genetic engineering and its dangers essay

Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering

Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel recently spoke at Stanford on the subject of his new book, The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. He focused on the “ethical problems of using biomedical technologies to determine and choose from the genetic material of human embryos,” an issue that has inspired much debate.

Having followed Sandel’s writings on genetic enhancement for several years, I think that this issue deserves special thought. For many years, the specter of human genetic engineering has haunted conservatives and liberals alike. Generally, their main criticisms run thus:

First, genetic engineering limits children’s autonomy to shape their own destinies. Writer Dinesh D’Souza articulates this position in a 2001 National Review Online article: “If parents are able to remake a child’s genetic makeup, they are in a sense writing the genetic instructions that shape his entire life. If my parents give me blue eyes instead of brown eyes, if they make me tall instead of medium height, if they choose a passive over an aggressive personality, their choices will have a direct, lifelong effect on me.” In other words, genetic enhancement is immoral because it artificially molds people’s lives, often pointing their destinies in directions that they themselves would not freely choose. Therefore, it represents a fundamental violation of their rights as human beings.

Second, some fear that genetic engineering will lead to eugenics. In a 2006 column, writer Charles Colson laments: “British medical researchers recently announced plans to use cutting-edge science to eliminate a condition my family is familiar with: autism. Actually, they are not ‘curing’ autism or even making life better for autistic people. Their plan is to eliminate autism by eliminating autistic people. There is no in utero test for autism as there is for Down syndrome…[Prenatal] testing, combined with abortion-on-demand, has made people with Down syndrome an endangered population…This utilitarian view of life inevitably leads us exactly where the Nazis were creating a master race. Can’t we see it?” The logic behind this argument is that human genetic enhancement perpetuates discrimination against the disabled and the “genetically unfit,” and that this sort of discrimination is similar to the sort that inspired the eugenics of the Third Reich.

A third argument is that genetic engineering will lead to vast social inequalities. This idea is expressed in the 1997 cult film Gattaca, which portrays a society where the rich enjoy genetic enhancements—perfect eyesight, improved height, higher intelligence—that the poor cannot afford. Therefore, the main character Vincent, a man from a poor background who aspires to be an astronaut, finds it difficult to achieve his goal because he is short-sighted and has a “weak heart.” This discrepancy is exacerbated by the fact that his brother, who is genetically-engineered, enjoys perfect health and is better able to achieve his dreams. To many, Gattaca is a dystopia where vast gaps between the haves and have-nots will become intolerable, due to the existence of not just material, but also genetic inequalities.

The critics are right that a world with genetic engineering will contain inequalities. On the other hand, it is arguable that a world without genetic engineering, like this one, is even more unequal. In Gattaca, a genetically “fit” majority of people can aspire to be astronauts, but an unfortunate “unfit” minority cannot. In the real world, the situation is the other way round: the majority of people don’t have the genes to become astronauts, and only a small minority with perfect eyesight and perfect physical fitness—the Neil Armstrong types—would qualify.

The only difference is that in the real world, we try to be polite about the unpleasant realities of life by insisting that the Average Joe has, at least theoretically, a Rocky-esque chance of becoming an astronaut. In that sense, our covert discrimination is much more polite than the overt discrimination of the Gattaca variety. But it seems that our world, where genetic privilege exists naturally among a tiny minority, could conceivably be less equal (and less socially mobile) than a world with genetic engineering, where genetic enhancements would be potentially available to the majority of people, giving them a chance to create better futures for themselves. Supporters of human genetic engineering thus ask the fair question: Are natural genetic inequalities, doled out randomly and sometimes unfairly by nature, more just than engineered ones, which might be earned through good old fashioned American values like hard work, determination, and effort?

“But,” the critics ask, “wouldn’t genetic engineering lead us to eugenics?” The pro-genetic engineering crowd thinks not. They suggest that genetic engineering, if done on a purely decentralized basis by free individuals and couples, will not involve any form of coercion. Unlike the Nazi eugenics program of the 1930s, which involved the forced, widespread killing of “unfit” peoples and disabled babies, the de facto effect of genetic engineering is to cure disabilities, not kill the disabled. This is a key moral difference. As pointed out by biologist Robert Sinsheimer, genetic engineering would “permit in principle the conversion of all the ‘unfit’ to the highest genetic level.” Too often, women choose to abort babies because pre-natal testing shows that they have Down syndrome or some other ailment. If anything, genetic engineering should be welcomed by pro-life groups because by converting otherwise-disabled babies into normal, healthy ones, it would reduce the number of abortions.

In addition, the world of Gattaca, for all its faults, features a world that, far from being defined along Hitler-esque racial lines, has in fact transcended racism. Being blond-haired and blue-eyed loses its racially elitist undertones because such traits are easily available on the genetic supermarket. Hair color, skin color, and eye color become a subjective matter of choice, no more significant than the color of one’s clothes. If anything, genetic engineering will probably encourage, not discourage, racial harmony and diversity.

It is true that genetic engineering may limit children’s autonomy to shape their own destinies. But it is equally true that all people’s destinies are already limited by their natural genetic makeup, a makeup that they are born with and cannot change. A short person, for example, would be unlikely to join the basketball team because his height makes it difficult for him to compete with his tall peers. An ugly person would be unable to achieve her dream of becoming a famous actress because the lead roles are reserved for the beautiful. A myopic kid who wears glasses will find it difficult to become a pilot. A student with an IQ of 75 will be unlikely to get into Harvard however hard he tries. In some way or another, our destinies are limited by the genes we are born with.

In this sense, it is arguable that genetic engineering might help to level the playing field. Genetic engineering could give people greater innate capacity to fulfill their dreams and pursue their own happiness. Rather than allow peoples’ choices to be limited by their genetic makeup, why not give each person the capability of becoming whatever he or she wants to, and let his or her eventual success be determined by effort, willpower, and perseverance? America has long represented the idea that people can shape their own destinies. To paraphrase Dr. King, why not have a society where people are judged not by the genes they inherit, but by the content of their character?

Looking at both sides, the genetic engineering controversy does raise questions that should be answered, not shouted down. Like all major scientific advances, it probably has some negative effects, and steps must be taken to ameliorate these outcomes. For example, measures should also be taken to ensure that genetic engineering’s benefits are, at least to some extent, available to the poor. As ethicists Maxwell Mehlman and Jeffrey Botkin suggest in their book Access to the Genome: The Challenge to Equality, the rich could be taxed on genetic enhancements, and the revenue from these taxes could be used to help pay for the genetic enhancement of the poor. To some extent, this will help to ameliorate the unequal effects of genetic engineering, allowing its benefits to be more equitably distributed. In addition, caution must be taken in other areas, such as ensuring that the sanctity of human life is respected at all times. In this respect, pro-life groups like Focus on the Family can take a leading role in ensuring that scientific advances do not come at the expense of moral ethics.

At the same time, we should not allow our fear of change to prevent our society from exploring this promising new field of science, one that promises so many medical and social benefits. A strategy that defines itself against the core idea of scientific progress cannot succeed. Instead of attempting to bury our heads in the sand, we should seek to harness genetic engineering for its positive benefits, even as we take careful steps to ameliorate its potential downsides.

Genetic Engineering: A Serious Threat to Human Society

Scientists have been trying to create synthetic life, life created in lab, for many years. The first breakthrough in this process happened about thirty years ago when genetic engineers began to genetically modify organisms (Savulescu). These engineers physically move genes across species in order to improve an organism or to cause an organism to function differently. Even though this process sounds as if it happens only in fantasy games, genetically modified organisms are common. For example, genetically modified crops are used every day in the world’s food supply and genetically modified bacteria have been used in medicine, chemical manufacturing, and bio warfare (Pickrell). Slowly, genetic engineering has become a powerful tool in many different fields. Recently, genetic engineering’s potential power increased when Craig Venter, a famous geneticist and entrepreneurs, recreated a living organism out of synthetic chemicals. His success proved to genetic engineers that functioning genomes can be made purely of synthetic chemicals. This power would allow genetic engineers to build new artificial genomes instead of having to modify naturally existing genomes. Genetic engineers now have the chance to broaden their fields’ applications. However, genetic engineering is unpredictable and dangerous, and broadening the application of genetic engineering only furthers the risks. Genetically engineered organisms pose lethal and economic risks to human society.

The availability of genomic information and genetic engineering technology creates a lethal threat to humanity because terrorists can use both the information and technology to recreate deadly pathogens, such as the poliovirus. The naturally occurring poliovirus killed and paralyzed millions of people for many years. In 1988, a worldwide vaccination campaign against the virus nearly exterminated it from the environment, and this solved the poliovirus epidemic. However, in 2002, well intentioned scientists decided to recreate the poliovirus for research means. Using the genomic sequence of the poliovirus found on a public database and commercially available machines, these scientists synthesized fragments of viral genomes into a functional poliovirus (Avise 7). These scientists proved that deadly pathogens can be recreated from genetic engineering techniques. Also, the information and technology used in genetic engineering is readily available and relativity cheap (Kuzma and Tanji 3). Mixing the power to recreate a deadly pathogen with the public availability of genetic engineering information and technology creates a lethal risk to humanity when terrorist exist in society. Terrorist could use genetic engineering to reinstate the poliovirus into the environment, and the virus would kill and paralyze more people. Luckily, these scientists were filled with good intent; however, there is nothing to prevent terrorists from harming innocent lives. Recreating deadly pathogens makes genetic engineering dangerous enough; however, genetic engineers also have the potential to improve the effectiveness of deadly pathogens, such as Y. pestis.

Genetic engineers can make deadly pathogens, such as Y. pestis, resistant to modern antibiotics, and these pathogens could kill innocent people if used as a weapon. Y. pestis, also known as the black plague, wreaked havoc on humanity during the Middle Ages by killing millions of people. In response to a Y. pestis threat during the 20th century, scientists developed an effective vaccine for the pathogen. However, genetic engineers at Biopreparat, a Russian biological warfare agency, engineered a new Y. pestis strain with genetic resistance to modern antibiotics and natural human immunity (Avise 6). The genetically engineered Y. pestis was more deadly and effective than the natural Y. pestis that killed millions of people during the Middle Ages. Biopreparat’s research proved that deadly pathogens can be genetically engineered into superior forms that are resistant to modern medicine. If this strain of Y. pestis was released, a black plague would devastate current human society. Militaries could use the same genetic engineering techniques that Biopreparat used to create deadly biological weapons. With this ability to make deadly pathogens resistant to modern medicine, genetically engineered organisms become lethal weapons that cannot be stopped. Other than lethal weapons, genetically engineered organisms can produce lethal chemical compounds when they are used as a manufacturing tool in the chemical industry.

Showa Denko’s genetically modified bacteria produced a lethal L-tryptophan amino acid that killed and disabled people who took the company’s food supplements. In 1989, an epidemic of eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, a syndrome that is characterized by a high eosinophil count and severe muscle pain, struck the United States (Genetic Engineering: Too Good to Go Wrong 9). This epidemic killed a hundred people and physically disabled ten thousand patients, some of which were paralyzed. Doctors eventually discovered that L-tryptophan, an amino acid used as a food supplement, was causing the epidemic. In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that only people who took the L-tryptophan supplement made by Showa Denko, a Japanese biotech company, came down with EMS. Showa Denko’s genetically engineered organisms produced corrupted forms of L-tryptophan that were dangerous to human health (Smith 4).

Many chemical companies want to use genetically engineered organisms to produce chemicals because it is cheaper than normal manufacturing methods. If chemical companies begin to rely on genetically engineered organisms to produce food and medical chemicals, the public could be at risk for another dangerous outbreak of lethal chemicals. Using genetically engineered organisms to cutting down manufacturing costs seems as if it will help the economy; however, genetically engineered organisms, specifically anti-material organisms, can hurt economies more than help them.

Genetic engineers possess the ability to create anti-material organisms that can degrade infrastructure and man-made materials, and malicious people can use these organisms to tear down society’s infrastructures and economies. In nature, there are many organisms with the ability to degrade infrastructure and man-made materials. These microbes cost governments and industries millions of dollars in biodeterioration and biodegradation damages. For instance, bacteria are the leading cause of road and runway deterioration. In Houston, Texas, microbes have been known to degrade the concrete in the city’s sewage systems, and the city has spent millions of dollars trying to contain the problem. High-tech companies, such as airlines and fuel companies, constantly have their facilities and machinery being degraded away by anti-material organisms. These natural organisms cause enough damage to infrastructure, and fixing the damage is expensive and time consuming (Sunshine Project 2). Similarly to the artificially made poliovirus, genetic engineers have the potential to recreate or improve these naturally occurring anti-material organisms. In theory, malicious people could unleash genetically engineered anti-material organisms on infrastructures worldwide, and this would create an expensive cleanup project for governments and companies. With these expensive damages, genetically engineered organisms can destroy economies. The same economic and environmental dangers of anti-material organisms can also be seen in genetically modified crops.

Genetically modified crops will negatively impact the economy and environment because engineered genetic resistance is ineffective at stopping natural parasites in the long term. Farmers use genetically modified crops because these crops contain a genetic resistance to parasites, such as insect pests and microbes. In evolution, two organisms that are in a parasitic relationship evolve in a balance with each other. When genetically modified plants are placed into a natural environment, parasites will evolve in a direction that allows them to bypass the genetic resistance engineered into the crops. Since the majority of crop parasites go through successive generations at a fast pace, these parasites will quickly evolve into a population that can surpass the genetic resistance. This evolutionary process makes the benefits of genetically modified crops short lived. Farmers, who pay more for genetically modified seed than natural seed, then have to pay for harmful and expensive pesticides to protect their crops. In the end, farmers will lose money due to the increased costs of buying genetically modified crops and dangerous pesticides. Also, dangerous chemicals, such as DDT, will be reintroduced into the environment (Avise 73). The ineffectiveness of genetically modified crops creates an economic and environmental risk to human society in the long run since farmers will be losing more money and introducing dangerous chemicals into the environment.

Genetically engineered organisms pose an enormous risk to human society on a lethal and economic front. Natural lethal pathogens, such as the poliovirus and Y. pestis, can be recreated or improved, and malicious people could use these genetically engineered pathogens to kill millions of people. Chemicals manufactured by genetically modified bacteria have proven to be harmful to human health, which was the case during the EMS epidemic in the United States. On an economic front, genetically engineered organisms increase costs instead of minimizing them, and they harm the environment. Anti-material organisms can be created to deteriorate infrastructures, and this would cost governments and industries millions of dollars in repair costs. Also, genetically modified crops in the long term will cost farmers more money than they save because the advantages of the genetically modified crops will be nullified by evolving parasites. Genetically engineered organisms have a huge potential to harm society. However, researching new methods and applications of genetic engineering will not stop because scientists believe in the vast opportunities of the field. In order to keep human society safe, scientists must exhaust all options before turning to the power of genetic engineering. It is an unwise idea to rely on genetic engineering since it is unpredictable and imprecise form of engineering.

Bibliography

Avise, John C. The Hope, Hype, & Reality of Genetic Engineering . Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. Web. 14 Nov. 2010.

Benner, Steven. "Q&A: Life, Synthetic Biology and Risk." BMC Biology 8 (2010): 77. Biomed Central . 2010. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/77>.

“Debate: Artificial life.” http://debatepedia.idebate.org/‌en/‌index.php/‌Debate:_Artificial_life. N.p., 2010. Web. 20 Sept. 2010. <http://debatepedia.idebate.org/‌en/‌index.php/‌Debate:_Artificial_life>.

"Genetic Engineering: Too Good to Go Wrong?" Green Peace . 2000. Web. 14 Nov. 2010. <http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/geneng/getoogoo.html#3gen>.

Hurlbert, R. E. "Biological Weapons; Malignant Biology." Washington State University. 2000. Web. 13 Oct. 2010.

Institute for Responsible Technology. "State of the Science on the Health Risks of GM Foods." Responsible Technology . 2007. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://www.saynotogmos.org/paper.pdf>.

Kuzma, Jennifer, and Todd Tanji. "Unpackaging Synthetic Biology." Regulation & Governance 4.1 (2010): 92-112. Wiley Online Library. 2010. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01071.x/full>.

Pickrell, John. “Introduction: GM Organisms.” New Scientist . N.p., 2010. Web. 20 Sept. 2010. <http://www.newscientist.com/‌article/‌dn9921-instant-expert-gm-organisms.html>.

Savulescu, Julian. “A matter of synthetic life and death: Venter’s artificial organism invention is fraught with peril.” New York Daily News . N.p., 2010. Web. 20 Sept. 2010. <http://www.nydailynews.com/>.

Smith, Jeffrey M. "Scrambling and Gambling with the Genome." Say No To GMOs! Aug. 2005. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://www.saynotogmos.org>.

Sunshine Project. "Non-Lethal Weapons Research in the US." Sunshine Project . Mar. 2002. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/bk/bk9en.html>.

Union of Concerned Scientists. "Risks of Genetic Engineering." Union of Concerned Scientists . 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2010. <http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/risks_of_genetic_engineeringeering.html#New_Allergens_in_the_Food_Supply>.

Articles copyright © 2024 the original authors. No part of the contents of this Web journal may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without permission from the author or the Academic Writing Program of the University of Maryland. The views expressed in these essays do not represent the views of the Academic Writing Program or the University of Maryland.

Research Paper
Book Report
Book Review
Movie Review
Dissertation
Thesis Proposal
Research Proposal
Dissertation - Abstract
Dissertation Introduction
Dissertation Review
Dissertat. Methodology
Dissertation - Results
Admission Essay
Scholarship Essay
Personal Statement
Proofreading
Speech Presentation
Math Problem
Article Critique
Annotated Bibliography
Reaction Paper
PowerPoint Presentation
Statistics Project
Multiple Choice Questions
Resume Writing
Other (Not Listed)

Genetic Engineering and its Dangers (Essay Sample)

THE ESSAY DISCUSSES THE CONS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING. APART FROM THE POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING, IT ALSO HAS SOME NEGATIVE IMPACTS WHICH EITHER HARM THE ENVIRONMENT OR THE CONSUMERS LIKE HUMANS AND ANIMALS. In genetic engineering, the final product can end up endangering the lives of humans, animals, or plants. genetic engineering has more positive than negative impacts

Surname Course Number and Name Institution Professor Date Genetic engineering and its dangers. Genetic engineering is the artificial manipulation, modification, and recombination of DNA or RNA molecules to modify an organism or population of organisms. It is generally used to refer to methods of recombinant DNA technology. Recombinant DNA technology is the joining of DNA from two different species that are inserted into a host organism to produce a new genetic combination. A hybrid organism that expresses both the characteristics of parent organisms is developed. It is majorly applied in agriculture to boost crop yield, in pharmaceuticals to manufacture vaccines, and also in gene therapy to cure genetic disorders. In genetic engineering, the final product can end up endangering the lives of humans, animals, or plants. The dangers of genetically engineered products include: Unknown harms to the environment. Although no exact amount of harm that can be caused by genetically engineered organisms/products is known, many authors have speculated that genetically engineered products are dangerous to the environment. Another possible danger of genetic engineering is that the products may be a possible

Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities

Introduction, genetic engineering pros and cons, works cited.

