Genetic Engineering: The Dystopian Quest for Perfection
Throughout history, governments have pursued scientific breakthroughs without full understanding of their consequences. For instance, during the Cold War, the U.S. government relentlessly sought military applications of atomic energy without acknowledging possible ramifications. The descendants of Hiroshima’s survivors suffer from genetic mutations resulting from their parents’ exposure to radiation. WWII taught us that reckless application of scientific technology breeds disaster.
The human genome is vastly more complex and unpredictable than the atomic bomb. As the technology stands, allowing genetic engineering into the general population would be to put the Mona Lisa in the clumsy hands of a toddler wielding scissors. It is our moral duty to regulate the practice of genetic engineering until it is better understood.
20-30% of all infant deaths can be linked to genetic history. 60% of those who do not show signs of a genetic disorder in infancy will develop a genetic disease by late middle age (Illumina, Inc.). Many argue that genetic engineering can prevent this suffering. Nita Farrahany, a research professor at Duke’s Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, argues in favor of the practice: “There is no way to treat [a genetic] condition once it is acquired, and it is…difficult to predict how severely a child will be affected.”
Depression, cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, cancer, and many more incurable afflictions are rooted in genetics. Somatic and germline cell therapy are two methods of altering the genetics of a child. Somatic cell therapy targets specific organs or tissues, modifying only a section of the genetic code; germline cell therapy is more intensive, changing the germline cells, and potentially generating more problems within the genome. Several countries throughout the world have banned germline therapy, as they’ve recognized the danger of making changes to an individual that would be passed to his/her descendants.
The line between “legitimate” medical genetics and the quest for the perfect child remains fuzzy. Isn’t the elimination of a genetic disease inherently “enhancing” the offspring, regardless of “cosmetic” motives? This concern plagues many who argue against the practice of genetic engineering. Though the intentions of the science are honorable, many fear that public access to the technology would plunge the world into a dystopian chaos, especially without understanding possible consequences. After all, the quest for the perfect society is what prompted the unquestionable horror of the Holocaust.
With the ability to create a genetically “enhanced” child, the possibility of ethnic cleansing becomes inevitable. Without a doubt, the technology would be expensive; thus, only the upper classes of society would be able to engineer their children. Those born with selected traits would become the “alphas” in society, deepening inequalities to such an extent that it could realistically lead to genocide.
Monarchies throughout history attempted their own version of genetic engineering, choosing to breed within their bloodline for fear of “contamination” from “inferior” classes. Eliminating diversity within their ancestral line led to severe health problems and predispositions to several afflictions, including mental illness. A prominent form of hemophilia originated in royal families (Ingram). How can we say that this would not be the end result should we start tampering with genes? Do we not run the risk of creating the very problems we are trying to eradicate? Or worse, do we open the door to new diseases that could be more frightening than the ones we know?
Until we can secure equality and acceptance for all, the idea of tampering with the global gene pool is troubling. If we start creating children we believe have no chance of getting cancer, would the resources for those battling the disease cease to exist? Would the divide between those with disabilities and those without become so exaggerated that those with disabilities are entirely cast out of society?
Genetic engineering threatens the idea of justice as seen by John Rawls, who argued that the roots of justice are fairness and equality. Rawls used the idea of moral arbitrariness to define justice, stating that the treatment of an individual should not be based upon social position or physical characteristics with which they are endowed from birth. He created the Veil of Ignorance, the concept of creating laws transcendent of personal biases and prejudices. The only inequality that society should allow is that which benefits the lesser privileged. As Rawls wrote, “[t]he bad man desires arbitrary power. What moves the evil man is the love of injustice”.
Already, many countries throughout the world have recognized the danger of free reign of genetic engineering. In 1997, the Council of Europe created an agreement called the Convention of Biomedicine and Human Rights. Article 13 of the Convention states, “An intervention seeking to modify the human genome may only be undertaken for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic purposes and only if its aim is not to introduce any modification in the genome of any descendants”(Conv., Art. XIII, Sec. 4).
Several in the scientific community support this form of regulation. Hayes believes this is the correct first step, stating,
Throughout history, governments have pursued scientific breakthroughs without full understanding of their consequences. For instance, during the Cold War, the U.S. government relentlessly sought military applications of atomic energy without acknowledging possible ramifications. The descendants of Hiroshima’s survivors suffer from genetic mutations resulting from their parents’ exposure to radiation. WWII taught us that reckless application of scientific technology breeds disaster.
The human genome is vastly more complex and unpredictable than the atomic bomb. As the technology stands, allowing genetic engineering into the general population would be to put the Mona Lisa in the clumsy hands of a toddler wielding scissors. It is our moral duty to regulate the practice of genetic engineering until it is better understood.
