Article #4 - the Debate Over Genetic Engineering

Article #4 - The debate over genetic engineering

By B.C. Smith

Throughout the 19th and 20th century we have seen drastic advancements in medicine. Things like smallpox, the bubonic plague, and hepatitis B are a distant memory. Many of the vaccines and antibiotics that we use today are in fact accidental discoveries. What diseases and disorders will soon become a distant memory? Will we be able to reverse the effects of Parkinson's disease through stem cell research or even eliminate it all together through genetic engineering? When considering this, the real moral question becomes are we playing God or are we accepting God's message of compassion.

As a person that has directly and indirectly been affected by genetic disorders it is hard for me to maintain objectivity on this issue, but that is exactly what I will do in this very personal discussion. I have lost a very good friend to cancer and my cousin suffers from cystic fibrosis and is on a waiting list for his second lung transplant. All of these disorders have been proven to be genetically promoted by certain recessive genes. If stem cell research were allowed to continue scientists could one day put DNA markers' on the stem cells and use them to go after the cancer instead of the current treatments that cause so much further suffering than the disease already offers. Stem cell research could also help to make lung transplants more effective by using the same DNA markers' to allow the blood network around the lungs to re-grow and in the long run make the lungs into healthy genetic copies. These disorders and diseases come with a horrible cost, but they have positives as well. Without exception every person I have meet with a chronic disorder has been much stronger and has more compassion for their fellow human beings and has the determination to "Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today." as James Dean once said.
Many oppose gene therapy and genetic engineering because they think that scientists are attempting to play God'. However, many of these scientists have a strong connection with their various deities and draw on their holy books to justify their actions. For example the Book of Genesis states, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26) The Church of England translates this passage into meaning that "Human beings are themselves part of nature, creatures within creation. Human discovery and invention can be thought of as resulting from the exercise of God-given powers of mind and reason." (Church of England Board) Some of those opposed to this kind of research think that we will come to worship bio-technologists because they will become our fathers'. These people assume that because a majority of people on the planet believe in God and that he was our creator, these scientists will be undermining God by altering his creation and making men in their image whether it be exact genetic copies or an image of a perfect human being in their mind.

Article #1 - The debate over genetic engineering

By David Dawes

Many issues are raised when arguing about genetic engineering, so let me be clear about what I'm referring to:

Genetic engineering is the direct manipulation of the genetic contents (the DNA) of cells, referred top as genetic modification or GM. Hopefully this is being done with a good purpose in mind: to cure a disease, to increase a crop yield or make the crop more resistant to disease, and so on.

Controversial topics get rolled into discussions of genetic engineering, such as:
Prenatal genetic testing - it's not genetic engineering (no DNA is altered) but it is controversial because test results may lead to abortions.
Human stem cell research - controversial because of the source of the stem cells (aborted human fetuses), this isn't automatically genetic engineering yet, but creating cures for disease using techniques figured out with human stem cell research likely will involve genetic engineering. I'm not talking about those issues here.

Bear in mind that humans have been messing with the genes of plants and animals (and even of humans) for thousands of years, we've just always done it by low tech and indirect methods such as choosing the seeds of the best plants for the next years crops, culling sickly members of herds, breeding programs, cross pollination, and so on. This sort of modification is accepted as routine.

Limiting my discussion to the debate over genetic engineering, there are 2 main issues (should we research techniques, and should we use them) that can be asked about 2 target populations (humans and everything else), yielding 4 total questions:
1. Should we research how to modify DNA directly and "install" the result in domesticated animals or plants? We already have done this quite a bit with plants and to some degree with animals, but some people object to the idea of even researching how to do it.
2. Should we apply genetic engineering techniques to our crops and domesticated animals? We already are, and lots of research continues to find more elaborate changes, cross species DNA, and changes we probably can't imagine yet. Should we continue down this road?
3. Should we research genetic engineering techniques for humans? Some religious objections differentiate between modifying human DNA vs. plant or domesticated animal DNA. On the other hand, cures for nasty human diseases are hard to argue against.
4. Should we apply genetic engineering techniques to humans? This is the most controversial topic of all.

I'm not sympathetic to the "no research" position. We do need limits on research - cruel and dangerous research needs to be either eliminated or controlled very carefully, but arguing that "there are some things man was not meant to know" doesn't appeal to me. I understand that people disagree with me in good faith, but I the consensus seems to be that research should continue, with appropriate restrictions.