As of today, the practice of genetic engineering continues to remain highly controversial. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that there are a number of the clearly defined ethical undertones to the very idea of inducing ‘beneficial’ genetic mutations to a living organism.

After all, this idea presupposes the eventual possibility for people to realize themselves being the masters of their own biological destiny, in the evolutionary sense of this word.

Nevertheless, even though the practice in question indeed appears utterly debatable, the very objective laws of history/evolution leave only a few doubts that, as time goes on, more and more people will perceive it as being thoroughly appropriate. This paper will explore the validity of the above-stated at length.

In general, genetic engineering can be defined as: “An artificial modification of the genetic code of an organism. It changes the physical nature of the being in question radically, often in ways that would never occur in nature” (Cyriac 65).

Thus, it is most properly discussed as an umbrella term for the biotech practices that aim to alter the molecular basis of the DNA strand for a variety of different purposes, mostly concerned with allowing people to be able to enhance their lives.

As of now, we can identify three major directions, in which the ongoing progress in the field of the genetic engineering technologies (GET) has attained an exponential momentum: a) Deciphering the structure of the human genome, b) Transferring genes from the representatives of one species to another, c) Cloning. Even though GET became available since not long ago, these technologies proved thoroughly capable of benefiting humanity in a variety of different ways.

Among the most notable of them can be well mentioned:

a) Making possible the production of genetically modified foods. As Coker noted: “In the United States and elsewhere, more than 90% of soybeans, cotton, corn, and certain other crops are already genetically engineered” (24). The reason behind the growing popularity of this type of food is quite apparent – the application of getting increases the efficiency of agriculture rather drastically, which in turn contributes to solving the problem of ‘world’s hunger.’

b) Establishing the objective preconditions for the creation of drugs that could be used for treating diseases that are now being assumed incurable, such as AIDS and cancer. This, of course, presupposes that, as a result of GET being increasingly used by pharmacologists, the lifespan of an average individual should be substantially extended. The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated, in regards to the effects of such a widely used genetically modified drug as insulin, prescribed to those who suffer from diabetes.

c) Providing people with the opportunity to have their children (or pets) being ‘genetically tailored,’ in accordance with what happened to be the concerned individual’s personal wishes, in this respect. What it means is that, due to the rise of getting, the concept of eugenics became thoroughly sound once again: “Besides ensuring that our children are born without genetic defects, we will soon be able to give them genetic enhancements: they will become taller, stronger, smarter” (Anderson 23). Consequently, this will allow the biological betterment of human societies.

Nevertheless, even though there are many reasons to consider genetic engineering utterly beneficial to the well-being of humanity, some people cannot help deeming it utterly ‘wicked’ – this especially appears to be the case among religious citizens.

The reason for this is quite apparent – one’s ability to meddle with the structure of DNA, which in turn results in the emergence of the ‘tailored’ life-forms, implies that the individual in question is nothing short of God.

In the eyes of a religious individual, however, this idea appears clearly sacrilegious: “Humans must show respect for God’s dominion through attentive obedience to the immanent laws of creation” (Clague 140). There are also a number of secular (non-religious) objections to genetic engineering.

The most commonly heard one is concerned with the fact that the effects of the consumption of genetically modified foods on humans have not been thoroughly researched. This, of course, establishes a hypothetical possibility for those individuals who consume these foods to end up suffering from a number of yet unexplored side effects.

It is also often mentioned that, because GET provides married couples with the hypothetical possibility to conceive and to give birth to ‘ideal’ babies, it may eventually result in the emergence of the previously unheard forms of social discrimination against people, whose genome happened to be unmodified.

Moreover, there is a growing concern about the fact that being artificially created, the genetically altered forms of life may bring much disbalance to the surrounding natural environment, which is supposed to evolve in accordance with the Darwinian laws of natural selection.

Out of these objections, however, only the second one can be defined as being more or less plausible. After all, the availability of getting is indeed a comparatively recent phenomenon, which in turn implies that there may be some unforeseen aspects to it.

The rest of them, however, do not appear to hold much water – this especially happened to be the case with the religious one. The reason for this is that the process of just about any organism coming to life, which religion refers to as the ‘miracle of creation,’ biologists have long ago learned to perceive as nothing but the consequence of the essentially ‘blind’ flow of molecular reactions in the concerned DNA.

As Chapman pointed out: “What causes the differentiation in the genetic code? The mechanism for this – the genetic software, if you will – comes through the epigenetic markers that surround the genome” (170). In other words, the ‘miracle of creation’ is ultimately about the chain of self-inducing genetic mutations, which presupposes that there is nothing intelligent or consciously purposeful to it in the first place.

Genetic engineering, on the other hand, makes possible the thoroughly rational manipulation with the structure of DNA – hence, allowing biologists to not only remain in full control of the process of a particular genetic mutation taking place but also to define its course.

It is understood, of course, that the practice in question does undermine the epistemological integrity of the world’s monotheistic religions, but this state of affairs has been predetermined by the laws of history and not by the practice’s ‘wickedness.’

Apparently, the fact that many people continue to refer to genetic engineering with suspicion, reflected by their irrational fear of genetically modified foods, once again proves the validity of the specifically evolutionary paradigm of life.

The reason for this is that, as we are well aware of, throughout the course of history, the implementation of technological innovations always been met with much resistance. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that due to being ‘hairless apes’, people are naturally predisposed to cling to specifically those behavioral patterns, on their part, which proved ‘luck-inducing’ in the past.

Nevertheless, as time goes on, their ‘fear of the new’ grows progressively weakened – the direct consequence of people’s endowment with intellect. We can speculate that before deciding to become ‘stock herders,’ ‘hunter-gatherers’ used to experience a great deal of emotional discomfort, as well – yet, there was simply no way to avoid the mentioned transformation, on their part.

The reason for this is that it was dialectically predetermined. In the mentioned earlier article, Coker states: “Eventually, humans took more control of animals and plants through agriculture, and then civilization took off. Today, we can hardly imagine how harsh the pre-agricultural existence must have been” (27).

The same line of reasoning will apply when it comes to assessing what would be people’s attitudes towards genetic engineering in the future. In all probability, our descendants will look down on us in the same manner that we look down on the members of some primeval indigenous tribe, who were never able to evolve beyond the Stone Age. After all, in the future, leaving the formation of one’s genome up to a chance will be considered barbaric.

Nevertheless, it is not only the laws of historical progress that presuppose the full legitimation of genetic engineering but the evolutionary ones, as well – something the exposes the sheer erroneousness of the claim that the concerned practice is ‘unnatural.’

In this respect, one may well mention the most important principle of evolution – the likelihood for a particular quantitative process to attain a new qualitative subtlety, positively relates to how long it remained active.

This principle, of course, suggests that for as long as the representatives of a particular species continue to expand the boundaries of their environmental niche (as it happened to be the case with humans), they will be experiencing the so-called ‘evolutionary jumps.’

The emergence of getting suggests that we, as humans, are about to experience such a ‘jump’ – after having undergone the GET-induced transformation, we will instantly attain the status of ‘trans-humans’ (or ‘demi-gods’). As Bostrom pointed out: “Human nature is a work-in-progress…

Current humanity need not be the endpoint of evolution… (through) Technology and other rational means we shall eventually manage to become posthuman beings with vastly greater capacities than present human beings have” (493).

Thus, even though the practice of genetic engineering continues to spark controversies, it is highly unlikely that this will also be ceased in 10-20 years from now – those proven much too slow, taking full advantage of genetic engineering, will simply be no longer around to debate its usefulness.

The earlier provided line of argumentation, in defense of the idea that genetic engineering indeed represents the way of the future, appears fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. Thus, it will be fully appropriate to conclude this paper by reinstating that the sooner people grow thoroughly comfortable with getting, the better.

In this respect, it will prove rather helpful for them to become aware that the emergence of genetic engineering is yet another indication that humanity remains on the pass of progress, and there is indeed nothing ‘unnatural’ about the practice in question. This paper is expected to come as an asset within the context of just about anyone gaining such awareness.

Anderson, Clifton. “Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities.” The Futurist 34.2 (2000): 20-22. Print.

Bostrom, Nick. “Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective.” Journal of Value Inquiry 37.4 (2003): 493-506. Print.

Chapman, Davd. “Beyond Genetic Determinism.” Ethics & Medicine 29.3 (2013): 167-171. Print.

Clague, Julie. “Some Christian Responses to the Genetic Revolution.” Ethics & Medicine 19.3 (2003): 135-142. Print.

Coker, Jeffrey. “Crossing the Species Boundary: Genetic Engineering as Conscious Evolution.” Futurist 46.1 (2012): 23-27. Print.

Cyriac, Kar. “Biotech Research: Moral Permissibility vs. Technical Feasibility.” IIMB Management Review 16.2 (2004): 64-68. Print.

Cite this paper

Chicago (N-B)
Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 3). Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities. https://studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/

"Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities." StudyCorgi , 3 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities'. 3 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities." January 3, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities." January 3, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities." January 3, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/.

This paper, “Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: September 18, 2020 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Technology & Engineering — Genetic Engineering

Essays on Genetic Engineering

What makes a good genetic engineering essay topic.

When it comes to writing a captivating genetic engineering essay, the topic you choose is paramount. It not only grabs the reader's attention but also allows for effective exploration of the subject matter. So, how can you brainstorm and select a standout essay topic? Here are some recommendations:

Brainstorm: Kickstart your ideas by brainstorming topics related to genetic engineering. Consider the latest advancements, ethical concerns, controversial issues, or potential future applications. Jot down any ideas that come to mind.
Research: Once you have a list of potential topics, conduct thorough research to gather relevant information and understand different perspectives. This will help you evaluate the feasibility and depth of each topic.
Consider Interest: Choose a topic that genuinely piques your interest. Writing about something you are passionate about will make the entire process more enjoyable and motivate you to delve deeper into the subject matter.
Relevance: Ensure that the chosen topic is relevant to genetic engineering. It should align with the scope of the subject and allow you to explore various aspects related to it.
Uniqueness: Strive for a unique and imaginative topic that stands out from the ordinary. Steer clear of generic subjects and instead focus on specific areas or emerging trends within genetic engineering.
Controversy: Controversial topics often generate more interest and discussion. Consider exploring ethical dilemmas, potential risks, or societal impacts of genetic engineering to add a thought-provoking element to your essay.
Depth and Scope: Assess the depth and scope of each topic. Make sure it provides enough material for a comprehensive essay without being too broad or too narrow.
Audience Appeal: Keep your target audience in mind. Choose a topic that would captivate readers, whether they are experts in the field or individuals with limited knowledge about genetic engineering.
Originality: Strive for originality in your topic selection. Look for unique angles, lesser-known areas, or innovative applications of genetic engineering that can make your essay stand out.
Personal Connection: If possible, choose a topic that connects with your personal experiences or future aspirations. This will enhance your engagement and make your essay more meaningful.

Igniting Thought: The Finest Genetic Engineering Essay Topics

Below are some of the most captivating genetic engineering essay topics to consider:

Genetic Engineering and the Future of Human Evolution
The Ethical Dilemmas of Designer Babies
Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: Balancing Benefits and Concerns
CRISPR-Cas9: Unleashing Revolutionary Potential in Genetic Engineering
The Potential of Genetic Engineering in Cancer Treatment
Genetic Engineering's Role in Creating Sustainable Food Sources
Genetic Engineering and Animal Welfare: Navigating Ethical Considerations
Genetic Engineering and its Impact on Biodiversity
The Social and Economic Implications of Genetic Engineering
Genetic Engineering's Influence on Human Longevity
Enhancing Athletic Performance: The Power of Genetic Engineering
Genetic Engineering Techniques for Disease Prevention and Treatment
Genetic Engineering's Role in Environmental Conservation
Genetic Engineering and the Preservation of Endangered Species
The Psychological and Societal Effects of Genetic Engineering
The Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering for Non-Medical Purposes
Exploring the Potential Risks and Benefits of Genetic Engineering in Space Exploration
Genetic Engineering and the Creation of Biofuels
The Morality of Genetic Engineering: Insights from Religious and Philosophical Perspectives
Genetic Engineering's Role in Combating Climate Change

Thought-Provoking Genetic Engineering Essay Questions

Consider these stimulating questions for your genetic engineering essay:

How does genetic engineering impact the concept of natural selection?
What are the potential consequences of genetic engineering on human genetic diversity?
Is it ethically justifiable to use genetic engineering for cosmetic purposes?
How does genetic engineering contribute to the development of personalized medicine?
What are the social implications of genetically modifying animals for human consumption?
How does the use of genetic engineering in agriculture affect food security?
Should genetic engineering be used to resurrect extinct species?
What are the potential risks and benefits of genetically modifying viruses for medical purposes?
How does genetic engineering influence the balance between individual rights and societal well-being?
Can genetic engineering be the solution to eradicating genetic diseases?

Provocative Genetic Engineering Essay Prompts

Here are some imaginative and engaging prompts for your genetic engineering essay:

Imagine a world where genetic engineering has eliminated all hereditary diseases. Discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a scenario.
You have been granted the ability to genetically engineer one aspect of yourself. What would you choose and why?
Write a fictional story set in a future where genetic engineering is widespread and explore the consequences it has on society.
Reflect on the ethical considerations of genetically modifying animals for entertainment purposes, such as creating glow-in-the-dark pets.
Create a persuasive argument for or against the use of genetic engineering in enhancing human intelligence.

Answering Your Genetic Engineering Essay Queries

Q: Can I write about the history of genetic engineering?

A: Absolutely! Exploring the historical context of genetic engineering can provide valuable insights and set the foundation for your essay.

Q: How can I make my genetic engineering essay engaging for readers with limited scientific knowledge?

A: Simplify complex concepts and terminologies, provide relevant examples, and use relatable analogies to help readers grasp the information more easily.

Q: Can I express my personal opinion in a genetic engineering essay?

A: Yes, expressing your personal opinion is encouraged as long as you support it with logical reasoning and evidence from reputable sources.

Q: Are there any potential risks associated with genetic engineering that I should discuss in my essay?

A: Yes, incorporating a discussion on the potential risks and ethical concerns surrounding genetic engineering is essential to provide a balanced perspective.

Q: Can I include interviews or case studies in my genetic engineering essay?

A: Absolutely! Interviews or case studies can add depth and real-life examples to support your arguments and make your essay more compelling.

Remember, when writing your genetic engineering essay, let your creativity shine through while maintaining a formal and engaging tone.

The Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering and The Need for Regulation

Exploring the pros and cons of genetic engineering, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Balancing Benefits and Ethics of Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering, ethical issues of genetic engineering, the dangers of genetic engineering to humanity, let us write you an essay from scratch.

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Use and Ethics of Genetic Engineering

The potential and consequences of genetic engineering, the issue of the use of genetic modification of humans, reasons why genetic engineering should be banned, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Genetic Engineering: an Overview of The Dna/rna and The Crispr/cas9 Technology

Review of human germline engineering, positional cloning of genetic disorders, engineering american society: the lesson of eugenics, bioethical issues related to genetic engineering, cloning and ethical controversies related to it, genetic editing as a possibility of same-sex parents to have children, adhering to natural processes retains the integrity of a natural human race , genetically modified organisms: soybeans, gene silencing to produce milk with reduced blg proteins, the role of crispr-cas9 gene drive in mosquitoes, the life of gregor mendel and his contributions to science, eugenics, its history and modern development, morphological operation hsv color space tree detetction, cytogenetics: analysis of comparative genomic hybridization and its implications, genetically engineered eucalyptus tree and crispr, review of the process of dna extraction, review of the features of the process of cloning, heterologous gene expression as an approach for fungal secondary metabolite discovery, review of the genetic algorithm searches.

Genetic engineering (also called genetic modification) is a process that uses laboratory-based technologies to alter the DNA makeup of an organism.

Genetic engineering as the direct manipulation of DNA by humans outside breeding and mutations has only existed since the 1970s. In 1972, Paul Berg created the first recombinant DNA molecules by combining DNA from the monkey virus SV40 with that of the lambda virus. The first field trials of genetically engineered plants occurred in France and the US in 1986, tobacco plants were engineered to be resistant to herbicides.

It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms. New DNA is obtained by either isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using recombinant DNA methods or by artificially synthesising the DNA. Used in research and industry, genetic engineering has been applied to the production of cancer therapies, brewing yeasts, genetically modified plants and livestock, and more.

Relevant topics

Engineering
Charles Darwin
Stephen Hawking
Time Travel
Mathematics in Everyday Life
Natural Selection

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Welcome to our list of genetic engineering essay topics! Here, you will find everything from trending research titles to the most interesting genetic engineering topics for presentation. Get inspired with our writing ideas and bonus samples!

🔝 Top 10 Genetic Engineering Topics for 2024

🏆 best genetic engineering topic ideas & essay examples, ⭐ good genetic engineering research topics, 👍 simple & easy genetic engineering essay topics, ❓ genetic engineering discussion questions, 🔎 genetic engineering research topics, ✅ genetic engineering project ideas.

