Against Human Genome Alterations
The discovery of the human genome code has played a pivotal role in science history. The sequence displays our heritable traits and the functions acted in our body. DNA is the basis of the central dogma of molecular biology. It undergoes a precise process from a single DNA strand to a phenotype, which then makes you. A single mutation in this process can substantially effect the genetic sequence. With saying that, although some benefits can come from altering our genetic code, mankind should embrace the differences rather than alter them. The genetic code should not be altered because the modification is not a guaranteed, thus the inefficiency may cause an accidental mutation. In addition, we should not alter it because it will limit our resources in the world and will reduce the diversity of the gene pool.
To begin, the human genome code should not be altered because it is not a guarantee for success. This new technique and process has not officially been perfected. It was mentioned that “The precise effects of genetic modification to an embryo may be impossible to know until after birth.” Therefore, many things can go wrong, especially dealing with recombinant DNA where it is easy for a mutation to take place. Even if the DNA code can be adjusted, it is unnecessary considering the embryo was healthy to begin with. An example of this was demonstrated by Chinese researchers who tested this controversy by altering the genetic code for embryos. It was declared only 28 out of the 86 embryos were successful in the alteration. Scientist Huang explained to journal Nature, “If you want to do it in normal embryos, you need to be close to 100%. That's why we stopped. We still think it’s too immature.” That investigation proved the alteration is too high of a risk for human embryos. In addition, genetic modification may only protects so much. When individuals grow, the body undergoes rapid cell division, which may develop a mutation or other illnesses such as cancer can develop due to carcinogens in the environment. The question for the individual holding the embryo is if it’s worth the risk.
Secondly, we should not alter the human genome because it will limit our resources. Although this could potentially save the lives of many individuals, as a whole it will greatly effect our worlds population. The global birth rate will increase, creating an even greater unbalance between the death rate and birth rate. With more people surviving means more land must be taken into consideration and more resources are going to be needed. Our world can only support so many people. It would be ideal for everyone to live a long life, however this helps to keep the world population in equilibrium between survival and not.
Lastly, humans should not be able to alter the gene code because it will reduce the diversity and uniqueness of mankind. If everyone changed the sequence to their specific desired traits, eventually everyone would be the same. Diversity is extremely important for your health so if everyone has similar traits, it will increase the chances of producing more rare genetic diseases. Considering the alteration is not a guarantee, is it worth risking a possible disease in your child that can be avoidable? A decrease in variety in DNA can also weaken the immune system, so diseases are more difficult to fight off. With saying that, humans should embrace their individuality and uniqueness, not try to change it for what is considered “perfect." Also, changing the genetic code of someone who has a disability (eg. autism, mental health issues, down syndrome) does not mean they could not have had a good life to begin with. Some of the most genius people in the world suffered from what is considered “not perfect.” Taking those traits away will not only reduce the beauty of diversity, but create a boring atmosphere because everything will be the same. No one should be playing God because he is doing his job himself already, which is using our unique qualities to impact the world.
In conclusion, the human genetic code should not be altered. This is because it is inefficient and can cause more mutations, it will reduce our resources for the future, and it will reduce diversity of the gene pool. Life has evolved through mutations. If everyone had similar characteristics of the “perfect” human, we would basically be stopping this incredible progression.
Work Cited:
Porostocky, Art By Thomas. "Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos?" National Geographic. N.p., 13 June 2017. Web. 18 June 2017.
"Don't Edit the Human Germ Line." Nature News. Nature Publishing Group, n.d. Web. 18 June 2017.
Sample, Ian. "Scientists Genetically Modify Human Embryos in Controversial World First."The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 23 Apr. 2015. Web. 18 June 2017.
"Understanding Genetics." Understanding Genetics. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 June 2017.
Hi Dimi!
ReplyDeleteYour points were really strong and you provided a lot of information to support it. I do however, have to disagree with your first point. With any technology in its early stages, success is not guaranteed. It requires time, money and tests to be able to determine if the technology will succeed or not. I don't think that its risk for failure is an adequate reason to not go forward with the concept. Though, your point about limited resources is extremely valid. It is a truth we hate to face, but an equal death and birth rate has to be kept in order to stay sustainable, which we are already struggling to do. With an abundance of pros and cons to the technology, it makes the decision extremely complex.
Although I do see why it would be risky trying to implement this new technology in embryos at this current point in time, I do agree with Abby that research should not stop with these technologies as a result of that. New technology does develop in stages and thus over time we would have the almost 100% success rate require to use in human embryos. That being said, even if the research does take years in order to implement, the benefits would be huge and life changing for many people potentially living limited lives. To address your concern about limited resources, I believe that even if we do pursue in allowing for genetic code to be altered, there will always be factors affecting death and birth rates keeping them at a balance. For example, if we have this increase in population due to the genetic alteration, there will be more people on the roads and possibly more people dying of car accidents. Small factors such as those will all contribute to levelling off the population size. Overall, good arguments!
Delete