Experimentation on human DNA could affect the survival of the human race. Genetic manipulation can eradicate diseases, eliminate birth defects, and create a perfect human race.
Yet, in the wrong hands, the quest for perfection could open Pandora’s Box and unleash extreme consequences for the world’s societies.
The consequences are gender imbalance caused by artificial trait selection, irresponsible genetic experimentation practices—due to lack of public oversight—and essentially non-existent genetic technology laws.
The human genome is a relatively new discovery in the scientific world. The term “gene,” coined in 1909 by Wilhelm Johannsen, is not understood to be made of DNA until 1952. Then in 1990 the Human Genome Project is established to map or sequence all 3.2 Billion letters of the human genome. The work of the Human Genome Project is all but finished by 2003, but the human genome is still not completely understood to this day (“NHGRI”). The study of genetics has helped scientists to understand the fundamental inner workings of what makes us human, and continual study may bring forth solutions to many problems faced by our race. One of these problems is the health of the people. It is true that if a scientist or physician can map the genetic structure of a disease it may help them better understand how to eliminate or cure it. It seems that from an ethical standpoint the manipulation of DNA for the purpose of destroying a virus, such as Ebola, that kills countless people around the world is a just cause.
However, this example is not the only type of genetic manipulation that could happen.
For the past twenty-five years genetic manipulation has experienced a renaissance of sorts. It is now possible to choose the gender of a child before it is born. This decision comes with negative implications because if gender is chosen, then there is the possibility of gender imbalance in a society.
This gender imbalance could be crushing to a society in many ways.
In China the gender imbalance in society is a direct result of the Chinese Government’s one-child policy enforced since 1978, which is now a two-child policy. The change to governmental family planning, first implemented due to fear of scarce resources caused by over-population, attempts to fix the new problem of a rapidly aging labor force in China. According to Time magazine, “By 2050, 1 in 3 Chinese will be older than 60, [creating] a 430 million—strong cohort larger than the entire U.S. population” (“Damage”). This situation will cause an economic meltdown for China in the near future because—there will not be a large enough labor force to sustain China’s economy.
This negative outcome, when it occurs, will be a direct result of governmental regulation of the family.
In the United states, according to a Gallup poll, “If Americans could have only one child, they would prefer that it be a boy rather than a girl, by a 40% to 28% margin, with the rest having no preference or no opinion on the matter” (“Boys”).
This information is significant because it means two things. Firstly, the demographic that has no preference of the gender of their children will not participate in genetic manipulation of sex selection. With this in mind, the Gallup poll would lead us to believe that over half of the population, participating in genetic manipulation of gender, would choose a boy as their first child. Secondly, the Millennial generation has overtaken the Baby Boomer generation in population in the United States, according to PewResearch.org. This generation, that I belong to, is different from the Baby Boomers in regards to child bearing. According to the Urban Institute, “Between 2007 and 2012, birth rates among twenty-something women declined more than 15 percent” (“Recession”). This decline happened right on the heels of an economic crisis in the United States, which paints a picture of the correlation between economic conditions and Millennials’ decisions to have a child. According to The Atlantic, “If these low birth rates to women in their twenties continue, without a commensurate increase in birth rates to older women, the U.S. might eventually face the type of generational imbalance that currently characterizes… [some] countries” (“Millennial”).
In the event of such a situation happening in the U.S., like in China’s case, the government would have to intervene in the population’s decisions on the gender of their children.
This control of the population is a more or less accepted idea in a communist country, but what about the countries with less governmental oversight. If the decision to allow parents to choose the outright gender of their children is allowed, then there is a possibility of systematic failure—of a society, unless the government of that society regulates gender. This theoretical scenario is fueled by one small decision to allow parents to determine the sex of a child.
Imagine the ramifications of more significant variables, such as deliberate selection of other traits.
Scientific organizations around the world are close to legalizing genetic manipulation of human traits, yet genetic alteration has been legally acceptable on canines for centuries.
Dogs have been bred for specific traits for hundreds of years and the drawbacks are dreadfully apparent. “Almost every [dog] breed has a particular set of genetic diseases associated with it. Our ancestors, in creating today's breeds of dog by strict artificial selection, did dogs a great harm” (Miller).
Although humans and canines are a different species, we share DNA that can be altered at the genetic level to produce any physical trait. If the history of dog breeding portrays extremely negative consequences due to artificial trait selection—then it would seem unwise to do the same to the human race.