Ethical Issues of Synthetic Biology
CRISPR-Cas9 and Its Applications
Progress and Challenges in Gene Therapy
Applications of Gene Editing in Animals
The Process of Genetic Engineering in Plants
Genetic Engineering for Human Enhancement
Genetic Engineering for Improving Crop Yield
Regulatory Issues of Genetic Editing of Embryos
Gene Silencing in Humans through RNA Interference
Gene Drive Technology for Controlling Invasive Species
The Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering Many people have questioned the health risks that arise from genetically modified crops, thus it is the politicians who have to ensure that the interests of the people are met and their safety is assured. […]
The Film “Gattaca” and Genetic Engineering In the film, it is convincing that in the near future, science and technology at the back of genetic engineering shall be developed up to the level which makes the film a reality.
Gattaca: Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering Although the world he lives in has determined that the only measure of a man is his genetic profile, Vincent discovers another element of man that science and society have forgotten.
A Major Milestone in the Field of Science and Technology: Should Genetic Engineering Be Allowed? The most controversial and complicated aspect of this expertise is Human Genetic Engineering- whereby the genotype of a fetus can be altered to produce desired results.
The Dangers of Genetic Engineering and the Issue of Human Genes’ Modification In this case, the ethics of human cloning and human genes’ alteration are at the center of the most heated debates. The first reason to oppose the idea of manipulation of human genes lies in […]
Religious vs Scientific Views on Genetic Engineering With the need to increase the global economy, the field of agriculture is one among the many that have been used to improve the commercial production to take care of the global needs for food […]
Is Genetic Engineering an Environmentally Sound Way to Increase Food Production? According to Thomas & Earl and Barry, genetic engineering is environmentally unsound method of increasing food production because it threatens the indigenous species.
Human Genetic Engineering: Key Principles and Issues There are many options for the development of events in the field of genetic engineering, and not all of them have been studied. To conclude, human genetic engineering is one of the major medical breakthroughs, […]
Mitochondrial Diseases Treatment Through Genetic Engineering Any disorders and abnormalities in the development of mitochondrial genetic information can lead to the dysfunction of these organelles, which in turn affects the efficiency of intracellular ATP production during the process of cellular respiration.
Genetic Engineering: Is It Ethical to Manipulate Life? In the case of more complex operations, genetic engineering can edit existing genes to turn on or off the synthesis of a particular protein in the organism from which the gene was taken.
Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Apart from that, there are some experiments that cannot be ethically justified, at least in my opinion, for example, the cloning of human being or the attempts to find the gene for genius.
Genetic Engineering in the Movie “Gattaca” by Niccol This would not be right at all since a person should be responsible for their own life and not have it dictated to them as a result of a societal construct created on the basis […]
Genetic Engineering Using a Pglo Plasmid The objective of this experiment is to understand the process and importance of the genetic transformation of bacteria in real time with the aid of extrachromosomal DNA, alternatively referred to as plasmids.
Managing Diabetes Through Genetic Engineering Genetic engineering refers to the alteration of genetic make-up of an organism through the use of techniques to introduce a new DNA or eliminate a given hereditable material. What is the role of genetic engineering […]
The Role of Plant Genetic Engineering in Global Security Although it can be conveniently stated that the adequacy, abundance and reliability of the global food supply has a major role to play in the enhancement of human life, in the long run, they influence […]
Significance of Human Genetic Engineering The gene alteration strategy enables replacing the specific unwanted genes with the new ones, which are more resistant and freer of the particular ailment, hence an essential assurance of a healthy generation in the future.
Is the World Ready for Genetic Engineering? The process of manipulating genes has brought scientists to important discoveries, among which is the technology of the production of new kinds of crops and plants with selected characteristics. The problem of the advantages and […]
Genome: Bioethics and Genetic Engineering Additionally, towards the end of the documentary, the narrator and some of the interviewed individuals explain the problem of anonymity that is also related to genetic manipulations.
Genetic Engineering Is Ethically Unacceptable However, the current application of genetic engineering is in the field of medicine particularly to treat various genetic conditions. However, this method of treatment has various consequences to the individual and the society in general.
Designer Genes: Different Types and Use of Genetic Engineering McKibben speaks of Somatic Gene Therapy as it is used to modify the gene and cell structure of human beings so that the cells are able to produce certain chemicals that would help the body […]
A Technique for Controlling Plant Characteristics: Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture A cautious investigation of genetic engineering is required to make sure it is safe for humans and the environment. The benefit credited to genetic manipulation is influenced through the utilization of herbicide-tolerant and pest-safe traits.
Genetically Engineered Food Against World Hunger I support the production of GMFs in large quality; I hold the opinion that they can offer a lasting solution to food problems facing the world.
Genetic Engineering in Food: Development and Risks Genetic engineering refers to the manipulation of the gene composition of organisms, to come up with organisms, which have different characteristics from the organic ones.
Genetic Engineering in the Workplace The main purpose of the paper is to evaluate and critically discuss the ethical concerns regarding the implementation of genetic testing in the workplace and to provide potential resolutions to the dilemmas.
Designer Babies Creation in Genetic Engineering The creation of designer babies is an outcome of advancements in technology hence the debate should be on the extent to which technology can be applied in changing the way human beings live and the […]
Genetic Engineering and Eugenics Comparison The main idea in genetic engineering is to manipulate the genetic make-up of human beings in order to shackle their inferior traits. The concept of socially independent reproduction is replicated in both eugenics and genetic […]
Changing the world: Genetic Engineering Effects Genes used in genetic engineering have a high impact on health and disease, therefore the inclusion of the genetic process alters the genes that influence human behavior and traits.
Future of Genetic Engineering and the Concept of “Franken-Foods” This is not limited to cows alone but extends to pigs, sheep, and poultry, the justification for the development of genetically modified food is based on the need to feed an ever growing population which […]
Ecological Effects of the Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms Beneficial soil organisms such as earthworms, mites, nematodes, woodlice among others are some of the soil living organisms that are adversely affected by introduction of genetically engineered organisms in the ecosystem since they introduce toxins […]
Proposition 37 and Genetically Engineered Foods The discussion of Proposition 37 by the public is based on the obvious gap between the “law on the books” and the “law in action” because Food Safety Law which is associated with the Proposition […]
Is Genetically Engineered Food the Solution to the World’s Hunger Problems? However, the acceptance of GMO’s as the solution to the world’s food problem is not unanimously and there is still a multitude of opposition and suspicion of their use.
Benefits of Genetic Engineering as a Huge Part of People’s Lives Genetic Engineering is said to question whether man has the right to manipulate the course and laws of nature and thus is in constant collision with religion and the beliefs held by it regarding life.
Perfect Society: The Effects of Human Genetic Engineering
Genetic Engineering and Forensic Criminal Investigations
Biotechnology Assignment and Genetic Engineering
Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms
Bio-Ethics and the Controversy of Genetic Engineering
Health and Environmental Risks of Genetic Engineering in Food
Genetic Engineering and the Risks of Enforcing Changes on Organisms
Genetic Engineering and How It Affects Globel Warming
Cloning and Genetic Engineering in the Food Animal Industry
Genetic Engineering and Its Impact on Society
Embryonic Research, Genetic Engineering, & Cloning
Genetic Engineering: Associated Risks and Possibilities
Issues Concerning Genetic Engineering in Food Production
Genetic Engineering, DNA Fingerprinting, Gene Therapy
Cloning: The Benefits and Dangers of Genetic Engineering
Genetic Engineering, History, and Future: Altering the Face of Science
Islamic and Catholic Views on Genetic Engineering
Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering: Should It Be Approved in the US
Exploring the Real Benefits of Genetic Engineering in the Modern World
Genetic Engineering and Food Security: A Welfare Economics Perspective
Identify the Potential Impact of Genetic Engineering on the Future Course of Human Immunodeficiency Virus
Genetic Engineering and DNA Technology in Agricultural Productivity
Human Genetic Engineering: Designing the Future
Genetic Engineering and the Politics Behind It
The Potential and Consequences of Genetic Engineering
Genetic Engineering and Its Effect on Human Health
The Moral and Ethical Controversies, Benefits, and Future of Genetic Engineering
Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering for Curing Disorders
Genetic Engineering and the Human Genome Project
Ethical Standards for Genetic Engineering
Genetic Engineering and Cryonic Freezing: A Modern Frankenstein
The Perfect Child: Genetic Engineering
Genetic Engineering and Its Effects on Future Generations
Agricultural Genetic Engineering: Genetically Modified Foods
Genetic Engineering: The Manipulation or Alteration of the Genetic Structure of a Single Cell or Organism
Analysing Genetic Engineering Regarding Plato Philosophy
The Dangers and Benefits of Human Cloning and Genetic Engineering
Genetic Engineering: Arguments of Both Proponents and Opponents and a Mediated Solution
Genetic and How Genetic Engineering Is Diffusing Individualism
Finding Genetic Harmony With Genetic Engineering
What Is Genetic Engineering?
Do You Think Genetically Modified Food Could Harm the Ecosystems of the Areas in Which They Grow?
How Agricultural Research Systems Shape a Technological Regime That Develops Genetic Engineering?
Can Genetic Engineering for the Poor Pay Off?
How Does Genetic Engineering Affect Agriculture?
Do You Think It’s Essential to Modify Genes to Create New Medicines?
How Can Genetic Engineering Stop Human Suffering?
Can Genetic Engineering Cure HIV/AIDS in Humans?
How Has Genetic Engineering Revolutionized Science and the World?
Do You Think Genetic Engineering Is Playing God and That We Should Leave Life as It Was Created?
What Are Some Advantages and Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering?
How Will Genetic Engineering Affect the Human Race?
When Does Genetic Engineering Go Bad?
What Are the Benefits of Human Genetic Engineering?
Does Genetic Engineering Affect the Entire World?
How Does the Christian Faith Contend With Genetic Engineering?
What Are the Ethical and Social Implications of Genetic Engineering?
How Will Genetic Engineering Impact Our Lives?
Why Should Genetic Engineering Be Extended?
Will Genetic Engineering Permanently Change Our Society?
What Are People Worried About Who Oppose Genetic Engineering?
Do You Worry About Eating GM (Genetically Modified) Food?
What Do You Think of the Idea of Genetically Engineering New Bodily Organs to Replace Yours When You Are Old?
Should Genetic Engineering Go Ahead to Eliminate Human Flaws, Such as Violence, Jealousy, Hate, Etc?
Does the Government Have the Right to Limit How Far We Modify Ourselves?
Why Is Genetic Food Not Well Accepted?
What Is the Best in the Genetic Modification of Plants, Plant Cell, or Chloroplasts and Why?
How Do You Feel About Human Gene Editing?
Does Climate Change Make the Genetic Engineering of Crops Inevitable?
What Do You Think About Plant Genetic Modification?
Gene Drives and Pest Control
The Benefits of Genetically Modified Organisms
Challenges of Gene Editing for Rare Genetic Diseases
The Use of Genetic Engineering to Treat Human Diseases
Ethical Considerations and Possibilities of Designer Babies
How Genetic Engineering Can Help Restore Ecosystems
Basic Techniques and Tools for Gene Manipulation
Latest Advancements in Genetic Engineering and Genome Editing
Will Engineering Resilient Organisms Help Mitigate Climate Change?
Creation of Renewable Resources through Genetic Engineering
Genetic Engineering Approach to Drought and Pest Resistance
Genetic Engineering Use in DNA Analysis and Identification
Synthetic Microorganisms and Biofactories for Sustainable Bioproduction
Stem Cells’ Potential for Regenerative Medicine
The Role of Genetic Modification in Vaccine Development
Can Genetic Engineering Help Eradicate Invasive Species Responsibly?
Genetic Engineering for Enhancing the Body’s Defense Mechanisms
Advancements in Transplantation Medicine and Creating Bioengineered Organs
Genetic Editing of Microbes for Environmental Cleanup
Is It Possible to Develop Living Detection Systems?
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 26). 132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/genetic-engineering-essay-topics/

"132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/genetic-engineering-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 26 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/genetic-engineering-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/genetic-engineering-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/genetic-engineering-essay-topics/.

Infertility Essay Topics
Bioethics Titles
Genetics Research Ideas
Epigenetics Essay Titles
Morality Research Ideas
Stem Cell Essay Titles
Biochemistry Research Topics
Evolution Topics

Search Menu
Volume 12, Issue 1, 2024 (In Progress)
Volume 11, Issue 1, 2023
Advance articles
Editor's Choice
Virtual Issues
Clinical Briefs
ISEMPH Prizes
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access
Calls for Papers
Why submit?
About Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health
About the International Society for Evolution, Medicine and Public Health
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
For Reviewers
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

International Society for Evolution, Medicine & Public Health

Article Contents

Introduction, human enhancement, genetic engineering, conclusions.

< Previous

Human enhancement: Genetic engineering and evolution

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Mara Almeida, Rui Diogo, Human enhancement: Genetic engineering and evolution, Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health , Volume 2019, Issue 1, 2019, Pages 183–189, https://doi.org/10.1093/emph/eoz026

Permissions Icon Permissions

Genetic engineering opens new possibilities for biomedical enhancement requiring ethical, societal and practical considerations to evaluate its implications for human biology, human evolution and our natural environment. In this Commentary, we consider human enhancement, and in particular, we explore genetic enhancement in an evolutionary context. In summarizing key open questions, we highlight the importance of acknowledging multiple effects (pleiotropy) and complex epigenetic interactions among genotype, phenotype and ecology, and the need to consider the unit of impact not only to the human body but also to human populations and their natural environment (systems biology). We also propose that a practicable distinction between ‘therapy’ and ‘enhancement’ may need to be drawn and effectively implemented in future regulations. Overall, we suggest that it is essential for ethical, philosophical and policy discussions on human enhancement to consider the empirical evidence provided by evolutionary biology, developmental biology and other disciplines.

Lay Summary: This Commentary explores genetic enhancement in an evolutionary context. We highlight the multiple effects associated with germline heritable genetic intervention, the need to consider the unit of impact to human populations and their natural environment, and propose that a practicable distinction between ‘therapy’ and ‘enhancement’ is needed.

There are countless examples where technology has contributed to ameliorate the lives of people by improving their inherent or acquired capabilities. For example, over time, there have been biomedical interventions attempting to restore functions that are deficient, such as vision, hearing or mobility. If we consider human vision, substantial advances started from the time spectacles were developed (possibly in the 13th century), continuing in the last few years, with researchers implanting artificial retinas to give blind patients partial sight [ 1–3 ]. Recently, scientists have also successfully linked the brain of a paralysed man to a computer chip, which helped restore partial movement of limbs previously non-responsive [ 4 , 5 ]. In addition, synthetic blood substitutes have been created, which could be used in human patients in the future [ 6–8 ].

The progress being made by technology in a restorative and therapeutic context could in theory be applied in other contexts to treat non-pathological conditions. Many of the technologies and pharmaceutical products developed in a medical context to treat patients are already being used by humans to ‘enhance’ some aspect of their bodies, for example drugs to boost brain power, nutritional supplements, brain stimulating technologies to control mood or growth hormones for children of short stature. Assistive technology for disabled people, reproductive medicine and pharmacology, beside their therapeutic and restorative use, have a greater potential for human ‘enhancement’ than currently thought. There are also dual outcomes as some therapies can have effects that amount to an enhancement as for example, the artificial legs used by the South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius providing him with a competitive advantage.

This commentary will provide general ethical considerations on human enhancement, and within the several forms of so-called human biomedical enhancement, it will focus on genetic engineering, particularly on germline (heritable) genetic interventions and on the insights evolutionary biology can provide in rationalizing its likely impact. These insights are a subject often limited in discussions on genetic engineering and human enhancement in general, and its links to ethical, philosophical and policy discussions, in particular [ 9 ]. The rapid advances in genetic technology make this debate very topical. Moreover, genes are thought to play a very substantial role in biological evolution and development of the human species, thus making this a topic requiring due consideration. With this commentary, we explore how concepts based in evolutionary biology could contribute to better assess the implications of human germline modifications, assuming they were widely employed. We conclude our brief analysis by summarizing key issues requiring resolution and potential approaches to progress them. Overall, the aim is to contribute to the debate on human genetic enhancement by looking not only at the future, as it is so often done, but also at our evolutionary past.

The noun ‘enhancement’ comes from the verb ‘enhance’, meaning ‘to increase or improve’. The verb enhance can be traced back to the vulgar Latin inaltiare and late Latin inaltare (‘raise, exalt’), from ‘ altare ’ (‘make high’) and altus (‘high’), literally ‘grown tall’. For centuries human enhancement has populated our imagination outlined by stories ranging from the myths of supernormal strengths and eternal life to the superpowers illustrated by the 20th century comic books superheroes. The desire of overcoming normal human capacities and the transformation to an almost ‘perfect’ form has been part of the history of civilization, extending from arts and religion to philosophy. The goal of improving the human condition and health has always been a driver for innovation and biomedical developments.

In the broadest sense, the process of human enhancement can be considered as an improvement of the ‘limitations’ of a ‘natural version’ of the human species with respect to a specific reference in time, and to different environments, which can vary depending on factors such as, for example, climate change. The limitations of the human condition can be physical and/or mental/cognitive (e.g. vision, strength or memory). This poses relevant questions of what a real or perceived human limitation is in the environment and times in which we are living and how it can be shifted over time considering social norms and cultural values of modern societies. Besides, the impact that overcoming these limitations will have on us humans, and the environment, should also be considered. For example, if we boost the immune system of specific people, this may contribute to the development/evolution of more resistant viruses and bacteria or/and lead to new viruses and bacteria to emerge. In environmental terms, enhancing the longevity of humans could contribute to a massive increase in global population, creating additional pressures on ecosystems already under human pressure.

Two decades ago, the practices of human enhancement have been described as ‘biomedical interventions that are used to improve human form or functioning beyond what is necessary to restore or sustain health’ [ 10 ]. The range of these practices has now increased with technological development, and they are ‘any kind of genetic, biomedical, or pharmaceutical intervention aimed at improving human dispositions, capacities, or well-being, even if there is no pathology to be treated’ [ 11 ]. Practices of human enhancement could be visualized as upgrading a ‘system’, where interventions take place for a better performance of the original system. This is far from being a hypothetical situation. The rapid progress within the fields of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science has brought back discussions about the evolutionary trajectory of the human species by the promise of new applications which could provide abilities beyond current ones [ 12 , 13 ]. If such a possibility was consciously embraced and actively pursued, technology could be expected to have a revolutionary interference with human life, not just helping humans in achieving general health and capabilities commensurate with our current ones but helping to overcome human limitations far beyond of what is currently possible for human beings. The emergence of new technologies has provided a broader range of potential human interventions and the possibility of transitioning from external changes to our bodies (e.g. external prosthesis) to internal ones, especially when considering genetic manipulation, whose changes can be permanent and transmissible.

The advocates of a far-reaching human enhancement have been referred to as ‘transhumanists’. In their vision, so far, humans have largely worked to control and shape their exterior environments (niche construction) but with new technologies (e.g. biotechnology, information technology and nanotechnology) they will soon be able to control and fundamentally change their own bodies. Supporters of these technologies agree with the possibility of a more radical interference in human life by using technology to overcome human limitations [ 14–16 ], that could allow us to live longer, healthier and even happier lives [ 17 ]. On the other side, and against this position, are the so-called ‘bioconservatives’, arguing for the conservation and protection of some kind of ‘human essence’, with the argument that it exists something intrinsically valuable in human life that should be preserved [ 18 , 19 ].

There is an ongoing debate between transhumanists [ 20–22 ] and bioconservatives [ 18 , 19 , 23 ] on the ethical issues regarding the use of technologies in humans. The focus of this commentary is not centred on this debate, particularly because the discussion of these extreme, divergent positions is already very prominent in the public debate. In fact, it is interesting to notice that the ‘moderate’ discourses around this topic are much less known. In a more moderate view, perhaps one of the crucial questions to consider, independently of the moral views on human enhancement, is whether human enhancement (especially if considering germline heritable genetic interventions) is a necessary development, and represents an appropriate use of time, funding and resources compared to other pressing societal issues. It is crucial to build space for these more moderate, and perhaps less polarized voices, allowing the consideration of other positions and visions beyond those being more strongly projected so far.