While some conservatives see the line as "animals and plants are OK, humans are not," both for research and application, some liberals object strenuously to "franken-foods" - they don't want any applied genetic engineering in plants or animals, but they are often more sympathetic to applied techniques to cure human diseases.

Given the constitutional model in the US - if it isn't explicitly against the rules then it is allowed - research is likely to continue as long as the researchers are careful and avoid breaking existing animal cruelty and safety rules and regulations.

Applications of genetic engineering continue in our crops and animals, and although this has become more controversial it has continued so far. The Bush administration has been accommodating to agribusinesses in the US so the trend has continued for quite a while. The upcoming presidential election in the US may be an inflection point - the anti-GM food crowd is more likely to have leverage with a Democratic administration than a Republican one, but the agribusiness lobby won't fold any time soon. The next 4 years may be the last real chance to attempt to put the GM genie back in the bottle, if it doesn't happen soon it probably never will. As global environmental degradation, lack of access to irrigation water, and depletion of farm lands grinds on, and especially if global warming causes major climate changes, GM for our foodstuffs may be the only course available to us to avoid mass starvation. We'll see.

Research and applications in humans are likely to continue as well. The search for cures for nasty genetic issues will continue, and most people will support that. The trickier concern is that non-disease applications will inevitably arise as off-shoots to research into disease treating technologies. If we figure out a good method to correct or add genetic material to a fetus to save the life of the fetus or avoid MS or some other debilitating disease nobody is likely to object. If those same techniques can be used to make sure your child is tall or more intelligent or has the right skin or hair color we get into a much messier area. How do we balance the desire of parents to give their children every possible advantage with our philosophical or religious objections to these actions? How and where do we draw the lines?

That debate is still in it's early phases, and until we develop many of these technologies and figure out the implications and applications it isn't clear at all where we should be drawing these lines. Many of these questions are being addressed in science fiction (i.e. "Beggars In Spain" by Nancy Kress) but these issues aren't going to stay in the realm of fiction for long.

I can't help but feel the problem of having too many good techniques available, and figuring out what the limits and rules are for those techniques, is a good problem to have. I know people who have died of genetic disorders, sometimes pretty unpleasantly, so if we can find ways to correct these issues with minimal risk then I'm all for it.

Article #2 - The debate over genetic engineering

by J L Petriesan

Imagine sitting in a doctor’s office and designing, up front, exactly what your kid will be like. Like picking out options for a new car. Lessee, I don't like my chin. so let's make sure she gets, oh, I don;t know, Madonna's. Sure she should be smart, so fiddle with that intelligence gene (if there is one). Pretty, but not so pretty I will have to fight off the guys with a stun gun. . .

Silly? Yeah. But knowing the way things are, not so far fetched.

On a more serious side, perhaps they will be able to get rid of the gene that makes one become obese, or prone to high blood pressure, or rheumatoid arthritis, or any of dozens of dangerous conditions. Yes, undoubtedly, this would be a good thing. Or would it? There are two problems as I see it.

First, the elimination of mutation, you know, that pesky little thing that causes evolution? Well, perhaps we think the human race is perfect now, right. Yeah, and pass around the halos for everyone. Not all mutation is bad. Was Einstein a mutant? Twain? Steinbeck? John Nash? Stephen Hawking? Yes, I know the mental problems Nash had and the severe physical problems Hawking has, and I will come back to these in a little bit. I think extreme intelligence is a mutation, that is, out of the norm. We start fiddling around with genes, well, we may fiddle ourselves out of the guy who develops free and truly limitless energy.

This next issue is harder. And I do speak from some experience, having been forced to live with rheumatoid arthritis for 25 years now. You see, I am better for having the disease. It has changed me in innumerable ways, mostly for the better. Let's think about it this way: would Brett Farve have been the same person if he was born with no thumbs and unable to grip a football? Well, he would not have won a Super Bowl or been the NFL MVP, what, three times. This is deep and goes to the core of defining self, and is way way beyond the scope or limitations of this article, or even my ability to expound on it in any meaningful way. But, that has never stopped me before. What is it about Farve anyway? Yeah, he can throw the ball well, and he has a burning desire to win. Without football, where would he have used this gift? Perhaps, he wouldn't have, but perhaps, he would have been the person who designs the car that runs on air only. Who knows?

