Outline:
I.Introduction: A Question on Scientific and Ethical Potentials II.A Scientific Revolution A.Human Genome Project B.4 Types of Genetic Engineering C.Practical Uses D.Potential Dangers III. The Ethical Concern A.Eugenics Defined B.History of Eugenics C.Effect of Genome Project on Eugenics IV.Present Day America and Genetic Engineering A.American Poll on Genetic Engineering B.Today's Science Fiction, Tomorrow's Reality? V. Conclusions Works Cited
With today's technology in genetic engineering, it seems we can almost play God. Scientifically speaking, are we enabling our bodies to survive all the traumas of a hostile environment, or are we endangering future generations to a limiting gene pool? Spiritually speaking, are we improving our bodies to save more of God's people, or are we attempting to "perfect" God's creation, and damning ourselves? The technology of genetic engineering is advancing at a dizzying pace, but is the morality at which we guide our use of this technology evolving quickly enough?
The potentials of modifying our genes seem irresistible. Everything from cystic fibrosis to AIDS seems to be preventable, and we could possibly design our children to be healthier in the future. But nature always finds a way to elude our defense mechanisms. As polio seemed to fade from our world, AIDS became the new terror. We are one step from protecting ourselves from this immune system destroyer, but then, who knows what nature will strike us down with next?
We must also confront the question of our faith. It is easy to justify improving our genes to save the lives of fellow human beings. How can we let a person grow up knowing s/he is going to suffer from epileptic seizures when we could have prevented it at birth? Wouldn't God want us to help these people? On the other hand, would we know when to stop? It is only logical that with our ability to prevent the harmful effects of debilitating genes, we will be able to improve on already satisfactory genes. Why should one settle for an average body, when one could have a strong, toned physique? Is that what God would want? Are we prepared to say what is okay to change with God's creation? Then again, dare we even think we could actually outdo God?
Along with the positive potentials of new technologies, we must also weigh the harmful side effects. Genetic engineering brings about highly controversial debates. There are two main areas of discussion to any technology: the scientific repercussions, and the spiritual repercussions. Both these areas of the issues need thorough attention. I hope to shed light on the positive and negative aspects of genetic engineering in both these areas. After these views have been dealt with, I will share my personal belief on the matter. We all have different perspectives in this accelerating society in which we live. We must first be aware of all the sides of an issue before we can make any intelligent decisions.
"There have been astounding recent findings on the exploration of the planets, the collision of the continents, the evolution of the human species, and the nature of the genetic code, which determines our heredity and makes us cousins to all other plants and animals on this planet. Recent findings on these questions can be understood by any intelligent person. Civilizations can be characterized by how people approach such questions, how they nurture the mind as well as the body. Many of the problems facing us may be soluble, but only if we are willing to embrace brilliant daring and complex solutions." --Carl Sagan
Quoted from a speech by Harold Varmus (1996), Carl Sagan can be remembered for his insight into the future. Sagan speaks of the importance of how we think through the questions of technology. The solutions are there, we just have to be willing to expand our minds to embrace them. To even begin to tackle genetic engineering, we must first educate ourselves as to the science behind it. Is this technology safe? What are the medical benefits? What are the dangers?
A logical place to begin educating oneself on genetic engineering
is the human genome project, the backbone of this technology. Dating back
only to 1990, planners estimated that finding the entire sequence of the
human genome would take tens of thousands of technician years (Beardsley,
1996). Researchers needed this genetic map to see how the thousands of known
markers separate and recombine between generations. Knowing the sequence
would also help in comparing sequences with a known condition and being
able to identify "erroneous" marker patterns. By 1994, a good
genetic map covering the entire genome was complete, and by the end of 1996,
a physical map with tagged sites every 100,000 bases was expected. Full
scale sequencing would ensue. Current technology already puts the human
genome project researchers ahead of the year 2005 deadline. A medically
significant piece of DNA is sequenced every week, and soon, a new gene will
be sequenced every hour (Beardsley, 1996).