Ethical and societal discussions on what constitutes human enhancement will be fundamental to support the development of policy frameworks and regulations on new technological developments. When considering the ethical implications of human enhancement that technology will be available to offer now and in the future, it could be useful to group the different kinds of human enhancements in the phenotypic and genetic categories: (i) strictly phenotypic intervention (e.g. ranging from infrared vision spectacles to exoskeletons and bionic limbs); (ii) somatic, non-heritable genetic intervention (e.g. editing of muscle cells for stronger muscles) and (iii) germline, heritable genetic intervention (e.g. editing of the C–C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) gene in the Chinese baby twins, discussed later on). These categories of enhancement raise different considerations and concerns and currently present different levels of acceptance by our society. The degree of ethical, societal and environmental impacts is likely to be more limited for phenotypic interventions (i) but higher for genetic interventions (ii and iii), especially for the ones which are transmissible to future generations (iii).

The rapid advances in technology seen in the last decades, have raised the possibility of ‘radical enhancement’, defined by Nicholas Agar, ‘as the improvement of human attributes and abilities to levels that greatly exceed what is currently possible for human beings’ [ 24 ]. Genetic engineering offers the possibility of such an enhancement by providing humans a profound control over their own biology. Among other technologies, genetic engineering comprises genome editing (also called gene editing), a group of technologies with the ability to directly modify an organism’s DNA through a targeted intervention in the genome (e.g. insertion, deletion or replacement of specific genetic material) [ 25 ]. Genome editing is considered to achieve much greater precision than pre-existing forms of genetic engineering. It has been argued to be a revolutionary tool due to its efficiency, reducing cost and time. This technology is considered to have many applications for human health, in both preventing and tackling disease. Much of the ethical debate associated with this technology concerns the possible application of genome editing in the human germline, i.e. the genome that can be transmitted to following generations, be it from gametes, a fertilized egg or from first embryo divisions [ 26–28 ]. There has been concern as well as enthusiasm on the potential of the technology to modify human germline genome to provide us with traits considered positive or useful (e.g. muscle strength, memory and intelligence) in the current and future environments.

Genetic engineering: therapy or enhancement and predictability of outcomes

To explore some of the possible implications of heritable interventions we will take as an example the editing (more specifically ‘deletion’ using CRISPR genome editing technology) of several base pairs of the CCR5 gene. Such intervention was practised in 2018 in two non-identical twin girls born in China. Loss of function mutations of the CCR5 had been previously shown to provide resistance to HIV. Therefore, the gene deletion would be expected to protect the twin baby girls from risk of transmission of HIV which could have occurred from their father (HIV-positive). However, the father had the infection kept under control and the titre of HIV virus was undetectable, which means that risk of transmission of HIV infection to the babies was negligible [ 29 ].

From an ethical ground, based on current acceptable practices, this case has been widely criticized by the scientific community beside being considered by many a case of human enhancement intervention rather than therapy [ 29 , 30 ]. One of the questions this example helps illustrate is that the ethical boundary between a therapy that ‘corrects’ a disorder by restoring performance to a ‘normal’ scope, and an intervention that ‘enhances’ human ability outside the accepted ‘normal’ scope, is not always easy to draw. For the sake of argument, it could be assumed that therapy involves attempts to restore a certain condition of health, normality or sanity of the ‘natural’ condition of a specific individual. If we take this approach, the question is how health, normality and sanity, as well as natural per se, are defined, as the meaning of these concepts shift over time to accommodate social norms and cultural values of modern societies. It could be said that the difficulty of developing a conceptual distinction between therapy and enhancement has always been present. However, the potential significance of such distinction is only now, with the acceleration and impact of technological developments, becoming more evident.

Beyond ethical questions, a major problem of this intervention is that we do not (yet?) know exactly the totality of the effects that the artificial mutation of the CCR5 may have, at both the genetic and phenotypic levels. This is because we now know that, contrary to the idea of ‘one gene-one trait’ accepted some decades ago, a gene—or its absence—can affect numerous traits, many of them being apparently unrelated (a phenomenon also known as pleiotropy). That is, due to constrained developmental interactions, mechanisms and genetic networks, a change in a single gene can result in a cascade of multiple effects [ 31 ]. In the case of CCR5, we currently know that the mutation offers protection against HIV infection, and also seems to increase the risk of severe or fatal reactions to some infectious diseases, such as the influenza virus [ 32 ]. It has also been observed that among people with multiple sclerosis, the ones with CCR5 mutation are twice as likely to die early than are people without the mutation [ 33 ]. Some studies have also shown that defective CCR5 can have a positive effect in cognition to enhance learning and memory in mice [ 34 ]. However, it’s not clear if this effect would be translated into humans. The example serves to illustrate that, even if human enhancement with gene editing methods was considered ethically sound, assessing the totality of its implications on solid grounds may be difficult to achieve.

Genetic engineering and human evolution: large-scale impacts

Beyond providing the opportunity of enhancing human capabilities in specific individuals, intervening in the germline is likely to have an impact on the evolutionary processes of the human species raising questions on the scale and type of impacts. In fact, the use of large-scale genetic engineering might exponentially increase the force of ‘niche construction’ in human evolution, and therefore raise ethical and practical questions never faced by our species before. It has been argued that natural selection is a mechanism of lesser importance in the case of current human evolution, as compared to other organisms, because of advances in medicine and healthcare [ 35 ]. According to such a view, among many others advances, natural selection has been conditioned by our ‘niche-construction’ ability to improve healthcare and access to clean water and food, thus changing the landscape of pressures that humans have been facing for survival. An underlying assumption or position of the current debate is that, within our human species, the force of natural selection became minimized and that we are somehow at the ‘end-point’ of our evolution [ 36 ]. If this premise holds true, one could argue that evolution is no longer a force in human history and hence that any human enhancement would not be substituting itself to human evolution as a key driver for future changes.

However, it is useful to remember that, as defined by Darwin in his book ‘On the Origin of the Species’, natural selection is a process in which organisms that happen to be ‘better’ adapted to a certain environment tend to have higher survival and/or reproductive rates than other organisms [ 37 ]. When comparing human evolution to human genetic enhancement, an acceptable position could be to consider ethically sound those interventions that could be replicated naturally by evolution, as in the case of the CCR5 gene. Even if this approach was taken, however, it is important to bear in mind that human evolution acts on human traits sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing our biological fitness, in a constant evolutionary trade-off and in a contingent and/or neutral—in the sense of not ‘progressive’—process. In other worlds, differently from genetic human enhancement, natural selection does not ‘ aim ’ at improving human traits [ 38 ]. Human evolution and the so-called genetic human enhancement would seem therefore to involve different underlying processes, raising several questions regarding the implications and risks of the latter.

But using genetic engineering to treat humans has been proposed far beyond the therapeutic case or to introduce genetic modifications known to already occur in nature. In particular, when looking into the views expressed on the balance between human evolution and genetic engineering, some argue that it may be appropriate to use genetic interventions to go beyond what natural selection has contributed to our species when it comes to eradicate vulnerabilities [ 17 ]. Furthermore, when considering the environmental, ecological and social issues of contemporary times, some suggest that genetic technologies could be crucial tools to contribute to human survival and well-being [ 20–22 ]. The possible need to ‘engineer’ human traits to ensure our survival could include the ability to allow our species to adapt rapidly to the rate of environmental change caused by human activity, for which Darwinian evolution may be too slow [ 39 ]. Or, for instance, to support long-distance space travel by engineering resistance to radiation and osteoporosis, along with other conditions which would be highly advantageous in space [ 40 ].

When considering the ethical and societal merits of these propositions, it is useful to consider how proto-forms of enhancement has been approached by past human societies. In particular, it can be argued that humans have already employed—as part of our domestication/‘selective breeding’ of other animals—techniques of indirect manipulation of genomes on a relatively large scale over many millennia, albeit not on humans. The large-scale selective breeding of plants and animals over prehistoric and historic periods could be claimed to have already shaped some of our natural environment. Selective breeding has been used to obtain specific characteristics considered useful at a given time in plants and animals. Therefore, their evolutionary processes have been altered with the aim to produce lineages with advantageous traits, which contributed to the evolution of different domesticated species. However, differently from genetic engineering, domestication possesses inherent limitations in its ability to produce major transformations in the created lineages, in contrast with the many open possibilities provided by genetic engineering.

When considering the impact of genetic engineering on human evolution, one of questions to be considered concerns the effects, if any, that genetic technology could have on the genetic pool of the human population and any implication on its resilience to unforeseen circumstances. This underlines a relevant question associated with the difference between ‘health’ and biological fitness. For example, a certain group of animals can be more ‘healthy’—as domesticated dogs—but be less biologically ‘fit’ according to Darwin’s definition. Specifically, if such group of animals are less genetically diverse than their ancestors, they could be less ‘adaptable’ to environmental changes. Assuming that, the human germline modification is undertaken at a global scale, this could be expected to have an effect, on the distribution of genetically heritable traits on the human population over time. Considering that gene and trait distributions have been changing under the processes of evolution for billions of years, the impact on evolution will need to be assessed by analysing which genetic alterations have been eventually associated with specific changes within the recent evolutionary history of humans. On this front, a key study has analysed the implications of genetic engineering on the evolutionary biology of human populations, including the possibility of reducing human genetic diversity, for instance creating a ‘biological monoculture’ [ 41 ]. The study argued that genetic engineering will have an insignificant impact on human diversity, while it would likely safeguard the capacity of human populations to deal with disease and new environmental challenges and therefore, ensure the health and longevity of our species [ 41 ]. If the findings of this study were considered consistent with other knowledge and encompassing, the impact of human genetic enhancements on the human genetic pool and associated impacts could be considered secondary aspects. However, data available from studies on domestication strongly suggests that domestication of both animals and plans might lead to not only decreased genetic diversity per se, but even affect patterns of variation in gene expression throughout the genome and generally decreased gene expression diversity across species [ 42–44 ]. Given that, according to recent studies within the field of biological anthropology recent human evolution has been in fact a process of ‘self-domestication’ [ 45 ], one could argue that studies on domestication could contribute to understanding the impacts of genetic engineering.

Beyond such considerations, it is useful to reflect on the fact that human genetic enhancement could occur on different geographical scales, regardless of the specific environment and geological periods in which humans are living and much more rapidly than in the case of evolution, in which changes are very slow. If this was to occur routinely and on a large scale, the implications of the resulting radical and abrupt changes may be difficult to predict and its impacts difficult to manage. This is currently highlighted by results of epigenetics studies, and also of the microbiome and of the effects of pollutants in the environment and their cumulative effect on the development of human and non-human organisms alike. Increasingly new evidence indicates a greater interdependence between humans and their environments (including other microorganisms), indicating that modifying the environment can have direct and unpredictable consequences on humans as well. This highlight the need of a ‘systems level’ approach. An approach in which the ‘bounded body’ of the individual human as a basic unit of biological or social action would need to be questioned in favour of a more encompassing and holistic unit. In fact, within biology, there is a new field, Systems Biology, which stresses the need to understand the role that pleiotropy, and thus networks at multiple levels—e.g. genetic, cellular, among individuals and among different taxa—play within biological systems and their evolution [ 46 ]. Currently, much still needs to be understood about gene function, its role in human biological systems and the interaction between genes and external factors such as environment, diet and so on. In the future if we do choose to genetically enhance human traits to levels unlikely to be achieved by human evolution, it would be crucial to consider if and how our understanding of human evolution enable us to better understand the implications of genetic interventions.

New forms of human enhancement are increasingly coming to play due to technological development. If phenotypic and somatic interventions for human enhancement pose already significant ethical and societal challenges, germline heritable genetic intervention, require much broader and complex considerations at the level of the individual, society and human species as a whole. Germline interventions associated with modern technologies are capable of much more rapid, large-scale impacts and seem capable of radically altering the balance of humans with the environment. We know now that beside the role genes play on biological evolution and development, genetic interventions can induce multiple effects (pleiotropy) and complex epigenetics interactions among genotype, phenotype and ecology of a certain environment. As a result of the rapidity and scale with which such impact could be realized, it is essential for ethical and societal debates, as well as underlying scientific studies, to consider the unit of impact not only to the human body but also to human populations and their natural environment (systems biology). An important practicable distinction between ‘therapy’ and ‘enhancement’ may need to be drawn and effectively implemented in future regulations, although a distinct line between the two may be difficult to draw.

In the future if we do choose to genetically enhance human traits to levels unlikely to be achieved by human evolution, it would be crucial to consider if and how our understanding of humans and other organisms, including domesticated ones, enable us to better understand the implications of genetic interventions. In particular, effective regulation of genetic engineering may need to be based on a deep knowledge of the exact links between phenotype and genotype, as well the interaction of the human species with the environment and vice versa .

For a broader and consistent debate, it will be essential for technological, philosophical, ethical and policy discussions on human enhancement to consider the empirical evidence provided by evolutionary biology, developmental biology and other disciplines.

This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) of Portugal [CFCUL/FIL/00678/2019 to M.A.].

Conflict of interest : None declared.

Pham P , Roux S , Matonti F et al. Post-implantation impedance spectroscopy of subretinal micro-electrode arrays, OCT imaging and numerical simulation: towards a more precise neuroprosthesis monitoring tool . J Neural Eng 2013 ; 10 : 046002 .

Google Scholar

Maghami MH , Sodagar AM , Lashay A et al. Visual prostheses: the enabling technology to give sight to the blind . J Ophthal Vis Res 2014 ; 9 : 494 – 505 .

Weitz AC , Nanduri D , Behrend MR et al. Improving the spatial resolution of epiretinal implants by increasing stimulus pulse duration . Sci Transl Med 2015 ; 7 : 318ra203.

Bouton CE , Shaikhouni A , Annetta NV et al. Restoring cortical control of functional movement in a human with quadriplegia . Nature 2016 ; 533 : 247 – 50 .

Geddes L. First paralysed person to be ‘reanimated’ offers neuroscience insights. Technique moves man’s arm by decoding his thoughts and electrically stimulating his own muscles . Nat News 2016 ; 533 .

Squires JE. Artificial blood . Science 2002 ; 295 : 1002 – 5 .

Lowe KC. Blood substitutes: from chemistry to clinic . J Mater Chem 2006 ; 16 : 4189 – 96 .

Moradi S , Jahanian-Najafabadi A , Roudkenar MH. Artificial blood substitutes: first steps on the long route to clinical utility . Clin Med Insights Blood Disord 2016 ; 9 : 33 – 41 .

Powell R , Kahane G , Savulescu J. Evolution, genetic engineering, and human enhancement . Philos Technol 2012 ; 25 : 439 – 58 .

Parens E (ed.). Enhancing Human Traits: Ethical and Social Implications . Washington, DC : Georgetown University Press , 1998 .

Google Preview

Giubilini A , Sanyal S. Challenging human enhancement. In: Clarke S , Savulescu J , Coady T et al. (eds). The Ethics of Human Enhancement: Understanding the Debate . Oxford : Oxford University Press , 2016 .

Elliott C. Better Than Well: American Medicine Meets the American Dream . New York, NY : WWW Norton & Company, Inc ., 2003 .

Kramer P. Listening to Prozac . London : Fourth Estate , 1994 .

Moravec H. Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence . Cambridge : Harvard University Press , 1990 .

Bostrom N. Human genetic enhancements: a transhumanist perspective . J Value Inq 2003 ; 37 : 493 – 506 .

Kurzweil R. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology . New York, NY : Viking , 2005 .

Harris J. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press , 2010 .

Fukuyama F. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution . New York, NY : Picador , 2002 .

Sandel M. The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering . Cambridge : The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press , 2007 .

Savulescu J , Persson I. The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity . J Appl Philos 2008 ; 25 : 162 – 77 .

Buchanan A. Beyond Humanity . Oxford : Oxford University Press , 2011 .

Persson I , Savulescu J. Moral enhancement, freedom, and the god machine . Monist 2012 ; 95 : 399 – 421 .

Leon K. Ageless bodies, happy souls: biotechnology and the pursuit of perfection . New Atlantis 2003 ; 1 : 9 – 28 .

Agar N. Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement . Cambridge : MIT Press , 2010 .

Gaj T , Gersbach CA , Barbas CF III ,. ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas based methods for genome engineering . Trends Biotechnol 2013 ; 3 : 397 – 405 .

Baltimore D , Berg P , Botchan M et al. Biotechnology. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification . Science 2015 ; 348 : 36 – 8 .

Otieno MO. CRISPR/Cas9 human genome editing: challenges, ethical concerns and implications . J Clin Res Bioeth 2015 ; 6 : 253 .

Ishii T. Germline genome-editing research and its socio-ethical implications . Trends Mol Med 2015 ; 21 : 473 – 81 .

Bionews.org.uk. First Genome-edited Babies: A Very Different Perception of Ethics , 2018 . https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_140060 (27 August 2019, date last accessed).

Cyranoski D. CRISPR-baby scientist fails to satisfy his critics . Nat News 2018 ; 564 : 13 – 4 .

Galis F , Metz JA. Evolutionary novelties: the making and breaking of pleiotropic constraints . Integr Comp Biol 2007 ; 47 : 409 – 19 .

Falcon A , Cuevas MT , Rodriguez-Frandsen A et al. CCR5 deficiency predisposes to fatal outcome in influenza virus infection . J Gen Virol 2015 ; 96 : 2074 – 8 .

Gade-Andavolu R , Comings DE , MacMurray J et al. Association of CCR5 Δ32 deletion with early death in multiple sclerosis . Genet Med 2004 ; 6 : 126 – 31 .

Zhou M , Greenhill S , Huang S et al. CCR5 is a suppressor for cortical plasticity and hippocampal learning and memory . eLife 2016 ; 5 : e20985 .

Tibayrenc M , Ayala FJ (eds). On Human Nature: Biology, Psychology, Ethics, Politics, and Religion . London : Academic Press , 2017 .

Baldi P. The Shattered Self: The End of Natural Evolution . Cambridge : MIT Press , 2001 .

Darwin C. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life . London : J. Murray , 1859 .

Gould SJ. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory . Belknap, NY : Harvard University Press , 2002 .

Rees M. Our Final Century: Will the Humans Race Survive the Twenty-first Century? Eastbourne : Gardners Books , 2003 .

Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genome Editing: An Ethical Review . London : Nuffield Council on Bioethics , 2016 .

Powell R. The evolutionary biological implications of human genetic engineering . J Med Philos 2012 ; 37 : 204 – 26 .

Liu W , Chen L , Zhang S et al. Decrease of gene expression diversity during domestication of animals and plants . BMC Evol Biol 2019 ; 19 : 1 – 11 .

Fages A , Hanghøj K , Khan N et al. Tracking five millennia of horse management with extensive ancient genome time series . Cell 2019 ; 177 : 1419 – 35 .

Zhang J , Wang X , Yao J et al. Effect of domestication on the genetic diversity and structure of Saccharina japonica populations in China . Sci Rep 2017 ; 7 : 42158 .

