In this article, we will be taking a look at the ethical concerns and philosophical questions around genetic engineering and its necessity.
Written by: Shreya
In the previous article of this series, we took a look at the myriad benefits of pursuing genetic engineering developments, such as revolutionizing medicine, more sustainable agricultural practices, and reversing climate change. However, with these numerous advantages comes a daunting set of ethical concerns and questions. Genetic engineering offers the technology to manipulate our very biological code– our DNA, and without strict regulations and enforcement, it could warp into a substantial threat to our safety and equality.
Just in 2018, scientist Dr. He Jiankui experimented with the genetic engineering tool CRISPR on the embryos of two current twin infants in order to achieve HIV-resistance in their genomes. Clearly, the twins did not have the opportunity to consent to being used as subjects, which brings up the topic of how the research and developments in embryo gene-editing will occur under more ethical circumstances (1). Dr. He was condemned and punished for his violation of bioethics, but in the future, how will the field of germline editing progress if the subjects themselves will never be able to yield consent? Is the clearance from the parent enough to replace that of the subject, who will bear the results and any consequences of their edited genome for the rest of their life? These are just a few of the questions posed by ethicists regarding genetic engineering, and in this article, we will take a look at several more.
Eugenics and Genetic Engineering
Eugenics is the practice of creating a “superior” human race by selectively breeding people with desired characteristics. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, supporters believed eugenics to be the key to “breeding out” traits they considered genetic and undesirable, such as poverty, mental illness, criminal tendencies, darker skin color, disabilities, alcoholism, and more. Discriminatory marriage laws based on eugenics were passed in the United States, banning epileptics (the “feeble-minded”), many minorities, and the differently abled from marrying. Starting in the 1900s, eugenics deepened its grip on society as mental institutions began performing forced sterilizations on their patients to breed out mental illness. People began using eugenics as a means to justify bigotry and discrimination, postulating as to why certain traits made someone inferior to others (for instance, the Supreme Court Justice Oliver Holmes claimed that “when two defectives’ germ plasms meet, the effect again appears” in regard to the mentally ill) (2). Further sterilization was used against the poor, Native Americans, and the differently abled throughout the world, and Adolf Hitler implemented eugenics tactics in his attempt to create an “ideal Aryan race”.
Eugenics implies that certain people and traits are superior to others, and throughout history, has caused immense abuse towards marginalized communities. This is exactly why genetic engineering, which has been donned “modern eugenics”, poses ethical concerns. The ability to edit our genomes can lead to certain, “desirable” traits replacing their “undesirable” counterparts, which poses the question of where exactly we should draw the line between a “negative” trait/disorder that should be removed and valuable diversity. In a society that heavily endorses Eurocentric beauty standards, from light skin to sleek hair to sharp nose bridges, couldn’t genetic engineering result in a homogenized population that conforms to such standards? Genetic engineering could potentially be wielded as a tool to materialize prejudice against minority groups and correct what some see as “defects” in the human population. There are several genes that factor into sexual orientation, gender identity, skin color, and disability; no parent should have the option to gear their future child’s identity towards their personal preferences.
Furthermore, what some consider disorders are constituents of identity to others. Most people would not contest using genetic engineering to treat lethal disorders such as cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sachs disease, but what about color blindness, dwarfism, or autism? To what level should we limit genetic variation? Many people from the differently abled community have spoken out about their aversion to genetic engineering for these exact reasons. They do not view their conditions as something to “fix”, but something to accept and celebrate as features of their identities (3). Disability groups possess their own rich culture and contribute unique talents to society. For instance, dwarfs were hired as engineers to work inside of the engines of 747 jets; Daniel Kish, who is completely blind, clicks his tongue to use echolocation to move through his surroundings without any assistance; Alan Turing, who played a crucial role in cracking the German enigma code during WWII, had Asperger Syndrome. What many consider deficits or defects are actually just healthy aspects of identity for another, and it is the voices of the differently abled communities that we should especially consider when determining what traits should be affected by genetic engineering.
Designer Babies, Income Inequality, and Genetic Engineering
One of the most commonly cited concerns around genetic engineering is the possibility of “designer babies”, or children that have been engineered to possess certain traits as dictated by their parents. If germline editing becomes mainstream, parents could potentially design their future child to be intelligent, tall, charismatic, athletic, and so on; they could even choose the sex of their child. In countries with high rates of female feticide and infanticide such as China, India, and Pakistan, where it is more economically favorable to produce a male who will work a job in the future than a female whose role is typically childbearing, such technology could further endorse gender gaps and prevent many women from attaining the freedom to join the workforce (4). Is it morally correct to “set” a child’s pathway for them before they are even born? Should parents be allowed to ingrain their aspirations for their children into their very genetics, or should the child have a greater role in deciding their future? While genetically engineering an embryo to have a greater chance of success in athletics, academics, art, etc may seem like a positive move for the child’s future, it takes away their free will to decide their interests and the growth they could have experienced in the pursuit of talent and success.
Moreover, not everyone is likely to have access to this type of “recreational” genetic engineering. While engineering a deadly genetic disorder out might be insured as a necessary healthcare procedure, designing the “ideal” child will be a luxury only few can afford. With a genetically enhanced child comes a greater chance for high-wage careers and success in their industry, which would not only provide certain people an unfair advantage but also make the wealthy wealthier. Genetic engineering could potentially widen the income gap by providing the rich a pathway to even greater income. Several studies have already shown that certain physical traits correlate to higher income. For one, taller people are more likely to be financially successful, with 30% of Fortune 500 CEOs but only 3.9% of the general American male population being 6”2 or taller (5). Physical beauty that abides by a region’s cultural norms and beauty standards has also shown to correlate with higher income. If companies offer genetic engineering treatment to “enhance” children, it will only benefit those who are already wealthy enough for the treatment itself.
Final Word
Genetic engineering poses the prospect of numerous benefits as well as concerns. It offers us the solution to climate change and over 10,000 disorders but also introduces the risks of socioeconomic injustice, eugenics, and societal homogenization. There is no right or wrong answer as to whether researchers should continue developing the field of genome editing, but there is a correct way to go about doing so. In order to harness the good from this contentious technology, we need to establish and abide by strict regulations as to what genetic engineering can be used for and whose voices should be relevant in this conversation. Edits should only be pursued after considering the safety, free will, and rights of the individual as well as the societal and environmental consequences. Regulations on corporations should dictate what types of treatments can be offered to consumers, as well (6). Finally, the necessity of an edit should be taken into consideration. What genetic changes are pertinent? Our bodies have spent millenia adapting to our environments and developing a genome fit for life. Our DNA is our very own biological code, and the final ethical question to ponder over is whether we should change the nature of our existence in the first place. While more philosophical in nature, this question prompts us to think about whether changing ourselves is worth it. Besides cases involving terminal genetic disorders, do we really need genetic engineering to live out fulfilling lives and become our best selves? In fact, wouldn’t being born with a tendency for success limit personal growth and hinder the development of work ethic, grit, and determination? After all, many may argue that happiness does not stem from success, but the experiential journey of striving for it.
This is the final article of our series on genetic engineering; if you are interested in looking at a general introduction to or benefits of genetic engineering, go ahead and check out our earlier articles. Thanks for taking the time to read about this thought-provoking topic. While there may be no definitive answer on the ethics of genetic engineering, it is a crucial subject to think about and decide the boundaries of nonetheless as research in the field expands.
References:
Comments