20-30% of all infant deaths can be linked to genetic history. 60% of those who do not show signs of a genetic disorder in infancy will develop a genetic disease by late middle age (Illumina, Inc.). Many argue that genetic engineering can prevent this suffering. Nita Farrahany, a research professor at Duke’s Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, argues in favor of the practice: “There is no way to treat [a genetic] condition once it is acquired, and it is…difficult to predict how severely a child will be affected.”
Depression, cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, cancer, and many more incurable afflictions are rooted in genetics. Somatic and germline cell therapy are two methods of altering the genetics of a child. Somatic cell therapy targets specific organs or tissues, modifying only a section of the genetic code; germline cell therapy is more intensive, changing the germline cells, and potentially generating more problems within the genome. Several countries throughout the world have banned germline therapy, as they’ve recognized the danger of making changes to an individual that would be passed to his/her descendants.
The line between “legitimate” medical genetics and the quest for the perfect child remains fuzzy. Isn’t the elimination of a genetic disease inherently “enhancing” the offspring, regardless of “cosmetic” motives? This concern plagues many who argue against the practice of genetic engineering. Though the intentions of the science are honorable, many fear that public access to the technology would plunge the world into a dystopian chaos, especially without understanding possible consequences. After all, the quest for the perfect society is what prompted the unquestionable horror of the Holocaust.
With the ability to create a genetically “enhanced” child, the possibility of ethnic cleansing becomes inevitable. Without a doubt, the technology would be expensive; thus, only the upper classes of society would be able to engineer their children. Those born with selected traits would become the “alphas” in society, deepening inequalities to such an extent that it could realistically lead to genocide.
Monarchies throughout history attempted their own version of genetic engineering, choosing to breed within their bloodline for fear of “contamination” from “inferior” classes. Eliminating diversity within their ancestral line led to severe health problems and predispositions to several afflictions, including mental illness. A prominent form of hemophilia originated in royal families (Ingram). How can we say that this would not be the end result should we start tampering with genes? Do we not run the risk of creating the very problems we are trying to eradicate? Or worse, do we open the door to new diseases that could be more frightening than the ones we know?
Until we can secure equality and acceptance for all, the idea of tampering with the global gene pool is troubling. If we start creating children we believe have no chance of getting cancer, would the resources for those battling the disease cease to exist? Would the divide between those with disabilities and those without become so exaggerated that those with disabilities are entirely cast out of society?
Genetic engineering threatens the idea of justice as seen by John Rawls, who argued that the roots of justice are fairness and equality. Rawls used the idea of moral arbitrariness to define justice, stating that the treatment of an individual should not be based upon social position or physical characteristics with which they are endowed from birth. He created the Veil of Ignorance, the concept of creating laws transcendent of personal biases and prejudices. The only inequality that society should allow is that which benefits the lesser privileged. As Rawls wrote, “[t]he bad man desires arbitrary power. What moves the evil man is the love of injustice”.
Already, many countries throughout the world have recognized the danger of free reign of genetic engineering. In 1997, the Council of Europe created an agreement called the Convention of Biomedicine and Human Rights. Article 13 of the Convention states, “An intervention seeking to modify the human genome may only be undertaken for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic purposes and only if its aim is not to introduce any modification in the genome of any descendants”(Conv., Art. XIII, Sec. 4).
Several in the scientific community support this form of regulation. Hayes believes this is the correct first step, stating,
The Convention…allows medical research… to continue, and does not restrict abortion rights, but it bans genetic modifications that would open the door to high-tech eugenic engineering… More than anything…[we] need to distinguish benign applications of these technologies from pernicious ones, and support the former while opposing the latter.
This is the example the United States should follow. To prohibit the research is to halt potentially life-changing discoveries, but to allow all genetic modification is to open the door to a power we might not be able to control. Farrahany agrees, asserting, “Technology itself is not evil. Only misuse and misapplication of it is.”
In the fanatical pursuit of this new technology, we may unwittingly set off a bomb, ripping humanity at the seams. To bypass the years of natural human evolution without consideration of consequences is to carelessly destroy a work of art. Until the day when we better understand the human genome, the general application of genetic engineering is a risk the human race cannot afford to take.
In the fanatical pursuit of this new technology, we may unwittingly set off a bomb, ripping humanity at the seams. To bypass the years of natural human evolution without consideration of consequences is to carelessly destroy a work of art. Until the day when we better understand the human genome, the general application of genetic engineering is a risk the human race cannot afford to take.