Theofanopoulou C , Gastaldon S , O’Rourke T et al. Self-domestication in Homo sapiens : insights from comparative genomics . PLoS One 2018 ; 13 : e0196700 .

Capra F , Luisi PL. The Systems View of Life . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2014

genetic engineering

Email alerts

Citing articles via, affiliations.

Online ISSN 2050-6201
Copyright © 2024 International Society for Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

12.4: Genetic Engineering - Risks, Benefits, and Perceptions

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 5191

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$

$ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$

$ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$

$ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

$ \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} $

Learning Objectives

Summarize the mechanisms, risks, and potential benefits of gene therapy
Identify ethical issues involving gene therapy and the regulatory agencies that provide oversight for clinical trials
Compare somatic-cell and germ-line gene therapy

Many types of genetic engineering have yielded clear benefits with few apparent risks. Few would question, for example, the value of our now abundant supply of human insulin produced by genetically engineered bacteria. However, many emerging applications of genetic engineering are much more controversial, often because their potential benefits are pitted against significant risks, real or perceived. This is certainly the case for gene therapy, a clinical application of genetic engineering that may one day provide a cure for many diseases but is still largely an experimental approach to treatment.

Mechanisms and Risks of Gene Therapy

Human diseases that result from genetic mutations are often difficult to treat with drugs or other traditional forms of therapy because the signs and symptoms of disease result from abnormalities in a patient’s genome. For example, a patient may have a genetic mutation that prevents the expression of a specific protein required for the normal function of a particular cell type. This is the case in patients with Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID), a genetic disease that impairs the function of certain white blood cells essential to the immune system.

Gene therapy attempts to correct genetic abnormalities by introducing a nonmutated, functional gene into the patient’s genome. The nonmutated gene encodes a functional protein that the patient would otherwise be unable to produce. Viral vectors such as adenovirus are sometimes used to introduce the functional gene; part of the viral genome is removed and replaced with the desired gene (Figure $\PageIndex{1}$). More advanced forms of gene therapy attempt to correct the mutation at the original site in the genome, such as is the case with treatment of SCID.

A diagram of gene therapy. A virus vector contains modified viral DNA that includes an inserted gene. First the vector binds to the cell membrane. The vector is then packaged in a vesicle. The vesicle then breaks down releasing the vector. The cell now makes protein using the new gene.

So far, gene therapies have proven relatively ineffective, with the possible exceptions of treatments for cystic fibrosisand adenosine deaminase deficiency, a type of SCID. Other trials have shown the clear hazards of attempting genetic manipulation in complex multicellular organisms like humans. In some patients, the use of an adenovirus vector can trigger an unanticipated inflammatory response from the immune system, which may lead to organ failure. Moreover, because viruses can often target multiple cell types, the virus vector may infect cells not targeted for the therapy, damaging these other cells and possibly leading to illnesses such as cancer. Another potential risk is that the modified virus could revert to being infectious and cause disease in the patient. Lastly, there is a risk that the inserted gene could unintentionally inactivate another important gene in the patient’s genome, disrupting normal cell cycling and possibly leading to tumor formation and cancer. Because gene therapy involves so many risks, candidates for gene therapy need to be fully informed of these risks before providing informed consent to undergo the therapy.

Gene Therapy Gone Wrong

The risks of gene therapy were realized in the 1999 case of Jesse Gelsinger, an 18-year-old patient who received gene therapy as part of a clinical trial at the University of Pennsylvania. Jesse received gene therapy for a condition called ornithine transcarbamylase (OTC) deficiency, which leads to ammonia accumulation in the blood due to deficient ammonia processing. Four days after the treatment, Jesse died after a massive immune response to the adenovirus vector. 1

Until that point, researchers had not really considered an immune response to the vector to be a legitimate risk, but on investigation, it appears that the researchers had some evidence suggesting that this was a possible outcome. Prior to Jesse’s treatment, several other human patients had suffered side effects of the treatment, and three monkeys used in a trial had died as a result of inflammation and clotting disorders. Despite this information, it appears that neither Jesse nor his family were made aware of these outcomes when they consented to the therapy. Jesse’s death was the first patient death due to a gene therapy treatment and resulted in the immediate halting of the clinical trial in which he was involved, the subsequent halting of all other gene therapy trials at the University of Pennsylvania, and the investigation of all other gene therapy trials in the United States. As a result, the regulation and oversight of gene therapy overall was reexamined, resulting in new regulatory protocols that are still in place today.

Exercise $\PageIndex{1}$

Explain how gene therapy works in theory.
Identify some risks of gene therapy.

Oversight of Gene Therapy

Presently, there is significant oversight of gene therapy clinical trials. At the federal level, three agencies regulate gene therapy in parallel: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP), and the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Along with several local agencies, these federal agencies interact with the institutional review board to ensure that protocols are in place to protect patient safety during clinical trials. Compliance with these protocols is enforced mostly on the local level in cooperation with the federal agencies. Gene therapies are currently under the most extensive federal and local review compared to other types of therapies, which are more typically only under the review of the FDA. Some researchers believe that these extensive regulations actually inhibit progress in gene therapy research. In 2013, the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) called upon the NIH to relax its review of gene therapy trials in most cases. 2 However, ensuring patient safety continues to be of utmost concern.

Ethical Concerns

Beyond the health risks of gene therapy, the ability to genetically modify humans poses a number of ethical issues related to the limits of such “therapy.” While current research is focused on gene therapy for genetic diseases, scientists might one day apply these methods to manipulate other genetic traits not perceived as desirable. This raises questions such as:

Exercise $\PageIndex{2}$

Which genetic traits are worthy of being “corrected”?
Should gene therapy be used for cosmetic reasons or to enhance human abilities?
Should genetic manipulation be used to impart desirable traits to the unborn?
Is everyone entitled to gene therapy, or could the cost of gene therapy create new forms of social inequality?
Who should be responsible for regulating and policing inappropriate use of gene therapies?

The ability to alter reproductive cells using gene therapy could also generate new ethical dilemmas. To date, the various types of gene therapies have been targeted to somatic cells, the non-reproductive cells within the body. Because somatic cell traits are not inherited, any genetic changes accomplished by somatic-cell gene therapy would not be passed on to offspring. However, should scientists successfully introduce new genes to germ cells (eggs or sperm), the resulting traits could be passed on to offspring. This approach, called germ-line gene therapy, could potentially be used to combat heritable diseases, but it could also lead to unintended consequences for future generations. Moreover, there is the question of informed consent, because those impacted by germ-line gene therapy are unborn and therefore unable to choose whether they receive the therapy. For these reasons, the U.S. government does not currently fund research projects investigating germ-line gene therapies in humans.

Risky Gene Therapies

While there are currently no gene therapies on the market in the United States, many are in the pipeline and it is likely that some will eventually be approved. With recent advances in gene therapies targeting p53, a gene whose somatic cell mutations have been implicated in over 50% of human cancers, 3 cancer treatments through gene therapies could become much more widespread once they reach the commercial market.

Bringing any new therapy to market poses ethical questions that pit the expected benefits against the risks. How quickly should new therapies be brought to the market? How can we ensure that new therapies have been sufficiently tested for safety and effectiveness before they are marketed to the public? The process by which new therapies are developed and approved complicates such questions, as those involved in the approval process are often under significant pressure to get a new therapy approved even in the face of significant risks.

To receive FDA approval for a new therapy, researchers must collect significant laboratory data from animal trials and submit an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Following a 30-day waiting period during which the FDA reviews the IND, clinical trials involving human subjects may begin. If the FDA perceives a problem prior to or during the clinical trial, the FDA can order a “clinical hold” until any problems are addressed. During clinical trials, researchers collect and analyze data on the therapy’s effectiveness and safety, including any side effects observed. Once the therapy meets FDA standards for effectiveness and safety, the developers can submit a New Drug Application (NDA) that details how the therapy will be manufactured, packaged, monitored, and administered.

Because new gene therapies are frequently the result of many years (even decades) of laboratory and clinical research, they require a significant financial investment. By the time a therapy has reached the clinical trials stage, the financial stakes are high for pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders. This creates potential conflicts of interest that can sometimes affect the objective judgment of researchers, their funders, and even trial participants. The Jesse Gelsinger case (see Case in Point: Gene Therapy Gone Wrong ) is a classic example. Faced with a life-threatening disease and no reasonable treatments available, it is easy to see why a patient might be eager to participate in a clinical trial no matter the risks. It is also easy to see how a researcher might view the short-term risks for a small group of study participants as a small price to pay for the potential benefits of a game-changing new treatment.

Gelsinger’s death led to increased scrutiny of gene therapy, and subsequent negative outcomes of gene therapy have resulted in the temporary halting of clinical trials pending further investigation. For example, when children in France treated with gene therapy for SCID began to develop leukemia several years after treatment, the FDA temporarily stopped clinical trials of similar types of gene therapy occurring in the United States. 4 Cases like these highlight the need for researchers and health professionals not only to value human well-being and patients’ rights over profitability, but also to maintain scientific objectivity when evaluating the risks and benefits of new therapies.

Exercise $\PageIndex{3}$

Why is gene therapy research so tightly regulated?
What is the main ethical concern associated with germ-line gene therapy?

Key Concepts and Summary

While gene therapy shows great promise for the treatment of genetic diseases, there are also significant risks involved.
There is considerable federal and local regulation of the development of gene therapies by pharmaceutical companies for use in humans.
Before gene therapy use can increase dramatically, there are many ethical issues that need to be addressed by the medical and research communities, politicians, and society at large.
1 Barbara Sibbald. “Death but One Unintended Consequence of Gene-Therapy Trial.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 164 no. 11 (2001): 1612–1612.
2 Kerry Grens. “Report: Ease Gene Therapy Reviews.” The Scientist , December 9, 2013. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...erapy-Reviews/ . Accessed May 27, 2016.
3 Zhen Wang and Yi Sun. “Targeting p53 for Novel Anticancer Therapy.” Translational Oncology 3 , no. 1 (2010): 1–12.
4 Erika Check. “Gene Therapy: A Tragic Setback.” Nature 420 no. 6912 (2002): 116–118.

Animal Profiles
Amazing Places
Conservation
Endangered & Threatened Species
Global Warming & Climate Change
Food & Nutrition
Home & Garden

Earth Matters

Exploring the Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is the process of altering the genetic composition of plants, animals, and humans. The most practical application of genetic engineering is to create a more sustainable food system for the people of Earth, but there are other ways we can use it to our advantage as well.

Unfortunately, there are both pros and cons of genetic engineering. For every benefit, there is a list of concerns and potential problems we need to consider. There is a substantive argument on both sides of genetic engineering, and we’ll explore both ahead.

Positives of Genetic Engineering

Most people tend to focus on the negatives of genetic engineering, but there are some substantial positive we need to consider as well. Genetic engineering is a debate, and there are some good points on each side. You have to look at both the pros and cons of genetic engineering if you want to make an informed decision on the matter.

Extending Our Lives

Evolution takes thousands of years to adapt to our surroundings , but genetic engineering offers a quicker path forward. With the assistance of genetic engineering, we could force our bodies to adapt to the changing climate of our planet.

Additionally, we could tack-on some extra years to our lives by altering our cells, so our bodies don’t deteriorate as quickly as they currently do. The fountain of youth might be within our reach, and many look forward to advancements in the area of genetic engineering.

If we choose to go down this path, we’ll feel better as we age and be able to outlast some of the diseases that currently take us down. We still won’t be able to live forever, but genetic engineering shows promise in extending the prime of our lives.

Create New and Better Food

genetic engineering and its dangers essay

Food shortage is a massive problem in the world, especially with the growing population. We’re destroying natural habitats to make way for farmland, and overgrazing is causing current pastures to become dry and uninhabited.

The answer to this problem could come in the form of genetic engineering. If we can alter the composition of vegetables and animals, we can create new foods that might have more nutritional value than nature creates on its own.

We might even be able to advance to a point where foods give us medicines we need to combat widespread viruses and illnesses. Food is one of the most promising spaces when considering the prospect of genetic engineering.

Killing Hereditary Diseases

A lot of diseases depend on genetic predisposition. Some people are more likely to get cancer, Alzheimer’s and other diseases than their neighbor. With genetic engineering, we can get rid of these genetic predispositions once and for all.

There will likely still be some environmental concerns that will cause diseases, but if we start altering the genes of humans, we may become resistant to genetic abnormalities. Family history won’t mean anything when it comes to things like cancer, and we can start eliminating diseases that are completely based on genetics.

Making Every Child Healthy

There are already a handful of diseases and illnesses we can detect while a baby is still in the womb. We even can genetically engineer some diseases and illnesses out of a baby’s system before they’re born.

Finding out your baby has a disease can be devastating, and some parents make the difficult choice to spare their child possible pain. If you know that your baby might suffer and die a few months after they’re born, you have to decide whether or not you want to roll the dice.

In the future, we might be able to eliminate the chances of unhealthy babies. Diseases like Huntington’s offer a substantial chance that the carrier will pass it onto their child. If the child isn’t positive for the disease, they’ll still be a carrier and have to deal with the same dilemma when it comes time to have kids of their own.

Genetic engineering has the potential to stop these threats in their tracks. Parents won’t have to worry about birthing a healthy son or daughter. Science will guarantee that every baby is happy and healthy when they come into this world.

Negatives of Genetic Engineering

Of course, genetic engineering isn’t entirely positive. There is an upside to the ability to genetically alter humans and animals , but only in ideal situations.

Our world isn’t perfect, and scientists make mistakes all the time. We can’t assume that genetic engineering will be available to the entirety of the human population, which is a flaw in itself.

The negatives of genetic engineering seem to outweigh the positives, especially since there is so much room for error. We don’t know what we’re tampering with, which opens the door to a host of potential problems.

The Ethical Dilemma

There are a couple of ethical problems with genetic engineering that we need to consider as a society. Those who subscribe to religion will see genetic engineering as blasphemy, for instance. We’d be “playing God,” in a sense. Anyone who believes in creation will be expressly against genetic engineering – especially in human children.

Those who are on the opposite side of the spectrum from religious people probably won’t love genetic engineering either. Genetically engineered food might work, but changing the genes of people will add to the overpopulation problem we’re currently experiencing.

Diseases are one of the most effective forms of population control . We don’t have the heart to eliminate other humans in the name of population control, so disease does it for us. If we eliminate diseases, humans will have virtually no threat left on this planet.

Living longer lives might be ideal, but it isn’t practical. If we extend the prime of our lives, we’re opening the door to having more children. Since all children would be in perfect health, we’ll see a population increase that could have devastating consequences.

Limiting Diversity

If genetic engineering becomes a reality, it will likely only be available to the richest members of society. They’ll be able to extend their lives, limit diseases, and make sure their children are always healthy when they’re born

When this happens, natural selection is completely obsolete. Instead, the wealthiest in society will thrive while the poor will die-out. Eventually, genetic diversity will completely disappear as genetically engineered children all express the most desirable characteristics

This problem also arises in nature if we decide to engineer plants and animals genetically. These organisms might start as food, but could introduce themselves to the wild and take over. They’ll decimate natural species, and eventually be the only thing left.

The Possibility of Mistakes

One of the biggest hurdles in genetic engineering is the possibility of errors or genetic defects, especially in humans. Scientists have a general understanding of what creates a functioning human, but they don’t yet have all the pieces to the puzzle.

When it comes down to changing humans at a cellular level , scientists don’t yet have the understanding of how small changes can affect the development of a growing baby. Changing genes could result in more damaging birth defects or even miscarriages.

Furthermore, tampering with diseases could end up creating a super-disease that is even harder to combat. There are too many variables in the human body for genetic engineering to work to the fullest potential. Even if it could, people will probably be too nervous to trust scientists tampering with the cells of their future children.

The Logical Extreme

Science still isn’t at a point where they can alter the genes of humans to prevent all diseases in unborn children, but it might be there soon. When that time comes, some might take genetic engineering to its logical extreme.

Our priority will be to create healthy children. Once we perfect this process, though, where to, we go? The next logical step is the ability to pick certain traits that our children will have. We might be able to select whether we have a boy or girl. Then, we can decide what eye color and hair color they have.

Pretty soon, we’re selecting every trait that our child has before they leave the womb. Nature will be virtually out of the question at this point, and people with enough money will design their babies from scratch.

Is Genetic Engineering Good or Bad?

Since the pros and cons of genetic engineering are compelling, it’s worth it to explore the possibility further. We still haven’t reached a place where scientists fully understand the opportunities genetic engineering presents, so they still have years of research on their hands.

In the end, though, no system of genetically altering humans, animals, or plants will be perfect. There is a massive potential for errors, and we likely won’t have equal opportunities if and when scientists ever crack the case.

Although the positives of genetic engineering are convincing, the negatives can be terrifying. If we ever get to the point where we can genetically alter humans, we need to consider the moral, ethical, and practical application of technology before going any further.

How Can Resource Conservation Benefit the Environment? 18 Helpful Components of Practice

10 Animals That Hibernate

What Is Point Source Pollution: Identifying the Culprit

Ethical Considerations in Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering stands at the forefront of scientific innovation, offering transformative possibilities for our world. By pushing the boundaries of molecular biology, scientists demonstrate the capacity to manipulate the genetic code of organisms, including plants, animals, and humans. The recent advancements in CRISPR/Cas genome editing tools elevate precision ( Cong et al., 2013 ; Chen et al., 2019 ) , opening new avenues to combat diseases, hunger, and malnutrition. However, beneath the surface of these promising developments lies a complex ethical dilemma, prompting us to question the appropriateness of exercising such power—raising concerns akin to playing God.

Early Success in Plant Genetic Engineering

Human history is replete with instances of genetic modification through traditional breeding, where beneficial traits were selectively enhanced over generations. Genetic engineering, specifically with genetically modified (GM) crops, represents a more targeted and expedited approach. The first generation of GM crops, resistant to weed killers, emerged in the 1990s, fostering increased crop yields ( Duke and Powles, 2008 ) . Another group of GM crops incorporates genes from Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt ) ( Bates et al., 2005 ) , providing resistance to specific insect pests without harm to humans. Success stories include crops like soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, potatoes, tomatoes, and rice, as well as transgenic papaya and eggplant, which have addressed agricultural challenges in various regions.

Innovations and Controversies

To prevent unwanted gene flow, terminator seeds (or Genetic Use Restriction Technology – GURT) were introduced, producing sterile plants but necessitating annual seed repurchase ( Lombardo, 2014 ) . These seeds generate sterile plants, reducing the risk of unintended cross-pollination and the spread of modified genes. However, this innovation comes with the trade-off of necessitating annual seed repurchase, a practice that has sparked debates regarding agricultural sustainability and farmers’ autonomy. Despite their benefits, controversies surrounding GM crops persist. The dominance of herbicide-resistant crops, especially to glyphosate, raises concerns about the concentration of power in the seed and pesticide industries. Critics argue that world hunger is not solely due to a lack of global food production but rather to issues of accessibility and uneven distribution. Modern agricultural practices, unfortunately, do not address the real problem but instead exacerbate issues of inequality. Understanding genetic engineering entails not just appreciating breakthroughs but also closely analyzing their wider ramifications and the intricate web of controversies that surround them. Fostering a responsible and ethical approach to the advancement of plant genetic engineering requires an understanding of these complex interactions.

