Just Because We can ... Should we?

“Should man kind be permitted to alter the genetic code?”

Genetic modification has propelled the works of biology in presenting a mammoth opportunity for advancements in genetics. The argument of whether application of this knowledge is an acceptable approach to tackling current issues in genetics prevails. We ask, should mankind be permitted to altering the genetic code? With current standings in ethics, the threat to genetic diversity and the absence of viable references, the genetic code should not be tampered with.  

Altering genetic code is a sheer invasion of nature. It rests on the premise of playing God, where human offspring is merely a product by design. Creating a human with the sole intention of biological enhancement poses a major ethical issue, and unveils a whole new avenue of intellectual and physical superiority. Regardless of whether the traits produced are presumed ideal to the individual, the slightest alteration is advantageous compared to someone containing unmodified genes. For example, in the world of athletics, genetic modification creates a divide between the “Haves” and the “Have Nots”. One containing cultured genes allowing for optimal muscle function and a swift physique evidently has higher chances of domination. Is the future a place where accolades of success are a procedural byproduct? This will become an evident source of frustration in society, which may further violate ethical boundaries. The same ethics are involved in genetic modification in the food we consume. In my opinion, genetic modification alone is an obstruction to what is most true to nature. However, altering the gene of a plant is far less of a divot to ethics than regenerating an entirely new meaning to the word human.

Next, mankind should not be permitted to alter the genetic code because it lessons genetic diversity. The ongoing event of evolution is entirely based on mutation and genetic variation to increase adaption and survival. Recall that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was Survival of the Fittest. Darwin theorized a mechanism of natural selection which stated that the continued existence of organisms depends on the variation of traits they posses best suited to their environment. In the same sense, once multiple people are genetically constructed to achieve certain attributes, it jeopardizes this evolutionary stimulation and eliminates individuality. For example, sickle cell anemia, a cruel red blood cell disorder, allows for immunity to malaria. Though this condition may be a medical challenge, it reveals some external benefits. With this, sickle cell anemia will continue to be passed down to offspring because of it withstands these conditions.

Lastly, we do not yet have a viable reference that can speak to alterations in genetics. Has a “prototype” been created and firmly tested to filter out any possible repercussions involving age span and susceptibility to disease? If modifying the genetic code is to be acted upon in humans, potential drawbacks must be clearly recognized. Perhaps there are monotonous post-modification steps required to ensure human's of a specific genetic makeup are not vulnerable to their environment. How do modified genes react to specific mutagens? Is there an increased risk in mutation when genes are constructed from a genetic template? These modifications are not guaranteed as there is still the risk of spontaneous mutations and sequencing errors. Perhaps there is a heightened risk of experiencing these abnormalities when the genetic code is tampered with. It is important that additional studies are pursued in order to gain a more sincere perspective and deem it safe for longevity. 

        If altering the genetic code evolves into a public affair, should life insurance companies be able to look into one’s genetic history to identify whether they have an illness that will lesson their life expectancy? Should families have the ability to change the genes of their future child if they are expected to have a disorder? Where do we draw the line?

Works Cited

Baker, Beth. "The Ethics of Changing the Human Genome." BioScience. Oxford University Press, 06 Mar. 2016. Web. 18 June 2017. <https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/66/4/267/2464097/The-Ethics-of-Changing-the-Human-Genome>.

"Challenging Evolution: How GMOs Can Influence Genetic Diversity." Science in the News. N.p., 12 Aug. 2015. Web. 18 June 2017. <http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/challenging-evolution-how-gmos-can-influence-genetic-diversity/>.

Mayr, Ernst. "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought." Scientific American. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 June 2017. <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought/>.

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. <http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-gene-editing-pro-con-opinions/>.