The Ethical Dilemma of Genetic Engineering

The science of genetics has always historically fascinated humans to aid in his search for ways to stay healthy, preserve self, pass the traits to next generations and live through eternity- the animal instinct is to prevail.

We have extreme examples of emperors committing incest to produce children from their own siblings to preserve pure genes and pass them along their heritage lines.

With the discovery of DNA genetic codes and structures, the obsession towards them has increased and have led many to the concept of genetic reductionism- the idea that understanding the gene is adequate to comprehend all aspects of human behavior overlooking the role of environmental and social variables.

The Ethics of Genetics

The advancement of science and technology and the study of genetic building blocks of every trait have led to many challenges in medicines, adding a new dimension of personalized medicine and healthcare.

But at the same time, legal, ethical and social influencers have modified the human instinct and made it difficult to differentiate between what is ethical and what is unethical, the signs of disease and consideration of health. Genomics has enables us to create not just human specific, but individualized treatment option. For instance, creating HIV-resistant T cells to cure AIDS, editing genes of an embryo to prevent genetic diseases like Cystic fibrosis, or changing the color of the eyes or other traits of the baby.

From the discovery of the twisted-ladder structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or double helix in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick to discovery of Restriction Enzymes in 1968; from invention of recombinant DNA technology in 1971 to first genetically engineered insulin in 1982; from cloning and Genetically modified organisms (GMO) in 1990 to the successful birth of cloned Dolly the sheep to Clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPR)- all are made possible due to advance in genetics.

Today, a Chinese scientific team used CRISPR to modify the genes of twins Lulu and Nana to make them immune to HIV. New research shows that deleting a gene called CCR5 led to smarter mice which signify improved brain recovery after stroke and better performance in school, cognition, and memory, according to scientists.

The birth of Lulu and Nana has heightened the controversy of genetic editing among scientists and also raised questions of the ethical dilemma. Legal and ethical concerns will always prevail, but we have to draw the line between when, where and the size of the problem.

Governments have certain regulations around this space based on expert opinions and constitutionality. But the driving factors of the system make it difficult to determine which protocols are for health, which is for-profit and even self-interests. Politics of the past has proved that bureaucracy doesn’t always mean legitimacy, as we have learned from the past pesticides have been turned into chemical bombs, nuclear power to atomic bombs, viruses to biological warfare and so on.

Hence, history tells us that anything beneficial for humans can be turned into dangerous things by petty politics.

The Role of the Government

Is it really wrong to clone a healthy person or choose the color of their eyes? What should determine the unethical or illegitimate nature of the utilization of scientific advances?

I believe that the choice of words and definitions are extremely detrimental. A personalized approach should be the determining factor for the choices. We remain bound to ethical standards by the understanding of the human life within values presented by the golden rule.

Every individual has different circumstances. Cloning just for preserving yourself is unethical but for a couple who cannot conceive, it can serve as a life-changing reproduction tool. Genetics is ethical when we use it to remove the cystic fibrosis gene from a newborn baby or prevent Down syndrome.

The physician and the patient should be left to make the decisions instead of a political aristocracy. Governments will have to put in a lot of effort to ensure that genetic technology will not be used to create lethal soldiers, superheroes or to push political agendas. We cannot allow alternate interests to undermine the technologies which could be used for welfare. It should be an individual right, and no ideology, religion, culture or politics should influence the decision as long as it doesn’t create conflicts with others.

Historically, governments have tried to find excuses to convince citizens that micro-regulations are necessary to prevent technology from falling in the wrong hands. I always emphasize on using the original definitions of health, disease, healthcare in the context of the individual patient and personalized care as disregarding individual need brings more harm. Genetic engineering should only be used when it makes the patients comfortable, cures sometimes and treats often.

Electing genes for the purpose of health and disease is fine, but it should never be used for racist behavior or profiling. We have to define the scenario and application of technology to prevent any abuse.

Even though physicians are held to the highest ethical standards and committed to the delivery of medicine, administrative mandates and standards with a population health model leas physicians to adopt defensive medicine. We are losing the personal touch, and forgetting the difference between healer, physician, and provider.

Genetic editing must follow the physician standards- cure sometimes, treat often and comfort always. We have a belief that only the government can ensure the best healthcare delivery which has led governments to interrupt clinical judgments and created conflict among the science of medicine and politics. Governments can ensure the welfare of their citizens without disrupting clinical judgments which include genetic editing.

Every patient has the right to stay healthy and seek the most up-to-date treatment plans that sometimes includes controversial techniques like assisted euthanasia intervention. So it’s fine to use genetics to prevent diseases like cystic fibrosis at conception if personal choices, technology, and clinical judgment permit the action.

Thanks for reading Writers Guild — A Penname publication

Share your stories on ManyStories.com to reach more readers. Auto-tweet your stories on repeat with Signal to increase engagement.