Challenges and Unknowns

The widespread adoption of GM crops prompts additional questions about potential risks, such as direct health effects, allergic reactions, transgene stability, and unintended impacts on non-targeted organisms. Rigorous safety assessments precede commercialization, yet incidents of allergic reactions and outcrossing underscore public apprehension ( Bakshi, 2003 ; Qiu, 2013 ) . Striking a balance between economic gains and ethical considerations remains a persistent challenge that might take the following into consideration:

To what extent have GM crops effectively alleviated world hunger thus far?
Does the adoption of GM crops genuinely lead to a reduction in pesticide usage?
Can GM crops effectively address multiple nutrient deficiencies, even though they are typically engineered to enrich a single nutrient?
Do farmers derive benefits, or is it primarily advantageous for seed companies?
What measures can be taken to minimize potential health risks associated with GM crops?
Developing a deeper understanding and appreciation of nature.
Enhancing the conservation of the environment and the ecosystem.
Ensuring the disclosure of information and protecting consumers’ rights.
Examining issues of inequality arising from monopolies.
Evaluating conflicts of interest between public research and private enterprise.
Considering the social and financial effects on small-scale farmers in developing countries that have limited access to GM technology.
Assessing the long-term impacts of GM crops on symbiotic relationships, microbial communities, and soil health.
Focusing on control and ownership of plant genetic resources.
Evaluating the possible effects of genetically modified crops on traditional and native farming methods, conserving crop varieties and knowledge that hold cultural significance.

Perspectives on Genetic Engineering

Despite drawbacks and ethical concerns, genetic engineering holds vast economic potential and the promise of improving human life. The pivotal question centers on our readiness—both within the scientific community and the public. Adequate understanding and control of the subject matter are imperative to minimize the risk of irreversible harm to the environment and human health. Transparent communication is essential to dispel public fears and foster broader acceptance of genetically modified organisms. Only through a comprehensive grasp of technology can the power of genetic engineering be harnessed for real-life benefits, paving the way for responsible and ethical innovation in the field.

References:

Bakshi A. 2003. Potential adverse health effects of genetically modified crops. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 6, 211-225.
Bates SL, Zhao JZ, Roush RT, Shelton AM. 2005. Insect resistance management in GM crops: Past, present and future. Nature Biotechnology 23, 57-62.
Chen K, Wang Y, Zhang R, Zhang H, Gao C. 2019. CRISPR/Cas Genome Editing and Precision Plant Breeding in Agriculture. Annual Review of Plant Biology 70, 667-697.
Cong L, Ran FA, Cox D, Lin S, Barretto R, Habib N, Hsu PD, Wu X, Jiang W, Marraffini LA, Zhang F. 2013. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819-823.
Duke SO, Powles SB. 2008. Glyphosate: A once-in-a-century herbicide. In Pest Management Science, pp. 319-325.
Lombardo L. 2014. Genetic use restriction technologies: a review. Plant Biotechnol Journal 12, 995-1005.
Qiu J. 2013. Genetically modified crops pass benefits to weeds. Nature

______________________________________________

About the Authors

Muhammad Aamir Khan is a 2024 Plantae Fellow , and is on a quest to create a healthier and more sustainable future. You will often find him exploring the realm of plant genetics and cereal mysteries. You can find him on X: @MAKNature1998 .

Ching Chan is a 2024 Plantae Fellow . Ching’s group is broadly interested in plant-microbe interactions under different environmental conditions and the application of this knowledge to crop improvement. You can find him on X: @ntnuchanlab .

Manage your Membership
Join an ASPB Section
Visit our Store
Sponsorship & Advertising
Make a Donation
Read the Plant Science Today Blog

Member Services

(301) 251-0560

Awards & Funding

Apply for Grants & Travel Awards

Meetings & Events

Meeting Management Services
Plant Synthetic Biology 2021
Plant Biology Meeting

Publications & News

ASPB Journals
Read The Plant Cell Blog
Read the Plant Physiology Blog
Submit an Article
Read the ASPB News
Get News & Updates
Check out The Signal

About Plantae

Join Plantae
Subscribe to the Plant Science Research Weekly
Search for Careers & Internships
Listen to Plantae Podcasts
Submit your Science Event to our Calendar
*All Plantae content is licensed under a Creative Commons A-NC 2.0 License

20 Genetic Engineering Pros and Cons for the Biotechnology Era

Genetic engineering is part of the brave new world of biotechnology, but is changing the genes of living things the right thing to do?

Green Coast is supported by its readers. We may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you if you buy through a link on this page . Learn more .

As the third decade of the twenty-first century rolls on, advancements in genetic engineering, a leading area of biotechnology, continue to gain momentum. Humans are now capable of making applied and consistently transmitted changes to the genetic composition of living things, with impacts on organisms and our environment that are already being felt.

Genetic engineering certainly offers a lot of promise, but many people are concerned that it may harbor devastating consequences that humanity has not yet comprehended. In this article, we’ll take a closer look at the genetic engineering pros and cons, to help you evaluate if it is truly a good thing.

What is genetic engineering?

The National Human Genome Institute defines genetic engineering as a process that uses laboratory-based technologies to change or manipulate the packaged DNA (genes) of an organism. Genetic engineering uses invasive techniques to change the genetic makeup of cells.

By moving genes within and across species boundaries, scientists can obtain their desired observable traits in the host organism’s phenotype. This video from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) explains the basics:

Scientists manipulate and modify sequences of DNA by removing them from organisms. They can also artificially synthesize RNA and complementary DNA strands using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Organisms can also be genetically modified (GM) through the removal of specific gene sequences, carried out using DNA-cutting enzymes known as restriction endonucleases.

Novel gene sequences can then be inserted or spliced into the DNA of a host organism. This is called recombinant technology. These genes encode instructions for the production of particular protein products. The host organism transcribes and translates the gene, leading to the production of the gene products with novel effects on the modified organism (gene expression).

What is a genetically modified organism?

A genetically modified organism or GMO is an organism that has undergone genetic engineering and is permanently different from the original wild-type or natural organism. This is because the genetic sequences added or removed change gene expression and protein production in the GMO organism leading to:

An altered physical appearance
The production of a specific substance, that may have positive or negative effects
Increased resistance to a specific disease
The eradication of specific genetic conditions in the organism or its offspring

organic and GMO tomatoes on a wooden table

A brief history of genetic engineering

The geneticists Stanley N. Cohen and Herbert W. Boyer were the first scientists to cut up DNA into fragments and insert gene sequences into an organism. In 1973 they successfully added new genes to the plasmid of E. Coli bacteria. A year later, Rudolf Jaenisch inserted foreign DNA into the genome of a mouse, creating the first GM animal.

By the end of the 1970s, the recombinant technology used by these scientists had already become commercialized with the production of human insulin by GM bacteria in 1982. Genetic engineering expanded to food crops and livestock, with GM food introduced to consumers in the 1990s. The Flavr Savr, a GM tomato introduced in 1994 was developed to have a longer shelf-life and by the early 21st century almost all the corn produced in the US was GM, with strained developed to be more resistant to drought and pests.

Genetic engineering technologies and techniques

Genetic engineering now uses several techniques to change the genes of living organisms. The methods vary in sophistication, cost, and application and certain jurisdictions may restrict their use. Here are some leading genetic engineering technologies:

Recombination technology : This is the original form of genetic engineering that uses restriction enzymes that can cut sequences of DNA that are then inserted into the host organism’s genome.
Zinc finger nucleases : This gene editing technology uses a special nuclease enzyme fused with a three base pair DNA-binding domains for more precise DNA binding site recognition when editing genes.
CRISPR-Cas9 : Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats or CRISPR- based genome editing is one of the most advanced forms of genetic engineering. It adapts a technique used by bacteria to evade genetic damage from viruses. CRISPR has become widespread because of its accessibility, low cost, and precision. It is thought to have been used in some extremely controversial experiments including gain-of-function virology research, and the gene editing of embryos.
Base editing : This simpler gene editing technique makes single base substitutions without inducing risky double-stranded breaks in the genome. Double-strand breaks are a serious form of DNA damage that can lead to the deletion of genes, cell death, or the development of cancer. Base editing offers the promise of curing genetic diseases caused by errors in a single base in the DNA (single nucleotide polymorphisms).
Prime editing: This contemporary form of gene editing uses an enzyme that can create single-strand breaks in DNA (Cas9 nickase) along with a complex (pegRNA) that acts as a template for the reverse transaction attachment of the desired bases to the site where the DNA has been broken. This avoids double-strand breaks and is considered safer for human therapeutic uses.

Genetic engineering applications

Because all living things have DNA the applications and implications of genetic engineering are understandably vast. The rapid standardization and commercialization of genetic engineering techniques have enabled companies to develop applications in diverse sectors spanning agriculture, healthcare, environmental conservation, and industry, without any public consultation or consent.

Key applications of genetic engineering include:

The study of gene expression and function using experiments to add or delete gene sequences and portions.
The development of pharmaceutical products like antibiotics, hormones, and antibodies using GMOs.
The creation of disease, pest, and drought-hardy crops.
The production of potent enzymes for industrial detergents, cheese production, and fermentation.

Pros of genetic engineering

Genetic engineering is a key driver of the biotechnology sector which advocates that altering the expression of genes can be targeted, controlled, and beneficial to life on Earth. Here are some benefits of genetic engineering:

1. A greater understanding of how DNA and genes work

Genetic engineering evolved from the study of DNA, and experiments were undertaken to understand how genes work. Once eminent scientists like Watson and Crick and Rosalind Franklin had established the molecular structure of DNA in the 1950s, work began in earnest to understand its function.

The Discovery of the four key classes of enzymes that acted on DNA, helicase, primase, DNA polymerase, and ligase, equipped scientists with tools to work with DNA, cutting and splicing it in specific places. This experimentation with DNA and its effects on gene expression underpin genetic engineering and has continued to expand the field of genetics.

2. The production of medicines

Biotechnology is already an integral part of healthcare and genetic engineering is used to produce medicines for many common conditions. Medicines that are produced by genetic engineering are either:

Biological medicines that a GMO has produced.
GMOs that are used as medicinal agents.

Essential medicines that are derived from GMOs or are GM products include:

Immunoglobulins
Monoclonal antibodies
Hormones including insulin and growth hormone
Pancreatic enzymes

Genetic engineering has made it possible to produce these humanized biological agents at scale so that patients can access them when needed. For example, recombinant insulin is now the main type of insulin used by Type I diabetics rather than the animal-derived insulins that were originally used to treat this condition.

3. A promise of cures for genetic diseases

The manipulation and editing of gene sequences using genetic engineering technologies offer an as-yet-unrealized promise of curing genetic diseases. Point mutation diseases such as sickle cell disease and hemophilia A and B, caused by errors in a single or a limited number of nucleotides in a gene sequence could be frankly cured by having the genetic error corrected.

This type of genetic engineering is gene therapy. Though gene therapy has captured the public imagination, offering hope for cures for devastating genetic diseases, this area of science is not adequately advanced to treat patients in a consistent, reliable, or safe manner.

4. Development of more productive and resilient crops

Genetic engineering is considered a key area of innovation in agriculture. After millennia of painstaking cross-pollination and plant breeding, genetic engineering can achieve dramatic changes in the characteristics and performance of crops almost instantly.

Genetic engineering has been used to develop crops with novel gene insertions that confer protection against pests and diseases or raise the crop’s tolerance to pesticide use. GM crops achieve their enhanced resilience by producing protein products that have these beneficial effects, like plants that express proteins known to inhibit pests.

New breeding techniques (NBT) routinely use genetic engineering alongside conventional breeding to produce crops that are more resilient and productive. Examples of genetically engineered crops include non-browning potatoes, mushrooms, and apples, soybeans with an improved oil profile, and flavor-enhanced fruit and vegetables.

5. Enhanced livestock breeds

Genetic engineering has also extended to livestock, with modern techniques like CRISPR used on pre-implantation embryos to alter specific traits and characteristics. Scientists implant the gene-edited embryos in the womb of a surrogate animal to gestate, producing a generation of transgenic animals with an altered genetic profile.

The gene editing of animals is understandably controversial and governments restrict the use of these animals as food in many parts of the world. Advocates for transgenic livestock point to the enhancements that can be achieved, which can improve livestock health, fertility, resilience, and the nutritional content of meat.

6. The creation of new commercial sectors

Genetic engineering has been integral to developing biotechnology as an industry worth over $1 trillion globally. Genetic engineering has gained significant commercial traction because various industries can apply it to increase their productivity and generate revenue.

Even industries where genetic engineering may not seem relevant may demand the complex biological substances that genetic engineering can produce. For example, genetic engineering is being used to develop enzymes and microbiological organisms that can digest oil spills .

The commercial sector is a key driver of innovation in genetic engineering technologies, but governments are also funding and investing in genetic engineering technologies that can provide solutions to health problems, food security, and environmental challenges.

7. Reduced resource consumption

Genetic engineering may develop crops and livestock breeds that demand less water, fertilizer, and feed. Healthier livestock requires less medicine and adding hardiness traits may mean that farmers can rear them in challenging environments that would normally be more resource and labor-intensive.

Enhancing crop yields and animal productivity also means that the resources used for cultivation go further, leading to cost savings for farmers. Consumers benefit from lower prices and foods that may have a longer shelf-life.

8. Eradicating diseases

Genetic engineering is currently being used to develop solutions for eradicating serious parasite-borne diseases like malaria . In sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America, malaria is a significant health and economic burden, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths annually.

Genetic engineering that targets mosquitos and the plasmodium parasite that causes malaria could lead to the eradication of this devastating disease. Oxitec, a British company, has already released male GM mosquitoes that carry an inserted gene that encodes a protein which is fatal to their female offspring.

Cons of genetic engineering

Genetic engineering shows a lot of promise, but at what cost should humanity seek to realize its potential? Interference with genes has implications for every living thing on Earth, yet the knowledge and control of these technologies are in the hands of a tiny number of people.

Here are the important downsides of genetic engineering that everyone should know about:

1. The science of genetics is not settled

Genetics is an incredibly expansive area of biology, but it’s important to know that scientists do not fully understand how genes work. Geneticists are continually working in disparate niche areas of this field to contribute to the body of knowledge in this area and regularly publish discoveries that challenge the mainstream understanding of genetics.

Consider this; until recently scientists believed that 99 percent of DNA, which did not code for proteins, was junk. They focused most of the field of genetic engineering on just 1 percent of the total amount of DNA in a cell.

But errors in non-coding DNA have now been implicated in the development of cancers like leukemia and the emerging field of epigenetics has also challenged conventional thinking on the nature and purpose of DNA.

2. Some claims of genetic engineering may be overstated

The promise of genetics as a solution to food shortages and diseases has captured the public imagination. However, the realization of these promises may take many years to achieve, and in some cases, may not be fulfilled at all.

Genetic engineering is still extremely experimental, and for every success reported, there are thousands of failed experiments in the lab. Geneticists work with cells, tissues, enzymes, and proteins that may not always behave as predicted. This means that it can take decades to develop genetic engineering techniques that produce consistent and reliable results.

3. The long-term effects of genetic engineering are unknown

Because genetics is an evolving field, it is impossible to know the long-term effects of gene editing on species, individuals, populations, and the wider environment. This is particularly important for GM crops which may produce harmful protein products that harm wildlife and even accumulate in human tissues causing health problems.

The introduction of GM species into ecosystems may also add novel selection pressure to the environment. GM crop species have out-competed their wild-type equivalents , or transferred their genes to them via hybridization, leading to a loss of biodiversity.

4. Genetic engineering is expensive

Genetic engineering is extremely expensive because of its experimental nature. Gene editing uses some of the world’s most expensive laboratory equipment , reagents, and technical expertise. Genetic engineering routinely takes years of investment before scientists develop commercially viable and safe applications.

This is one of the key limitations of even the most promising gene therapies. Even when a technique is found to work on patients, the costs are so high that few people can access them. Running clinical trials is also very expensive meaning many gene therapies do not obtain the funding to be developed properly.

5. Genetic engineering can lead to unregulated gene expression

Genetic engineering has mastered the technique of inserting a transgene into a host species’ genome, but regulation of the expression of the gene is much more sophisticated. This means that the transgenic organism may over or under-produce the protein product of the inserted gene.

Under-expression of an inserted gene may mean that scientists don’t achieve the desired effect of genetic modification, while over-expression may be harmful to the GMO and animals or people that consume it. In transgenic swine , overexpression of an inserted growth hormone gene resulted in an enlargement of the heart, arthritis, abnormal skeletal growth, and renal disease.

6. Genetic engineering can introduce insertional mutations

By breaking and annealing the ends of DNA with new gene frequencies, geneticists can introduce errors and mutations in DNA that produce disease in the host organism. Insertional mutations may affect the genes that control essential biological processes producing metabolic diseases and cancers.

Worse still, these mutations may be transmissible to subsequent generations, creating new diseases that could be introduced to wild-type organisms through hybridization or mating.

7. Transgene mosaicism or sex linkage may mean that not all offspring carry an inserted gene

Some gene-editing processes are failures, because the GMO does not transmit the inserted gene to all of its offspring.

This is usually because of mosaicism, where only some cells of the organism carry the inserted gene, making its expression inconsistent. Alternatively, in animals or humans, the inserted gene may become sex-chromosome linked (Y-chromosome) so that only males carry the transgene.

8. Genetic engineering requires time and resource-consuming planning to be successful

Genetic engineering projects have to be carefully designed and constructed to achieve the successful insertion of a genetic sequence into a host organism. The high failure rate of these experiments is often because of errors in the inserted gene or its integration site.

Scientists therefore repeatedly model and test the transgene and its insertion site, which can use significant resources and may risk the health and welfare of host organisms.

9. Rogue agents could use genetic engineering for biological warfare or terrorism

Genetic engineering is already being used for controversial ‘gain-of-function’ research, where the genomes of bacteria and viruses are edited to increase their transmissibility or virulence. This research has been taking place in academic settings with the purported objective of investigating pathogens to prevent them from starting pandemics.

Genetic engineering is largely unregulated, with restrictions on access to this technology varying widely between countries. It is not inconceivable that rogue states or nefarious organizations could procure the equipment and expertise to develop bacteria, viruses, or parasites that could infect targeted populations.

10. Genetic engineering could be used for eugenics

Eugenics is an ideology that believes that human reproduction can be controlled to produce populations with pre-determined desirable traits and eliminate individuals with undesirable characteristics. It is a form of scientific racism and has been associated with atrocities and genocides throughout history.

