in the area of human health as diseases could be eliminated before conception or prior to birth in embryos.
However, not everyone considers genetic engineering to be a good thing. Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher 5 suggested that a gene studied in a test tube can only tell us what this gene does and how it behaves in that particular test tube. It cannot tell us what its role and behaviour are in the organism it came from or what it might do if we place it into a completely different species. Salmon genetically engineered with a growth hormone gene not only grew too big too fast but also turned green. These are unpredictable side effects.
How do we know that a genetically engineered food plant will not produce new toxins and allergenic substances or increase the level of dormant toxins and allergens? How about the nutritional value? And what are the effects on the environment and on wild life? In his opinion until we have an answer to all of these questions, genetic engineering should be kept to the test tubes. Nicholas Wade 6 concluded that a mouse with a brain made entirely of human cells would probably discomfort many people. He have an extreme example of what might happen if it went wrong, if a mouse producing human sperm mated with a mouse that had produced it’s eggs from human cells.
However, in conclusion, the possible benefits are infinite, from providing organs for the sick and food for the starving, to erasing birth defects in children, allowing us to have happier and healthier babies. Also, to create better living conditions for all through the genetic engineering of plants and livestock. Genetic engineering techniques could greatly improve human health, the environment, and agriculture, and must be explored by responsible scientists. Genetic engineering offers a beneficial future but should be pursued in a restricted manner so the positive effects can be obtained. We must not ignore ethical considerations such as the potential harmful affects on human health.
All of this seems in our interests, so why the ethical problem? Perhaps this stems from people’s perceptions of genetic modification as being some sort of sinister practice to create poisonous “Frankenstein” vegetables and “Playing God” by cloning sheep and humans. Perhaps it would be more welcomed if it did not seem unnatural. Perhaps also the media could print less scare stories and emphasise the beneficial aspects. Those opposed to genetic engineering worry about who will make the moral, ethical, and safety decisions. This means that the scientists in charge of making decisions regarding genetic engineering techniques must carefully weigh the practical advantages of such techniques against the moral disadvantages.
Bibliography
1 - Moore, P. (1993) ‘Genetic Manipulation’, New Scientist
2 - Epstein, R. ‘How Genetic Engineering Is Currently Used’
http://www.primitivism.com/genetic-engineering.htm
3 - Boyle, M. and Senior, K. (2002) Collins Advanced Science - Biology
4 - Coutts, M. (1997) ‘Human Gene Therapy’
www.csu.edu.au/learning/ ncgr/gpi/grn/edures/scope.24.html
5 - Steinbrecher, R. ‘Unanswered Questions And Inherent Uncertainties - What's Wrong With Genetic Engineering?’
6 - Wade, N. (2002) ‘Stem Cell Mixing May Form A Human-Mouse Hybrid’, New York Times
Other sources I looked at
1 - Dixon, P. ‘What Is Genetic Engineering’
http://www.globalchange.com/geneticengin.htm
2 - Watson, J. (2003) ‘DNA: The Secret Of Life’
3 - http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml
4 - ‘Genetic Engineering’ (2005)
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/campaigns/intro?campaign_id=3942
5 - ‘Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone vs Organic Dairy’ (2005)
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbghlink.html