Nash was asked about where his mathematical ideas came from. Paraphrasing, he said they came to him from the same place as did the aliens (in the movie he imagined he worked for the CIA, in real life, he saw "others"). Would he, could he have been as brilliant if he hadn't had the mental disease?

Would Hawking been as willing to spend the mental energy to crack the mysteries of the Universe if he had been able to while away his life on the golf course?

Some of the best writing comes from tortured souls. Look at Poe. And it is often said you cannot really sing the blues until you have been damaged in some way.

Now, please do not misunderstand. I really have enjoyed Farve's career and wish him no ill will. I am not happy Nash was mentally ill, or that Hawking has been paralyzed. I pray for the day when these things can be prevented. Maybe had Poe not been so tortured, he would have written even more amazing things than he did.

I don't know. Look, we are born with what we are born with, all the good parts and the bad parts. They are either a gift (are the bad things curses? Too deep)from God or the result of evolutionary chance. Either way, I think we need to respect the differences we all have and, whether the result of God or Evolution, we had better be darn careful before we go messing around with them.

Article #3 – The debate over genetic engineering

by J. Merrill

Genetic Engineering, right or wrong, ethical or playing god? Why is this final leap forward hard for some people. If taken the correct precautions, it will only help us evolve further and help better our lives. If you could make people live 10 or 100 years longer? Is it ethical to let them die earlier? Genetic Engineering offers a doorway to help us become better and more technologically advanced. Although it could eventually lead to a bottlenecking of individuality, it is highly improbable. Although you are creating a "petri dish" baby all your doing is giving it specific physical and mental traits. How the baby changes to an adult determines specific character traits, although genetics could make them prone to acting one way, the environment is often overlooked in an important factor on behavioral characteristics. Therefore, although you advance by creating more intelligent, strong, and for the vain, beautiful, it wouldn't affect the individual's brain or development in a way that would create a significant bottleneck effect.

Along with the harvesting of proteins done on animals etc. that many animal rights activists are worried about; if they live the same life on a farm or lab, get slaughtered and the proteins harvested along with the meat sold at market. What's unethical about that? They live the same life except they provide an extra resource that further benefits not only individuals, but mankind as a whole as genetic engineering for bigger mental capacity would jumpstart the already exponentially growing technological field kicking it into overdrive by allowing single people to handle more complex tasks, thereby increasing the overall net product derived from the technological research field.

Genetic Engineering or playing God as some have put it, can only help us for the future as it only raises the capacity of what the human body is capable of achieving. If we created the future generation with perfect vision, not only does it eliminate some if not all of the need for eyewear, it allows that money to be spent in other ways, thereby helping the economy. We could create supersoldiers, thereby saving more lives by forcing less civilians into a war and minimizing casualties. These are just some examples of what is possible, and some people might now be saying, "If you only super-size one attribute it limits the jobs available that they can succeed in." Yes, this is true if you only super-size one attribute, which may be the only economical way to genetically modify; but, if you enhanced all of the attributes, what's stopping the person from going into any field they wish? They're own preference in what job they enjoy enough that they want to work in.

Genetic Engineering is the evolution of man on steroids... it can bring wonders to every aspect of human life as we know it today or any near point in the future. It is the controllable pandora's box that will allow even the seemingly impossible to become part of everyday life.

Article #5 – The debate over genetic engineering

by Carmen Michener

Human genetic engineering (GE), if abused, would certainly bring the human species to a slow demise. It would promote a certain idea of perfection, and wipe out entire races that are viewed as "inferior." It would harm the economic side of our world in ways that we have only seen in the darkest depressions. I for one, do not- and will never- trust our own ability to chose what our children will be like.

Although my first point would never stand up in a formal debate- it is my personal strongest reason against genetic engineering. Though it is easily refuted- as a Christian I feel it is my duty to bring it up first- regardless of what others may say. Genetic engineering is playing God. It messes with the idea of providence. God created us in the image of himself- molding and stitching us together in the womb. If given the choice, I would not allow us to become children of man instead of children of God.
Many of you say that Genetic Engineering would lead to medical breakthroughs- and yes, this is truehowever GEif (or when) abused- would lead to more tragedy than good. My predictions are that GE would be discovered and studied with the best intentions- but then manipulated to fit the vain desires of the average American parent. Genetic engineering would be stretched from its original purposes of combating congenital diseases- into a realm of physical desire. Parents would no longer only want to assure their child's health- but assure their child's attractiveness, intelligence, and athletic ability.