Four Types of Genetic Engineering
So what becomes of all this information? We know that approximately
14 percent of newborns are afflicted with some form of inherited physical
or mental handicap (Lee, 1993). We also know that there are over 4000 monogenic
diseases (1993). This calls for genetic engineering, of which there are
four types: somatic-cell gene therapy, germ-line engineering, enhancement
genetic engineering, and eugenic genetic engineering. These types of treatments
range from correcting a single harmful effect of one person to attempting
to design a nearly perfect individual, as in eugenics. Somatic-cell gene
therapy involves only correcting the harmful genes in only the cells affected
in the body. The results of this type of therapy are not passed down from
generation to generation. Germ-line therapy, however, corrects deleterious
genes in the reproductive cells so that future offspring do not acquire
the targeted genetic disorder. This type of therapy would affect all future
generations. Enhancement genetic engineering consists of inserting a gene
at a pertinent stage of a person's development so that a specific characteristic
would be enhanced, such as growth hormone production. Eugenic engineering
would consist of inserting genes to change complex traits which come about
from the interaction of many genes with the environment. These traits would
be passed on into future generations (Lee, 1993).
Because the latter three strategies can affect future, unsuspecting generations, the only practice that has been done is somatic-cell gene therapy. One of the pioneers in genetic research, James M. Wilson, who headed the institute for gene therapy at Pennsylvania, published the first document that showed it was possible to insert a gene that has therapeutic effects (McClung et al, 1996). Wilson's patient had the condition called familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Having this disease, a person cannot process cholesterol. Wilson extracted tissue from the liver and spliced the necessary genes into the DNA of these cells. Genes are transferred via vectors, such as a virus, which can eject its nucleic acid into the provided cells (Dudley, 1990). The treated cells were then replaced into the patient's liver. Two years later, results proved that the gene spliced cells were thriving and had reduced the patients cholesterol by twenty percent (McClung et al, 1996).
Wilson's work was an exciting stepping stone to the future of gene therapy. In an article from Business Week, John Carey sites many successful gene therapies performed currently. Scientists have inserted the gene for a key natural enzyme, adenosine deaminase. The therapy has so far prevented the deadly effect of this disease: a destroyed immune system. Cystic fibrosis treatment has allowed cells in the lung and nasal linings to produce the corrective protein. Cancer cells, such as those in melanoma and brain tumors, have been genetically engineered to be more susceptible to our immune system or common drugs (Carey, 1994).
What about AIDS? According to Scientific American, in the U. S. alone, AIDS has taken the lives of more than 350,000 people, becoming the principle cause of death among those 24-44 years of age: people in their prime. Worldwide, AIDS affects some 30 million people. Between 1978 and 1984, before donated blood was tested for HIV, nearly 12,000 hemophiliacs who received tainted blood became infected with the virus, but 10-25 percent of the recipients evaded the virus (O'Brien and Dean, 1997). This intriguing fact led to years of intensive studies. Scientists eventually found that receptor proteins CD4, CCR5, and CXCR4 on the cells affect the binding abilities of the HIV virus. Further research discovered the genes for these receptors, and it is looking more and more feasible that genetic engineering could stop even this elusive killer.
Looking at all these examples of how gene therapy seems to conquer all ills, one could easily lose sight of the negative possibilities. For instance in 1989, Dr. Ronald G Crystal, cofounder of startup GenVec in Rockville, Maryland, had the idea of inserting a corrective gene by linking it to crippled versions of adenoviruses, the cause of colds and pneumonia. The result of this strategy used in baboons in 1992, was a "boatload of wicked pneumonia" (Carey, 1994).
"My guess is that cells will be programmed with synthetic messages within 25 years Man may be able to program his own cells long before he will be able to assess adequately the long-term consequences of such alterations" --Marshall Nirenberg
An incredibly accurate statement by the Nobel Prize winner (for his critical contribution to deciphering the language of the genetic code) predicted such outcomes of even "successful" experiments. A study done on genetically "improved" mice showed that second generation mice developed a cancer in their mid-life that developed at more than 40 times the rate for a normal strain mouse (Dudley, 1990).
An example of the danger in gene therapy in humans could be in the case of sickle-cell anemia. Persons with two mutant genes suffer from this infirmity, but those with heterozygosity for the gene have a natural immunity to the malaria. If we had eliminated that gene totally, we would have lost a natural defense to an important African disease. Interestingly, the incidence of the sickle cell allele in African Americans has decreased naturally due to the fact that its need for existence is absent (British Medical Association, 1992).
Another frightening possibility is that the modified gene from the vector source could insert into a dangerous section of the DNA. It could potentially mutate a vital gene, or even activate a cancer-causing gene. In germ line therapy, inaccurately inserting a potentially good gene could lead to destructive mutations throughout the body as it developed, resulting in a stillbirth.
