Free Paper on Genetic Engineering: Creating an Improved Version of Humans

Genetic engineering refers to modifying humans' genes to create humans who are beyond normal and natural humans. This can involve creating humans with enhanced intelligence, beauty, personality, height, and behavioral traits, or the removal or addition of certain gene traits to develop an improved version of humans. Human genetic engineering may entail the modification of either somatic or reproductive cells. Somatic cells are cells making body organs such as the heart, and skin, among others. In contrast, reproductive cells entail modifying sperm cells, young embryos, and egg cells (University of Missouri School of Medicine, n.d.). However, somatic cell modification is not passable or inheritable, while reproductive cell modification is inheritable. Changing the reproductive cells prompts, passing to the changed genetic structure, which attracts ethical arguments while also posing a future risk to the next generation. Changing reproductive cells will consequently impact the somatic cells of the modified cell and be passed to children. Thus, human genetic engineering should only be limited to somatic cell modification to treat diseases associated with the cells since it is not inheritable and, consequently, possesses no ethical or biblical issues like reproductive cell genetic modification.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Human germline editing should be limited to letting the participants of the research have fully informed consent only if the germline manipulation is not passable to other generations. Supporters of reproductive genetic modification claim that humans need to have the freedom to grant their children the best genes by filtering the defective ones and adding a better version of embryos, sperm cells, or egg cells (Seeker, 2015). However, reproductive cell gene modification would be unethical to the children since they lack the consent of their bodies being modified. The modification may turn to gene mutations or other disastrous risks that the children did not choose for themselves. From an ethical perspective, carrying out reproductive body modification encourages nonmaleficence of intentionally or unintentionally risking the children's lives with their future generations.

Focusing only on somatic cell modification promotes the beneficence of doing good to the client since somatic modification entails treating a disease or a failing organ. This ethical aspect of beneficence is only for improving the health of a patient and not modifying a person's human version to an updated version, which has a future with undetermined and unforetold risks (Almeida & Diogo, 2019). Though opponents focus on the claimed benefits, some risks associated with participants to the human genetic engineering have resulted in the death of the participants, which depicts the high risks associated with human genetic engineering. Other risks are the modification resulting in unforeseen results, and the disastrous impact of the added gene modifications, while the viruses and diseases may not be perfect in preventing diseases as claimed by the scientists. Moreover, editing reproductive cells may result into harmful implications that cannot be identified until the future changes when it is among the generation and is irreversible. “changing reproductive cells may cause events not seen until years later, and undesirable effects may have already been passed on to the patient’s children” (University of Missouri School of Medicine, n.d.)

Human genetic engineering should be limited to medical purposes of treating genetic diseases and not on purposes such as editing the genome of embryos or carrying out lab reproduction of humans. Opponents will claim gene editing should also be allowed to create better humans. However, it should be limited only to gene modification that is not passed to offspring and limited to the bearers, a child or an adult, not cells, or an embryo. For example, the human engineering technique was utilized to treat girls from cancer (Skerrett, 2015). This is a useful medical purpose of treating a person from disease, making it ethically reasonable and allowable. Stat news asserts that “When done in a child or an adult, the edited gene dies with its bearer; it isn’t passed to any offspring” (Skerrett, 2015). This statement indicates how human genome editing should be limited to only the bearer of the engineering and not passable to other generations to limit the risk of the genome editing to other others. Editing the genome of an embryo or a person is inheritable, and irreversible, which puts the future generations of the edited genome to inherit the modified traits and genes.

On a biblical ethical argument, carrying out human germline editing is unbiblical. It involves creating a new version of a human or creating an embryo that deviates from God's version of human which ought to be created only by natural reproduction and in God's image. Extending the human genome for humans to extend their aging duration to create immortal-like humans is unbiblical. Also, trying to detect and correct defective in humans is like finding fault in God's perfect creation of human beings. “that humanity should not be so full of pride as to imagine that we could ‘enhance’ God’s good creation” (Kotze, 2018). Biblically, it is not wrong to assist someone in treating a disease with engineering since it does not indicate human and God's competition to create humans. Opponents will argue that technology grants humans the capability to create the best version of humans, and there is nothing wrong with creating a better human through technology. However, in a biblical and ethical context, people who use human engineering to modify themselves are exposed to irreversible risks and consequences. This is because they deviated from the perfect human version of God, leaving the human generation to bear the consequences of trying to outsmart God in the creation and using science to create humans (Kotze, 2018). Thus, the use of genome engineering ought to be limited to the biblical act of using human engineering to treat a person's disease, be ethical, and not be inheritable.

Ethically, the babies and future generations lack the autonomy to decide their genes to be modified into a technologically engineered version, which differs from the natural human genome. It would be unethical for future generations to be born with the unnatural genome, which could have developed irreversible risk complications like mutations due to allowing the adoption of genome engineering in the previous generation. For example, "The first report of gene editing directly in human embryos was published in March 2015…in non-viable tripronuclear embryos and demonstrated mosaicism and off-target mutations” (Rossant, 2018). Opponents may argue that genome modification has advantages such as eliminating defective and disease-causing genes in cells and their future generations, which might help them be disease-free and live longer. However, no one knows the future risks that may be prompted by genome modification. The claimed benefits are not assured that they will result in benefits only (University of Missouri School of Medicine, n.d.).

Genome modification puts current and future generations at risk of inheriting irreversible risk traits, which are unnatural (Rossant, 2018). The genetically modified genes will be passed to their children and passed to children of those who did not undergo the genome modification through sexual reproduction to create a new version of humans wildly spread among the population. Thus, it should be eliminated for medical purposes and not for trying to create a perfect version of a person. Opponents would argue that it is essential to correct a faulty gene in an embryo, sperm cell, or egg cell to help create a person whose defect has been corrected (Kotze, 2018). However, this reason could be ethical if the genome editing was done and limited only to that specific sperm cell and egg cell and not passable to others.

Conclusion

In conclusion, scientists should limit human genetic engineering to only somatic cell modification and stop reproductive gene engineering. Only genetic engineering of ethical, beneficial acts of treating somatic cells, diseases, and organs should be done since it is not passable to future generations. Also, it has to be limited to somatic genetic engineering since it is done on a person who prompts informed consent, autonomy, and beneficence. Reproductive genetic engineering lacks embryo consent. It supports nonmaleficence since it is inheritable and has a risk of disastrous future consequences. Moreover, reproductive genetic engineering despises God's human creation and it is like competing with God to create a better human. Thus, human genetic engineering is limited to somatic cells, which is ethical, biblical, and safe for humans.

References

Almeida, M., & Diogo, R. (2019). Human enhancement: Genetic engineering and evolution. Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, 2019(1), 183-189.

Kotze, M. (2018). The theological ethics of human enhancement: Genetic engineering, robotics and nanotechnology. In die Skriflig, 52(3), 1-8.

Rossant, J. (2018). Gene editing in human development: ethical concerns and practical applications. Development, 145(16), dev150888.

Seeker (Director). (2015). Should We Make Designer Babies? [Motion Picture]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHesvjW1bKM&t=3s

Skerrett, P. (2015). Experts Debate: Are we playing with fire when we edit human genes. https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/17/gene-editing-embryo-crispr/

University of Missouri School of Medicine. (n.d.). GENE THERAPY AND GENETIC ENGINEERING. https://medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/gene-therapy