Now that it’s clear what genetic engineering is, it’s apparent to see why the advances in this research are such a popular issue of debate and protest. The truth is that through genetic engineering, for the first time in their existence, man has been given the opportunity to be the architect of life, and the opportunity “to play God”.
The debate that genetic engineering produces is usually between the advocates of pro-science and conservationists. For instance, in the case of G.M. foods the pro-science argument would be that G.M. foods could increase plants’ resistance to pesticides and herbicides, thereby decreasing the need for these pollutant chemicals; allow plants to manufacture their own pesticides to ward off insects; increase the yields of many staple crops and thereby ward off starvation in many areas of the world; and allow plants to grow under adverse weather conditions or in poor soil, thereby increasing the amount of arable land on the planet. However, despite these benefits, the conservationists could argue that genetically engineered crops might transmit their novel genes to wild populations, possible creating organisms against which humans have no defence. They could also argue that genetic diversity of plant populations could decrease, thus making crops more susceptible to decimation by as-yet-unknown pathogens.
Another application of genetic engineering is in the area of gene therapy, which is the treatment of inherited diseases through genetic modification. The pro-science argument for the practice of this technique would be that gene therapy is the most reasonable and cost-effective way to treat most genetic diseases. Due to the fact that the ideal treatment would only need to be administered once- after that, the modification would be incorporated into the person’s genome. They would also argue that gene therapy techniques promise to end or at least curb a vast amount of human suffering due to painful, debilitating, and sometimes fatal genetic diseases. The argument against this would undoubtedly be that gene therapy on humans, especially at a stage where we know so little about gene regulation, would amount to unethical experimentation on human subjects.
However, one of the most controversial aspects of genetic engineering is the process of cloning. It all started in Scotland when scientists in an experiment, took a cell from the body of a lamb, nurtured it, and eventually grew it into a lamb physically identical to the original host. After news of this breakthrough became public, a stream of ideas started flowing through the minds of the political and agricultural communities, from political leaders that viewed it as a source of strengthening the militaries to the small time farmer who saw it as a way of doubling or tripling his livestock without spending too much money.
Cloning captured the imagination of everyone. Proponents of cloning argue that it is no more unnatural than binary fission, the process by which bacteria reproduce to produce identical copies of themselves; they go on to state that cloning is no more unethical than growing a plant from a cutting or giving birth to identical twins. In this view, cloning is just another scientific subject and those who wish to research cloning should not be stopped. A main advantage would be that it would solve the problem of infertility. But then the whole issue of designer babies comes into play, where the parents can choose the characteristics they would like for their child. The disadvantages of allowing cloning to take place is that slowly but surely the human race would begin to lose its diversity. Also the fact that the entire human race, being genetically identical, would be at great risk from a single pathogen. Not only would cloning be a disaster in terms of viral disaster; but also another negative effect of it would be inbreeding. If everyone had the same genotype, and we lost the ability to clone, to keep reproducing within ourselves would lead us to our own extinction. It has not been fully condoned by any religion either.
With this type of new technology where the sky is the limit and anything is possible there will always be controversy, especially since unlike most other technologies, genetic engineering doesn’t leave room for mistakes. Flaws in this technology cannot be fixed, but become the negative heritage to countless future generations.
However, the National Human Genome Research Institute recognised that the information gained from mapping and sequencing the human genome would have profound implications for individuals, families, and society. While this information would have the potential to dramatically improve human health, they realised that it would also raise a number of complex ethical, legal and social issues. So the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program was established as an integral part of the NHGRI.
So even though there are many valid arguments both for and against the continuation of genetic engineering, and coming to a decision as to whether it should be allowed or not is very difficult, the question of where to draw the line between scientific discovery and playing God will still remain an issue.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jones and Jones (1997) Advanced Biology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
pages 113-17
New Scientist scientific journal
Bill Indge, Martin Rowland, Margaret Baker (1996) A New Introduction to Biology, Italy, Hodder and Stoughton, pages 159-168
John Adds, Erica Larkom, Ruth Miller (1996) Cell Biology and Genetics, Thomas Nelson and Sons, pages 105-107