Many advocates of genetic engineering of human beings, point to its potential to ‘improve’ the human race by eradicating genetic abnormalities and introducing desirable traits. Unfortunately, small but powerful groups with little accountability to the wider population may decide what desirable or undesirable hereditable traits are, irrespective of the implications of this course of action.

In the wrong hands, genetic engineering could pursue a eugenics agenda, focused on specific racial groups or populations of people.

11. Genetic engineering enables genes and organisms to be copyrighted

Genetic engineering is a new and fast-evolving area of science and the ethical and legal frameworks that surround it are relatively immature. A key example of this is‌ the patenting of genes and organisms developed through genetic engineering, with companies enforcing ownership of seeds and animal breeds they have developed.

In many jurisdictions, alteration of the genome of an organism makes it a patented product and subject to copyright law. In India, this has been a hotly contested issue, with Monsanto recently winning a Supreme Court case regarding the patents of its GMO cotton seeds.

a person planting corn seeds into the soil

12. Significant ethical, cultural, and religious concerns surround the use of genetic engineering

Despite its advances and benefits, genetic engineering continues to face deep public antipathy. Many people believe that interfering with genes that are passed from generation to generation is taboo. Even with comprehension of the science and its benefits, they believe that altering living things at a genetic level will harm them.

Religious groups who believe that God created the Earth, perceive generic engineering as a defilement of the Creator’s intelligent design.

With few consistent legal or regulatory boundaries for genetic engineering, ethicists join them in the concern that most people have no say over introducing GMOs into the environment and the genetic engineering of human beings.

In conclusion

As you can see the pros and cons of genetic engineering are a weighty matter, certainly worthy of further investigation. This issue is not only about science but touches on human, animal, and environmental health and welfare ongoing. This means that the evaluation of the societal benefit of genetic engineering should be rigorous with high ethical standards and stringent regulation.

Articles you might also like

Depletion of Natural Resources: 11 Natural Resources That Show the Scale of the Problem

Waste Incineration Pros and Cons: is It a Good Idea?

Ocean Acidification: Solutions for the Most Serious Problem in Our Seas

The Most Effective Natural Bee Repellent

Carbon Cycle Steps: What is the Carbon Cycle and How Does It Work

What Are the Causes and Effects of Land Pollution and How Can We Prevent It?

The Top Environmental Issues in Japan and What They’re Doing to Address Them

5 of the Critical Water Scarcity Solutions Addressing the Water Crisis

35 Ways to Reduce Air Pollution and Boost Air Quality for All

What is Groundwater Pollution, and How Can it be Prevented?

Causes and Effects of Soil Degradation, Plus How to Protect Our Precious Earth

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
v.52(5); 2011 May

Genetic engineering of animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns

The genetic engineering of animals has increased significantly in recent years, and the use of this technology brings with it ethical issues, some of which relate to animal welfare — defined by the World Organisation for Animal Health as “the state of the animal…how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives” ( 1 ). These issues need to be considered by all stakeholders, including veterinarians, to ensure that all parties are aware of the ethical issues at stake and can make a valid contribution to the current debate regarding the creation and use of genetically engineered animals. In addition, it is important to try to reflect societal values within scientific practice and emerging technology, especially publicly funded efforts that aim to provide societal benefits, but that may be deemed ethically contentious. As a result of the extra challenges that genetically engineered animals bring, governing bodies have started to develop relevant policies, often calling for increased vigilance and monitoring of potential animal welfare impacts ( 2 ). Veterinarians can play an important role in carrying out such monitoring, especially in the research setting when new genetically engineered animal strains are being developed.

Several terms are used to describe genetically engineered animals: genetically modified, genetically altered, genetically manipulated, transgenic, and biotechnology-derived, amongst others. In the early stages of genetic engineering, the primary technology used was transgenesis, literally meaning the transfer of genetic material from one organism to another. However, with advances in the field, new technology emerged that did not necessarily require transgenesis: recent applications allow for the creation of genetically engineered animals via the deletion of genes, or the manipulation of genes already present. To reflect this progress and to include those animals that are not strictly transgenic, the umbrella term “genetically engineered” has been adopted into the guidelines developed by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC). For clarity, in the new CCAC guidelines on: genetically-engineered animals used in science (currently in preparation) the CCAC offers the following definition of a genetically engineered animal: “an animal that has had a change in its nuclear or mitochondrial DNA (addition, deletion, or substitution of some part of the animal’s genetic material or insertion of foreign DNA) achieved through a deliberate human technological intervention.” Those animals that have undergone induced mutations (for example, by chemicals or radiation — as distinct from spontaneous mutations that naturally occur in populations) and cloned animals are also considered to be genetically engineered due to the direct intervention and planning involved in creation of these animals.

Cloning is the replication of certain cell types from a “parent” cell, or the replication of a certain part of the cell or DNA to propagate a particular desirable genetic trait. There are 3 types of cloning: DNA cloning, therapeutic cloning, and reproductive cloning ( 3 ). For the purposes of this paper, the term “cloning” is used to refer to reproductive cloning, as this is the most likely to lead to animal welfare issues. Reproductive cloning is used if the intention is to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently, or previously existing animal. The process used to generate this type of cloned animal is called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) ( 4 ).

During the development of the CCAC guidelines on: genetically- engineered animals used in science, some key ethical issues, including animal welfare concerns, were identified: 1) invasiveness of procedures; 2) large numbers of animals required; 3) unanticipated welfare concerns; and 4) how to establish ethical limits to genetic engineering (see Ethical issues of genetic engineering). The different applications of genetically engineered animals are presented first to provide context for the discussion.

Current context of genetically engineered animals

Genetic engineering technology has numerous applications involving companion, wild, and farm animals, and animal models used in scientific research. The majority of genetically engineered animals are still in the research phase, rather than actually in use for their intended applications, or commercially available.

Companion animals

By inserting genes from sea anemone and jellyfish, zebrafish have been genetically engineered to express fluorescent proteins — hence the commonly termed “GloFish.” GloFish began to be marketed in the United States in 2003 as ornamental pet fish; however, their sale sparked controversial ethical debates in California — the only US state to prohibit the sale of GloFish as pets ( 5 ). In addition to the insertion of foreign genes, gene knock-out techniques are also being used to create designer companion animals. For example, in the creation of hypoallergenic cats some companies use genetic engineering techniques to remove the gene that codes for the major cat allergen Fel d1: ( http://www.felixpets.com/technology.html ).

Companion species have also been derived by cloning. The first cloned cat, “CC,” was created in 2002 ( 6 ). At the time, the ability to clone mammals was a coveted prize, and after just a few years scientists created the first cloned dog, “Snuppy” ( 7 ).

With the exception of a couple of isolated cases, the genetically engineered pet industry is yet to move forward. However, it remains feasible that genetically engineered pets could become part of day-to-day life for practicing veterinarians, and there is evidence that clients have started to enquire about genetic engineering services, in particular the cloning of deceased pets ( 5 ).

Wild animals

The primary application of genetic engineering to wild species involves cloning. This technology could be applied to either extinct or endangered species; for example, there have been plans to clone the extinct thylacine and the woolly mammoth ( 5 ). Holt et al ( 8 ) point out that, “As many conservationists are still suspicious of reproductive technologies, it is unlikely that cloning techniques would be easily accepted. Individuals involved in field conservation often harbour suspicions that hi-tech approaches, backed by high profile publicity would divert funding away from their own efforts.” However, cloning may prove to be an important tool to be used alongside other forms of assisted reproduction to help retain genetic diversity in small populations of endangered species.

Farm animals

As reviewed by Laible ( 9 ), there is “an assorted range of agricultural livestock applications [for genetic engineering] aimed at improving animal productivity; food quality and disease resistance; and environmental sustainability.” Productivity of farm animal species can be increased using genetic engineering. Examples include transgenic pigs and sheep that have been genetically altered to express higher levels of growth hormone ( 9 ).

Genetically engineered farm animals can be created to enhance food quality ( 9 ). For example, pigs have been genetically engineered to express the Δ12 fatty acid desaturase gene (from spinach) for higher levels of omega-3, and goats have been genetically engineered to express human lysozyme in their milk. Such advances may add to the nutritional value of animal-based products.

Farm species may be genetically engineered to create disease-resistant animals ( 9 ). Specific examples include conferring immunity to offspring via antibody expression in the milk of the mother; disruption of the virus entry mechanism (which is applicable to diseases such as pseudorabies); resistance to prion diseases; parasite control (especially in sheep); and mastitis resistance (particularly in cattle).

Genetic engineering has also been applied with the aim of reducing agricultural pollution. The best-known example is the Enviropig TM ; a pig that is genetically engineered to produce an enzyme that breaks down dietary phosphorus (phytase), thus limiting the amount of phosphorus released in its manure ( 9 ).

Despite resistance to the commercialization of genetically engineered animals for food production, primarily due to lack of support from the public ( 10 ), a recent debate over genetically engineered AquAdvantage TM Atlantic salmon may result in these animals being introduced into commercial production ( 11 ).

Effort has also been made to generate genetically engineered farm species such as cows, goats, and sheep that express medically important proteins in their milk. According to Dyck et al ( 12 ), “transgenic animal bioreactors represent a powerful tool to address the growing need for therapeutic recombinant proteins.” In 2006, ATryn ® became the first therapeutic protein produced by genetically engineered animals to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States. This product is used as a prophylactic treatment for patients that have hereditary antithrombin deficiency and are undergoing surgical procedures.

Research animals

Biomedical applications of genetically engineered animals are numerous, and include understanding of gene function, modeling of human disease to either understand disease mechanisms or to aid drug development, and xenotransplantation.

Through the addition, removal, or alteration of genes, scientists can pinpoint what a gene does by observing the biological systems that are affected. While some genetic alterations have no obvious effect, others may produce different phenotypes that can be used by researchers to understand the function of the affected genes. Genetic engineering has enabled the creation of human disease models that were previously unavailable. Animal models of human disease are valuable resources for understanding how and why a particular disease develops, and what can be done to halt or reverse the process. As a result, efforts have focused on developing new genetically engineered animal models of conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson’s disease, and cancer. However, as Wells ( 13 ) points out: “these [genetically engineered animal] models do not always accurately reflect the human condition, and care must be taken to understand the limitation of such models.”

The use of genetically engineered animals has also become routine within the pharmaceutical industry, for drug discovery, drug development, and risk assessment. As discussed by Rudmann and Durham ( 14 ): “Transgenic and knock out mouse models are extremely useful in drug discovery, especially when defining potential therapeutic targets for modifying immune and inflammatory responses…Specific areas for which [genetically engineered animal models] may be useful are in screening for drug induced immunotoxicity, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity, and in understanding toxicity related drug metabolizing enzyme systems.”

Perhaps the most controversial use of genetically engineered animals in science is to develop the basic research on xenotrans-plantation — that is, the transplant of cells, tissues, or whole organs from animal donors into human recipients. In relation to organ transplants, scientists have developed a genetically engineered pig with the aim of reducing rejection of pig organs by human recipients ( 15 ). This particular application of genetic engineering is currently at the basic research stage, but it shows great promise in alleviating the long waiting lists for organ transplants, as the number of people needing transplants currently far outweighs the number of donated organs. However, as a direct result of public consultation, a moratorium is currently in place preventing pig organ transplantation from entering a clinical trial phase until the public is assured that the potential disease transfer from pigs to humans can be satisfactorily managed ( 16 ). According to Health Canada, “xenotransplantation is currently not prohibited in Canada. However, the live cells and organs from animal sources are considered to be therapeutic products (drugs or medical devices)…No clinical trial involving xenotransplantation has yet been approved by Health Canada” (see http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca for details).

Ethical issues of genetic engineering

Ethical issues, including concerns for animal welfare, can arise at all stages in the generation and life span of an individual genetically engineered animal. The following sections detail some of the issues that have arisen during the peer-driven guidelines development process and associated impact analysis consultations carried out by the CCAC. The CCAC works to an accepted ethic of animal use in science, which includes the principles of the Three Rs (Reduction of animal numbers, Refinement of practices and husbandry to minimize pain and distress, and Replacement of animals with non-animal alternatives wherever possible) ( 17 ). Together the Three Rs aim to minimize any pain and distress experienced by the animals used, and as such, they are considered the principles of humane experimental technique. However, despite the steps taken to minimize pain and distress, there is evidence of public concerns that go beyond the Three Rs and animal welfare regarding the creation and use of genetically engineered animals ( 18 ).

Concerns for animal welfare

Invasiveness of procedures.

The generation of a new genetically engineered line of animals often involves the sacrifice of some animals and surgical procedures (for example, vasectomy, surgical embryo transfer) on others. These procedures are not unique to genetically engineered animals, but they are typically required for their production.

During the creation of new genetically engineered animals (particularly mammalian species) oocyte and blastocyst donor females may be induced to superovulate via intraperitoneal or subcutaneous injection of hormones; genetically engineered embryos may be surgically implanted to female recipients; males may be surgically vasectomized under general anesthesia and then used to induce pseudopregnancy in female embryo recipients; and all offspring need to be genotyped, which is typically performed by taking tissue samples, sometimes using tail biopsies or ear notching ( 19 ). However, progress is being made to refine the genetic engineering techniques that are applied to mammals (mice in particular) so that less invasive methods are feasible. For example, typical genetic engineering procedures require surgery on the recipient female so that genetically engineered embryos can be implanted and can grow to full term; however, a technique called non-surgical embryo transfer (NSET) acts in a similar way to artificial insemination, and removes the need for invasive surgery ( 20 ). Other refinements include a method referred to as “deathless transgenesis,” which involves the introduction of DNA into the sperm cells of live males and removes the need to euthanize females in order to obtain germ line transmission of a genetic alteration; and the use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for genotyping, which requires less tissue than Southern Blot Analysis ( 20 ).

Large numbers of animals required

Many of the embryos that undergo genetic engineering procedures do not survive, and of those that do survive only a small proportion (between 1% to 30%) carry the genetic alteration of interest ( 19 ). This means that large numbers of animals are produced to obtain genetically engineered animals that are of scientific value, and this contradicts efforts to minimize animal use. In addition, the advancement of genetic engineering technologies in recent years has lead to a rapid increase in the number and varieties of genetically engineered animals, particularly mice ( 21 ). Although the technology is continually being refined, current genetic engineering techniques remain relatively inefficient, with many surplus animals being exposed to harmful procedures. One key refinement and reduction effort is the preservation of genetically engineered animal lines through the freezing of embryos or sperm (cryopreservation), which is particularly important for those lines with the potential to experience pain and distress ( 22 ).

As mentioned, the number of research projects creating and/or using genetically engineered animals worldwide has increased in the past decade ( 21 ). In Canada, the CCAC’s annual data on the numbers of animals used in science show an increase in Category D procedures (procedures with the potential to cause moderate to severe pain and distress) — at present the creation of a new genetically engineered animal line is a Category D procedure ( 23 ). The data also show an increase in the use of mice ( 24 ), which are currently the most commonly used species for genetic engineering, making up over 90% of the genetically engineered animals used in research and testing ( 21 ). This rise in animal use challenges the Three Rs principle of Reduction ( 17 ). It has been reasoned that once created, the use of genetically engineered animals will reduce the total number of animals used in any given experiment by providing novel and more accurate animal models, especially in applications such as toxicity testing ( 25 ). However, the greater variety of available applications, and the large numbers of animals required for the creation and maintenance of new genetically engineered strains indicate that there is still progress to be made in implementation of the Three Rs principle of Reduction in relation to the creation and use of genetically engineered animals ( 21 ).

Unanticipated welfare concerns

Little data has been collected on the net welfare impacts to genetically engineered animals or to those animals required for their creation, and genetic engineering techniques have been described as both unpredictable and inefficient ( 19 ). The latter is due, in part, to the limitations in controlling the integration site of foreign DNA, which is inherent in some genetic engineering techniques (such as pro-nuclear microinjection). In such cases, scientists may generate several independent lines of genetically engineered animals that differ only in the integration site ( 26 ), thereby further increasing the numbers of animals involved. This conflicts with efforts to adhere to the principles of the Three Rs, specifically Reduction. With other, more refined techniques that allow greater control of DNA integration (for example, gene targeting), unexpected outcomes are attributed to the unpredictable interaction of the introduced DNA with host genes. These interactions also vary with the genetic background of the animal, as has frequently been observed in genetically engineered mice ( 27 ). Interfering with the genome by inserting or removing fragments of DNA may result in alteration of the animal’s normal genetic homeostasis, which can be manifested in the behavior and well-being of the animals in unpredictable ways. For example, many of the early transgenic livestock studies produced animals with a range of unexpected side effects including lameness, susceptibility to stress, and reduced fertility ( 9 ).

A significant limitation of current cloning technology is the prospect that cloned offspring may suffer some degree of abnormality. Studies have revealed that cloned mammals may suffer from developmental abnormalities, including extended gestation; large birth weight; inadequate placental formation; and histological effects in organs and tissues (for example, kidneys, brain, cardiovascular system, and muscle). One annotated review highlights 11 different original research articles that documented the production of cloned animals with abnormalities occurring in the developing embryo, and suffering for the newborn animal and the surrogate mother ( 28 ).

Genetically engineered animals, even those with the same gene manipulation, can exhibit a variety of phenotypes; some causing no welfare issues, and some causing negative welfare impacts. It is often difficult to predict the effects a particular genetic modification can have on an individual animal, so genetically engineered animals must be monitored closely to mitigate any unanticipated welfare concerns as they arise. For newly created genetically engineered animals, the level of monitoring needs to be greater than that for regular animals due to the lack of predictability. Once a genetically engineered animal line is established and the welfare concerns are known, it may be possible to reduce the levels of monitoring if the animals are not exhibiting a phenotype that has negative welfare impacts. To aid this monitoring process, some authors have called for the implementation of a genetically engineered animal passport that accompanies an individual animal and alerts animal care staff to the particular welfare needs of that animal ( 29 ). This passport document is also important if the intention is to breed from the genetically engineered animal in question, so the appropriate care and husbandry can be in place for the offspring.

With progress in genetic engineering techniques, new methods ( 30 , 31 ) may substantially reduce the unpredictability of the location of gene insertion. As a result, genetic engineering procedures may become less of a welfare concern over time.

Beyond animal welfare

As pointed out by Lassen et al ( 32 ), “Until recently the main limits [to genetic engineering] were technical: what it is possible to do. Now scientists are faced with ethical limits as well: what it is acceptable to do” (emphasis theirs). Questions regarding whether it is acceptable to make new transgenic animals go beyond consideration of the Three Rs, animal health, and animal welfare, and prompt the discussion of concepts such as intrinsic value, integrity, and naturalness ( 33 ).