In spite of this knowledge, scientists are now conducting experiments on nonviable human embryos, which cannot produce live births. This controversial practice is gaining negative attention from ethicists and scientists around the globe. Yet even more controversially, there are places in the world such as: China, Russia, South Africa, and the United States—where human genetic alteration “rules [are] `ambiguous’’ (Friedman) or the laws are not restrictive. “Internationally, most of these [laws]… were drafted before the technology [was made]… widely available, and that technology is still too inaccurate and unpredictable to be used clinically on viable embryos that could become genetically modified humans” (Friedman).
The fact of the matter is that the laws are outdated and there is a lack of public oversight regarding genetic experimentation. The world’s people have a right to know the implications of societies where geneticists have free reign over manipulation of genes.
It seems that everyone in all societies should have a say in whether this practice is ethical or not. Also, considering that the ability to manipulate DNA is in essence a recent development, scientists have a duty—to the public—to take into account all variables that could indicate disaster for the human race. If “[technology] … [is] used to alter human genomes, the new human beings created would have artificially inserted genes in every cell and tissue in their bodies — including their eggs or sperm. Thus, the edited genome would be passed on to all the descendants of these engineered humans, and little is known about the potential long-term effects” (Adams). In the event of the creation of engineered human beings, who can judge if they are any better than naturally conceived humans.
Moreover, who will determine what they will look like—because there is not one race in the world.
The idea behind genetically engineering humans is to make genetic disorders and disease non-existent, and doing so will give these new humans a perfect biological structure. With that being said, the definition of “perfect” is “complete and correct in every way, of the best possible type or without fault” (CambridgeDictonariesOnline).
The (non-genetically modified) human race has one characteristic shared by all ethnicities: imperfection.
No two humans are exactly alike, excluding identical twins, —and the idea that we can modify a race to be perfect is a ridiculous idea. Modification would have to become alteration, and then unique qualities would be transformed into uniform traits. Then perfection becomes a subjective judgment to whoever wants to modify you before you are born. We do not want to be the generation of humans that end our former races existence—in pursuit of the delusion of perfection.
Genetic modification can be a force for good in respect to saving lives by understanding disease, but it could also be a force that could lead to our own destruction. Science fiction is becoming science fact right before our eyes, and it is our duty as people to judge the use of genetic technology as ethical or not. If the societies of the world turn a blind eye to modern science, then morality could become a gene that might accidentally be shut off.
Ultimately “the fact that these things are possible does not, of course, mean that they should be done” (D’Souza 676).
Works Cited
"About NHGRI: A Brief History and Timeline." Genome. National Human Genome Research Institute, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
Adams, Jill U. “Manipulating the Human Genome”. CQResearcher. Publication no. 23. Vol. 25. N.p.: Congressional Quarterly, n.d. CQ Researcher. CQ Press, 19 June 2015. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
Astone, Nan Marie, Steven Martin, and H. Elizabeth Peters. "Millennial Childbearing and the Recession." Urban Institute. Urban Institute, 28 Apr. 2015. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
D'Souza, Dinesh. "Staying Human." Issues Across the Disciplines. Ed. Gilbert H. Muller. 12th ed. Customized for Oklahoma City Community College. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2014. 675-82. Print.
Friedman, Lauren F. "These Are the Countries Where It's 'legal' to Edit Human Embryos (hint: The US Is One)." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 23 Apr. 2015. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
Fry, Richard. "This Year, Millennials Will Overtake Baby Boomers." Pew Research Center RSS. Pew Research Center, 16 Jan. 2015. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
Khazan, Olga. "The Childless Millennial." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 29 Apr. 2015. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
Miller, Jesse. "The Case for Genetically Modifying Dogs." The Dodo. The Dodo.com, Inc., 14 June 2014. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.
Newport, Frank. "Americans Prefer Boys to Girls, Just as They Did in 1941." Gallup. Gallup, Inc., 23 June 2011. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
"Perfect" Def.2. Cambridge Dictionaries online. Cambridge University Press, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
Walsh, Bryan. "It May Be Too Late to Reverse the Damage of China's One-child Policy." Time 16 Nov. 2015: 23-24. Print.
Thank you for this very thoughtful take upon this subject @jrhhewett. I must admit that I found the title of this article in light of your recent generous comment to be particularly intriguing.
I also feel that you could have easily enough have turned this into two different complimentary articles - another one centering around state mechanisms of population control (e.g. the one/two child policies).
My own view on experimentation with genetics is that - as with other 'God-scale' things like Artificial Intelligence - is that there is great potential.
Both for good and for ill. Modification can improve resistance to certain ailments just as it can lead to fresh divides concerning the modified versus the unmodified (and that is stated while treading very lightly upon the potential ethical concerns).
Thank you again. Food for thought.