As one can see, there are as many dangers as there are benefits from genetic therapy. Scientists must ask themselves if the needs outweigh the risks. In the near future, we may be able to refine genetic engineering technology, but for now, we must proceed cautiously.
Now that we have seen what genetic technology can do, we
must decide how to use it. Most ethical discussions about genetic engineering
spur from the topic of eugenics. Eugenics can be defined as the "methods
of improving the quality of the human race, especially by selective breeding"
(Lee, 1993). Before we talk about current issues in eugenics, it is appropriate
to look at history and learn from our mistakes.
Immediately, we think of Nazi Germany and the atrocious violence they acted out on the Jews. The Nazis came to power in 1933. We must go a little further back to see the beginnings of corruption, and that leads us to the late nineteenth century United States of America. At this time, it seemed unusual to eugenicists that people paid so much attention to the pedigrees of the farm and livestock while they completely ignored the pedigrees of their children. By 1910, Charles Davenport established the first major eugenics institution in the United States, the Eugenics Records Office (ERO), which existed until 1940. By 1923, an American Eugenics Society grew to include over 1200 members, having branches in 29 states. Eugenics education societies sprung up all over the country. The American Genetics Association boasted that there were 376 courses in colleges devoted specifically to eugenics in 1928, and that in the mid-1930's, high school biology textbooks included the subject of eugenics, mostly material in favor of eugenic control in reproduction (Allen, 1996).
The result of this new movement spurred shocking immigration and eugenics laws. In 1924, the Johnson Act restricted annual immigration from any region to 2 percent of the number of residents from that region already living in the United States as of the 1890 census. Since most immigrants arrived after that date, immigration had all but to stop. This helped keep "American" blood from being "watered down" by foreign traits. Even more radical were the forced sterilization laws. They were based on one's feeble-mindedness or physical handicap. If the government deemed you defective, you were forced to be sterilized. The first such law was put into effect in 1907 in Indiana! By 1940, thirty states enacted compulsory sterilization laws and more than 60,000 eugenic sterilizations were performed. It wasn't until the 1960's that most state sterilization laws were repealed (Allen, 1996).
Eugenics had become a worldwide phenomenon, spreading through England, France, Italy, Scandinavia, Latin America, and Russia, but by far the most work occurred in Germany and the United States. Germany picked up quickly on American eugenic ideas, requesting permission from American eugenicists to publish their work in Germany. German sterilization laws and education were soon adapted and an ambitious act to "cleanse" the race ensued. American, Frederick Osborn fully condoned Germany's movement:
"Germany's rapidity of change with respect to eugenics was possible only under a dictator the German sterilization program is apparently an excellent one recent developments in Germany constitute perhaps the most important experiment which has ever been tried."
Garland Allen, in Technology review notes that "the
most fundamental basis of eugenic arguments in both countries [the United
States and Germany] grew from a common economic and social [strain]."
Let's remember this important piece of history as we continue.
The Effect of the Human Genome Project on Eugenics
The Human Genome Project has drastically changed the way we look at eugenics. Knowing every single detail of our genetic makeup is quite overwhelming. It is no wonder that so much information in such little time would cause immediate controversy. For example, in the October 1997 issue of Discover magazine, Robert Pool wrote an article about a "Gene Guy" who believes that all of our personality is due to the intricate combination of genes. Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist and psychologist, claims to have found the gene for homosexuality. The set of five gene markers on chromosome Xq28 have yet to be disputed (Pool, 1997). From this information, would it be possible that in the future, society would judge homosexuality as wrong and simply "correct" the DNA omitting this trait from future generations? David Suzuki warns us that " the notion that the human genome is like some sort of genetic garden form which hereditary defects can simply be plucked like so many weeds is both mistaken and dangerously naïve" (Dudley, 1990).
As a Christian, one must ask the question, "How does God feel about genetic engineering?" Some see genetic engineering as playing the role of God, improving on nature (Wright, 1989), and designing life to our liking. Others can see genetic engineering as a God given tool for us to use wisely in helping other people. DNA is part of God's creation, and, just as with our ecological environment, we must be good stewards in utilizing this gift and not exploit it.