When discussing the “nature” of an animal, it may be useful to consider the Aristotelian concept of telos, which describes the “essence and purpose of a creature” ( 34 ). Philosopher Bernard Rollin applied this concept to animal ethics as follows: “Though [ telos ] is partially metaphysical (in defining a way of looking at the world), and partially empirical (in that it can and will be deepened and refined by increasing empirical knowledge), it is at root a moral notion, both because it is morally motivated and because it contains the notion of what about an animal we ought to at least try to respect and accommodate” (emphasis Rollin’s) ( 34 ). Rollin has also argued that as long as we are careful to accommodate the animal’s interests when we alter an animal’s telos, it is morally permissible. He writes, “…given a telos, we should respect the interests which flow from it. This principle does not logically entail that we cannot modify the telos and thereby generate different or alternative interests” ( 34 ).

Views such as those put forward by Rollin have been argued against on the grounds that health and welfare (or animal interests) may not be the only things to consider when establishing ethical limits. Some authors have made the case that genetic engineering requires us to expand our existing notions of animal ethics to include concepts of the intrinsic value of animals ( 35 ), or of animal “integrity” or “dignity” ( 33 ). Veerhoog argues that, “we misuse the word telos when we say that human beings can ‘change’ the telos of an animal or create a new telos ” — that is to say animals have intrinsic value, which is separate from their value to humans. It is often on these grounds that people will argue that genetic engineering of animals is morally wrong. For example, in a case study of public opinion on issues related to genetic engineering, participants raised concerns about the “nature” of animals and how this is affected (negatively) by genetic engineering ( 18 ).

An alternative view put forward by Schicktanz ( 36 ) argues that it is the human-animal relationship that may be damaged by genetic engineering due to the increasingly imbalanced distribution of power between humans and animals. This imbalance is termed “asymmetry” and it is raised alongside “ambivalence” as a concern regarding modern human-animal relationships. By using genetically engineered animals as a case study, Schicktanz ( 36 ) argues that genetic engineering presents “a troubling shift for all human-animal relationships.”

Opinions regarding whether limits can, or should, be placed on genetic engineering are often dependent on people’s broader worldview. For some, the genetic engineering of animals may not put their moral principles at risk. For example, this could perhaps be because genetic engineering is seen as a logical continuation of selective breeding, a practice that humans have been carrying out for years; or because human life is deemed more important than animal life. So if genetic engineering creates animals that help us to develop new human medicine then, ethically speaking, we may actually have a moral obligation to create and use them; or because of an expectation that genetic engineering of animals can help reduce experimental animal numbers, thus implementing the accepted Three Rs framework.

For others, the genetic engineering of animals may put their moral principles at risk. For example costs may always be seen to outweigh benefits because the ultimate cost is the violation of species integrity and disregard for the inherent value of animals. Some may view telos as something that cannot or should not be altered, and therefore altering the telos of an animal would be morally wrong. Some may see genetic engineering as exaggerating the imbalance of power between humans and animals, whilst others may fear that the release of genetically engineered animals will upset the natural balance of the ecosystem. In addition, there may be those who feel strongly opposed to certain applications of genetic engineering, but more accepting of others. For example, recent evidence suggests that people may be more accepting of biomedical applications than those relating to food production ( 37 ).

Such underlying complexity of views regarding genetic engineering makes the setting of ethical limits difficult to achieve, or indeed, even discuss. However, progress needs to be made on this important issue, especially for those genetically engineered species that are intended for life outside the research laboratory, where there may be less careful oversight of animal welfare. Consequently, limits to genetic engineering need to be established using the full breadth of public and expert opinion. This highlights the importance for veterinarians, as animal health experts, to be involved in the discussion.

Other ethical issues

Genetic engineering also brings with it concerns over intellectual property, and patenting of created animals and/or the techniques used to create them. Preserving intellectual property can breed a culture of confidentiality within the scientific community, which in turn limits data and animal sharing. Such limits to data and animal sharing may create situations in which there is unnecessary duplication of genetically engineered animal lines, thereby challenging the principle of Reduction. Indeed, this was a concern that was identified in a recent workshop on the creation and use of genetically engineered animals in science ( 20 ).

It should be noted that no matter what the application of genetically engineered animals, there are restrictions on the methods of their disposal once they have been euthanized. The reason for this is to restrict the entry of genetically engineered animal carcasses into the natural ecosystem until the long-term effects and risks are better understood. Environment Canada ( http://www.ec.gc.ca/ ) and Health Canada ( http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ ) offer specific guidelines in this regard.

Implications for veterinarians

As genetically engineered animals begin to enter the commercial realm, it will become increasingly important for veterinarians to inform themselves about any special care and management required by these animals. As animal health professionals, veterinarians can also make important contributions to policy discussions related to the oversight of genetic engineering as it is applied to animals, and to regulatory proceedings for the commercial use of genetically engineered animals.

It is likely that public acceptance of genetically engineered animal products will be an important step in determining when and what types of genetically engineered animals will appear on the commercial market, especially those animals used for food production. Veterinarians may also be called on to inform the public about genetic engineering techniques and any potential impacts to animal welfare and food safety. Consequently, for the discussion regarding genetically engineered animals to progress effectively, veterinarians need to be aware of the current context in which genetically engineered animals are created and used, and to be aware of the manner in which genetic engineering technology and the animals derived from it may be used in the future.

Genetic engineering techniques can be applied to a range of animal species, and although many genetically engineered animals are still in the research phase, there are a variety of intended applications for their use. Although genetic engineering may provide substantial benefits in areas such as biomedical science and food production, the creation and use of genetically engineered animals not only challenge the Three Rs principles, but may also raise ethical issues that go beyond considerations of animal health, animal welfare, and the Three Rs, opening up issues relating to animal integrity and/or dignity. Consequently, even if animal welfare can be satisfactorily safeguarded, intrinsic ethical concerns about the genetic engineering of animals may be cause enough to restrict certain types of genetically engineered animals from reaching their intended commercial application. Given the complexity of views regarding genetic engineering, it is valuable to involve all stakeholders in discussions about the applications of this technology.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the members of the Canadian Veterinary Medicine Association Animal Welfare Committee for their comments on the draft, and Dr. C. Schuppli for her insight on how the issues discussed may affect veterinarians.

Use of this article is limited to a single copy for personal study. Anyone interested in obtaining reprints should contact the CVMA office ( gro.vmca-amvc@nothguorbh ) for additional copies or permission to use this material elsewhere.

Share full article

Supported by

Patient Dies Weeks After Kidney Transplant From Genetically Modified Pig

Richard Slayman received the historic procedure in March. The hospital said it had “no indication” his death was related to the transplant.

A portrait of Richard Slayman, wearing a black hoodie and pants and sitting in a hospital room.

By Virginia Hughes

Richard “Rick” Slayman, who made history at age 62 as the first person to receive a kidney from a genetically modified pig, has died about two months after the procedure.

Massachusetts General Hospital, where Mr. Slayman had the operation, said in a statement on Saturday that its transplant team was “deeply saddened” at his death. The hospital said it had “no indication that it was the result of his recent transplant.”

Mr. Slayman, who was Black, had end-stage kidney disease, a condition that affects more than 800,000 people in the United States, according to the federal government, with disproportionately higher rates among Black people.

There are far too few kidneys available for donation. Nearly 90,000 people are on the national waiting list for a kidney.

Mr. Slayman, a supervisor for the state transportation department from Weymouth, Mass., had received a human kidney in 2018. When it began to fail in 2023 and he developed congestive heart failure, his doctors suggested he try one from a modified pig.

“I saw it not only as a way to help me, but a way to provide hope for the thousands of people who need a transplant to survive,” he said in a hospital news release in March.

His surgery, which lasted four hours, was a medical milestone. For decades, proponents of so-called xenotransplantation have proposed replacing ailing human organs with those from animals. The main problem with the approach is the human immune system, which rejects animal tissue as foreign, often leading to serious complications.

Recent advances in genetic engineering have allowed researchers to tweak the genes of the animal organs to make them more compatible with their recipients.

The pig kidney that was transplanted into Mr. Slayman was engineered by eGenesis, a biotech company based in Cambridge, Mass. Scientists there removed three genes and added seven others to improve compatibility. The company also inactivated retroviruses that pigs carry and could be harmful to humans.

“Mr. Slayman was a true pioneer,” eGenesis said in a statement on social media on Saturday. “His courage has helped to forge a path forward for current and future patients suffering from kidney failure.”

Mr. Slayman was discharged from the hospital two weeks after his surgery, with “one of the cleanest bills of health I’ve had in a long time,” he said at the time.

In a statement published by the hospital, Mr. Slayman’s family said he was kind, quick-witted and “fiercely dedicated to his family, friends and co-workers.” They said they had taken great comfort in knowing that his case had inspired so many people.

“Millions of people worldwide have come to know Rick’s story,” they said in the statement. “We felt — and still feel — comforted by the optimism he provided patients desperately waiting for a transplant.”

Virginia Hughes is an editor on the Health and Science desk. More about Virginia Hughes

IMAGES

Genetic Engineering and Its Dangers
Genetic Engineering Process Essay Example
Geneic Engineering The Negative Effects Of Genetic
😍 Genetic engineering ethics essay. Genetics. 2022-11-22
Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities
Genetic Engineering and Its Dangers.docx

VIDEO

Genetic engineering is dangerous
Dangers of Misinformation Essay Plan
Science Facts & Fallacies: Too much cleanliness? Protect genetic data; Against green-neocolonialism
ESSAY ON DANGERS OF DRUG ABUSE
Genetic and Cultural Factors of Human Development
Genetic Engineering

COMMENTS

PDF Playing with genes: The good, the bad and the ugly
technique, known by its acronym CRISPR, has revolutionized the process of decoding and precisely editing genetic information of 3 A gene drive is a genetic engineering technology—adding ...
14.4: Genetic Engineering
This page titled 14.4: Genetic Engineering - Risks, Benefits, and Perceptions is shared under a CC BY license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by OpenStax. Many types of genetic engineering have yielded clear benefits with few apparent risks. However, many emerging applications of genetic engineering are much more controversial, often ...
Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering
The logic behind this argument is that human genetic enhancement perpetuates discrimination against the disabled and the "genetically unfit," and that this sort of discrimination is similar to the sort that inspired the eugenics of the Third Reich. A third argument is that genetic engineering will lead to vast social inequalities.
Genetic Engineering: A Serious Threat to Human Society
Genetically engineered organisms pose lethal and economic risks to human society. The availability of genomic information and genetic engineering technology creates a lethal threat to humanity because terrorists can use both the information and technology to recreate deadly pathogens, such as the poliovirus. The naturally occurring poliovirus ...
The Dangers of Genetic Engineering
Genetic engineering is a technology of genetic modification. It allows scientists to alter the arrangement of genes by manipulating the protein sequence of the gene. This technology started to gain momentum in the middle of the twentieth century, although the concept first appeared in the 1920s. With the structure of DNA being revealed in 1953 ...
Genetic Engineering Effects
Genetic engineering will have an effect on our world, not only on food production but will cause effects on humans and the society. From the cultural perspective, human beings are inviolable and live free according to their rights in the society. The society accepts them the way they are and the type of life they live, therefore introducing ...
The Dangers of Genetic Engineering to Humanity
Get original essay. Conclusively, genetic engineering is not safe to humanity because of the many complicated issues it has brought to the society. It is one of the primary causes of cancer and its related diseases. Genetic engineering involves the use of chemicals, and most of these chemicals are carcinogenic.
Genetic Engineering and its Dangers
Genetic engineering and its dangers. Genetic engineering is the artificial manipulation, modification, and recombination of DNA or RNA molecules to modify an organism or population of organisms. It is generally used to refer to methods of recombinant DNA technology. Recombinant DNA technology is the joining of DNA from two different species ...
Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities
a) Making possible the production of genetically modified foods. As Coker noted: "In the United States and elsewhere, more than 90% of soybeans, cotton, corn, and certain other crops are already genetically engineered" (24). The reason behind the growing popularity of this type of food is quite apparent - the application of getting ...
Essays on Genetic Engineering
Genetic Engineering. 2 pages / 835 words. Genetic engineering, also known as genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of DNA to alter an organism's characteristics (phenotype) in a particular way. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells to produce improved or novel organisms.
Essay on The Dangers of Genetic Engineering
Essay on The Dangers of Genetic Engineering. Decent Essays. 619 Words. 3 Pages. Open Document. Genetic engineering has a fine line to when it becomes unethical. Ethically new research has offered to help people with disabilities and prevent them to better a persons life. The line is drawn when parents have the choice to modify their child ...
132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
Genetic Engineering Using a Pglo Plasmid. The objective of this experiment is to understand the process and importance of the genetic transformation of bacteria in real time with the aid of extrachromosomal DNA, alternatively referred to as plasmids. Managing Diabetes Through Genetic Engineering.
Human enhancement: Genetic engineering and evolution
Human evolution and the so-called genetic human enhancement would seem therefore to involve different underlying processes, raising several questions regarding the implications and risks of the latter. But using genetic engineering to treat humans has been proposed far beyond the therapeutic case or to introduce genetic modifications known to ...
12.4: Genetic Engineering
Learning Objectives. Summarize the mechanisms, risks, and potential benefits of gene therapy. Identify ethical issues involving gene therapy and the regulatory agencies that provide oversight for clinical trials. Compare somatic-cell and germ-line gene therapy. Many types of genetic engineering have yielded clear benefits with few apparent risks.
Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering
Limiting Diversity. If genetic engineering becomes a reality, it will likely only be available to the richest members of society. They'll be able to extend their lives, limit diseases, and make sure their children are always healthy when they're born. When this happens, natural selection is completely obsolete.
PDF Genetic Engineering: Its Ethical Implications
The ethical dilemma occurs when the. coveries, the possible ways to affect radical change in man have geneticist realizes that the person's genetic scoreboard indicates increased. This growing ability to alter man's physical, emotion- the person is a carrier of defective genes. The ethical questions. al, and/or psychological make-up is reaching ...
Dangers And Disadvantages Of Genetic Engineering
Dangers And Disadvantages Of Genetic Engineering. This essay sample was donated by a student to help the academic community. Papers provided by EduBirdie writers usually outdo students' samples. 360,000 babies are born every single day. Now imagine each one of them the exact same.
Genetic Engineering and Its Dangers
Genetic Engineering and Its Dangers. I originally constructed this web site primarily for the benefit of the students in my classes at San Francisco State University, from which I am now retired. (I am currently a research professor at the Institute for World Religions in Berkeley, California.) I am leaving the site online in the hope that ...
Ethical Considerations in Genetic Engineering
Ethical Considerations in Genetic Engineering. Genetic engineering stands at the forefront of scientific innovation, offering transformative possibilities for our world. By pushing the boundaries of molecular biology, scientists demonstrate the capacity to manipulate the genetic code of organisms, including plants, animals, and humans. The ...
Genetic engineering
genetic engineering, the artificial manipulation, modification, and recombination of DNA or other nucleic acid molecules in order to modify an organism or population of organisms. The term genetic engineering is generally used to refer to methods of recombinant DNA technology, which emerged from basic research in microbial genetics.
20 Genetic Engineering Pros and Cons
5. Genetic engineering can lead to unregulated gene expression. Genetic engineering has mastered the technique of inserting a transgene into a host species' genome, but regulation of the expression of the gene is much more sophisticated. This means that the transgenic organism may over or under-produce the protein product of the inserted gene.
Genetic engineering of animals: Ethical issues, including welfare
The genetic engineering of animals has increased significantly in recent years, and the use of this technology brings with it ethical issues, some of which relate to animal welfare — defined by the World Organisation for Animal Health as "the state of the animal…how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives" ().These issues need to be considered by all stakeholders ...
IELTS Writing Task 2: genetic engineering essay
Here's my sample essay for the question below. Genetic engineering is an important issue in society today. Some people think that it will improve people's lives in many ways. Others feel that it may be a threat to life on earth. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. It is true that genetic engineering is a key area of modern scientific research, with broad implications for all ...
Patient Dies Weeks After Kidney Transplant From Genetically Modified Pig
Richard "Rick" Slayman, who made history at age 62 as the first person to receive a kidney from a genetically modified pig, has died about two months after the procedure. Massachusetts General ...

Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering

Genetic Engineering: A Serious Threat to Human Society

Bibliography

Genetic Engineering and its Dangers (Essay Sample)

Other Topics:

Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities

Essays on Genetic Engineering

Igniting Thought: The Finest Genetic Engineering Essay Topics

Thought-Provoking Genetic Engineering Essay Questions

Provocative Genetic Engineering Essay Prompts

Answering Your Genetic Engineering Essay Queries

The Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering and The Need for Regulation

Balancing Benefits and Ethics of Genetic Engineering

The Use and Ethics of Genetic Engineering

Genetic Engineering: an Overview of The Dna/rna and The Crispr/cas9 Technology

Relevant topics

132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🔝 Top 10 Genetic Engineering Topics for 2024

Article Contents

Human enhancement: Genetic engineering and evolution

Genetic engineering: therapy or enhancement and predictability of outcomes

Genetic engineering and human evolution: large-scale impacts

Email alerts

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Margin Size

12.4: Genetic Engineering - Risks, Benefits, and Perceptions

Learning Objectives

Mechanisms and Risks of Gene Therapy

Gene Therapy Gone Wrong

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Oversight of Gene Therapy

Ethical Concerns

Exercise \(\PageIndex{2}\)

Risky Gene Therapies

Exercise \(\PageIndex{3}\)

Key Concepts and Summary

Exploring the Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering

Positives of Genetic Engineering

Extending Our Lives

Create New and Better Food

Killing Hereditary Diseases

Making Every Child Healthy

Negatives of Genetic Engineering

The Ethical Dilemma

Limiting Diversity

The Possibility of Mistakes

The Logical Extreme

Is Genetic Engineering Good or Bad?

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

How Can Resource Conservation Benefit the Environment? 18 Helpful Components of Practice

10 Animals That Hibernate

What Is Point Source Pollution: Identifying the Culprit

Ethical Considerations in Genetic Engineering

Member Services

Awards & Funding

Meetings & Events

Publications & News

About Plantae

20 Genetic Engineering Pros and Cons for the Biotechnology Era

What is genetic engineering?

What is a genetically modified organism?

A brief history of genetic engineering

Genetic engineering technologies and techniques

Genetic engineering applications

Key applications of genetic engineering include:

Pros of genetic engineering

1. A greater understanding of how DNA and genes work

2. The production of medicines

3. A promise of cures for genetic diseases

4. Development of more productive and resilient crops

5. Enhanced livestock breeds

6. The creation of new commercial sectors

7. Reduced resource consumption

8. Eradicating diseases

Cons of genetic engineering

1. The science of genetics is not settled

2. Some claims of genetic engineering may be overstated

3. The long-term effects of genetic engineering are unknown

4. Genetic engineering is expensive

5. Genetic engineering can lead to unregulated gene expression