American Poll on Genetic Engineering
In 1994, a poll taken from U. S. News & World Report
stated that 25 percent of Americans feel that genetic engineering should
be used to improve physical appearance, and 34 percent found it acceptable
to boost intelligence in this way. Is this what you would expect, noting
that these are nonessential uses of genetic engineering? Recall that social
and economic strains influenced the popularity of eugenics in the early
decades of the 1900's. What would happen fifty years from now if the population
problem became a reality? More poor and less space result in outbreaks of
crime. With already a significant portion of our population condoning "nonessential"
genetic engineering, it seems that down the road our society would see it
as necessary. Just as eugenics seemed a solution to Americans and Nazis
only several generations ago, we may one day allow history repeat itself
and bring back this social disaster.
Today's Science Fiction, Tomorrow's Reality?
Other ideas for genetic engineering stem from science fiction. What if humans were able to have genes that allowed them to slow their metabolism for extensive periods of time? This would open doors for space travel. Imagine if we could design our digestive tract to have the ability to digest cellulose for energy. Perhaps this would be a step towards eluding starvation. A third adaptation proposed by Brian Stableford in Genetic Engineering is night vision (Dudley, 1990). All these ideas may be far-fetched, but much of the science fiction of the past, such as man walking on the moon, has become a reality.
I don't believe God needed genes to create the human race. Maybe God, in God's infinite wisdom, created genes in a way that we wouldn't be able to discover them until now. Imagine if Hitler had the power of genetic engineering! Possibly, by the time we developed the technology to alter genes, we were also expected to have sufficient ethical abilities. If God doesn't need DNA to create life, it could be meant as a tool for our own use, to better ourselves. For this reason, I feel that we should continue with genetic research, but as we keep advancing in technology, we need to continually seek out the Christian ways of using our gifts. I think it is a noble cause to fix the defective genes of life-threatened patients as in somatic-cell therapy, but the idea of eugenics is very unchristian. It is analogous to how we should treat our earth. We should live off the land and use its many resources, but we cannot exploit its use or we will lose the beauty of its diversity, just as the practice of eugenics diminishes the diversity of the human race.
God gave us two worlds to explore: that of science and religion. Human curiosity is our primary tool in that it drives us towards advancement. We must then see technology as a gift given from God, our creator. As good stewards, we are to find the technology, and apply it according to our Christian values. I will end with a quote taken from the speech by Harold Varmus that stresses the importance that our values keep up with our technologies for our future's sake.
"The compassionate application of new technology to human problems requires a deep understanding of human nature and human culture, a general education in the broader sense. We are at a crossroads in human history. Never before has there been a movement so simultaneously perilous and promising. We are the first species to have taken our evolution into our own hands. There is not much time to determine to which fork of the road we are committing our children and our future." --Carl Sagan
Allen, Garland E. "Science Misapplied: The Eugenics Age Revisited." Technology Review. August/September 1996: 124-126.
Beardsley, Tim. "Vital Data." Scientific American. March 1996: 100-105.
British Medical Association. Our Genetic Future: The Science and Ethics of Genetic Technology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Brownlee, Shannon. "Tinkering With Destiny." U.S. News & World Report. August 22, 1994: 59-67.
Carey, John. "The Next Wonder Drug May Not Be A Drug." Business Week. May 9, 1994: 84-86.
Dudley, William ed. Genetic Engineering. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc, 1990.
Lee, Thomas F. Gene Future: The Promise and Perils of the New Biology. New York: Plenum Press, 1993.
McClung, Caryn, Jack Albrecht, Rebecca Lawrence, and Brian Guerra. "Hooray for Genetic Engineering." Http://www.cwrl.utexas./genetics/benefits.html. December 18, 1996.
O'Brien, Stephen J., and Michael Dean. "In Search of AIDS-Resistance Genes." Scientific American. September 1997: 44-51.
Pool, Robert. "Portrait of a Gene Guy." Discover. October 1997: 50-55.
Varmus, Harold. "Genetics: The Ethical Problem With Knowledge." Vital Speeches of Our Time. February 5, 1996: 334-337.
Wright, Richard T. Biology: Through the Eyes of Faith. San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, 1989.
Marshal, Elliot. "Whose Genome is it Anyway?" Science. Vol. 273. September 27, 1996: 1788, 1789.
Marshal, Elliot. "The Genome Program's Conscience." Science. Vol. 274. October 4, 1996: 488, 489.
Niccol, Andrew, Director/Screenplay. GATTACA. Columbia Pictures: 1997.