Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract
modified food was a tomato created in the early 1990’s, and the first mammal was cloned in
1996. Like all technology though, genetic engineering continues to rapidly expand. Genetic
engineering of plants and animals is now a widespread process implemented in cultures all over
the world; over 100 million hectares of genetically modified crops are cultivated every year
(Bevan, 2001). The success of genetically engineered plants and animals has led to the
the process of human genetic engineering. IVF is the process by which an egg is fertilized by a
sperm outside of the womb in a laboratory setting. Since the first successful procedure in 1973,
IVF has become the best solution for overcoming fertility problems where traditional fertilization
is not possible (Bavister, 2002). Another main aspect of human genetic engineering is
preimplatation genetic diagnosis (PGD). According to Pray (2008) and Baird (2007), in vitro
fertilization has led to preimplantation genetic diagnosis which is paving the way for human
genetic engineering and genetically modified children. PGD is the process by which embryos are
screened for conditions that could lead to genetic diseases. If scientists learn enough about the
relationship between genes and their exhibited traits, the processes of IVF and PGD could lead to
the procedure of genetically engineering unborn children. The promising benefits of human
genetic engineering include the process of avoiding genetic disorders by screening embryos for
diseases that are known to be linked to certain genes. Without any laws banning the practice of
human genetic engineering in the United States, the stage is set for a future filled with
genetically modified children (Baird, 2007; Deneen, 2001; Van Court, 2004; Wright, 1999).
Despite the allure of this technology, the potential downfalls need to be considered with
equal importance. Deneen (2001) argues that if a system of genetically modified babies arises,
there will be consequences down the road that nobody on Earth could predict. Since these
consequences are apparently difficult to predict, research on the topic of human genetic
engineering largely ignores the possibility of unknown consequences that could have large-scale
effects. One must ask themselves what kind of world they would live in if this technology was
successfully implemented on a large scale. What would happen to the social structure of the
procedure regulated and distributed by the government instead? This research paper will explore
the plausible downfalls that could result from the process of genetically designing unborn
children if active measures are not taken to regulate the technology. Specifically, the government
and the social structure of America could all be severely changed in separate or related instances.
Human genetic engineering is the process by which a desired gene can be placed into a
human in order for that human to express a certain trait or be protected from developing a
genetic disease. To do so, the desired gene must be located on a strand of deoxyribonucleic acid
(DNA) and then cut out using a restriction enzyme, which severs a DNA strand at a specified
location. The gene is then integrated into a plasmid and placed into a vector, usually a virus. The
virus will inject the plasmid into a new cell, and the DNA in the new cell will adopt the desired
gene. This technology can be applied to human embryos by way of germline engineering, a
process that enables the genes that are placed into an embryo to be passed on to future offspring.
According to Hayes (2000), germline engineering is only possible when the gene is implanted
into a sperm cell, egg, or very early embryo. The other method for human genetic engineering is
called somatic engineering. In this process, a gene is added to a cell that is not an egg or sperm
cell, so the implanted gene will not be inherited by any offspring (Hayes, 2000). Of those two
into the stem cells. From Figure 1. Method for germline engineering. Retrieved from:
http://www.arhp.org/uploadImages/cloning_7.jpg
there, each stem cell would
grow into larger colonies to be tested using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). PGD is a
process for screening embryos for certain genes or conditions, so by using this technique, the
scientist could determine whether or not the desired trait was picked up by each colony. If a
specific colony showed that it acquired the desired genes, those stem cells could be placed into a
new embryo and inserted into the womb of the future mother by the process of in vitro
fertilization (IVF). IVF is engrained in the whole process of genetically engineering a baby,
because it starts with fertilizing an egg outside of the womb, and ends with implanting the
embryo into the mother’s uterus (Bavister, 2002). Currently, IVF coupled with PGD is used on
embryos to determine the risk factor for that embryo to develop genetic diseases. It is a heavily
high risk for genetic disease. Adams (2004) explains that not enough is known about the
relationship between genes and their resulting outward appearance to make judgments other than
Genetic engineering is a technology that has been used on plants and animals for many
years, and is now being applied to the genes of humans. The origins of genetic engineering date
back to the 1970’s. It was then that scientists first used the knowledge of restriction enzymes to
isolate, identify, and clone genes and also manipulate, mutate, and insert those genes into other
species (Meyer, 2004). Restriction enzymes enable DNA to be cut at specific sections, leaving a
“sticky end.” If another portion of DNA is cut in the same fashion, the two “sticky ends” can
combine, forming a new hybrid molecule with the particular gene of interest (Hayes, 2000). With
this knowledge, scientists found a way to use the genetic code from a living organism and
implant it into the stem cells of an unborn organism, producing a clone. After these discoveries,
gene cloning was researched and practiced worldwide, but it has never been applied to humans.
The following years were littered with great advancements in the field including the creation of
genetically engineered human insulin, the hepatitis vaccine, and the tissue plasminogen activator
(tPA) that dissolves blood clots after heart attacks (Meyer, 2004).
Genetically engineered plants began in the 1980’s, when it was first discovered that genes
could be transferred between different species of plants. Scientists quickly learned how to
recognize specific genes in plants and how they correspond to the phenotype of the plants. By
implanting desirable genes into plants, crops could be cultivated to maximize yield and
nourishment while minimizing pesticide usage (Bevan, 2001). However, there are several ethical
and environmental concerns surrounding genetically engineered plants. Bevan (2001) points out
the ability for animal genes and even human genes to be implanted into crops, causing
uneasiness among vegetarians who could consider those crops to be non-vegetable. Bevan also
warns about the possibility for genetically engineered crops to transfer genetic material via
pollen to wild plant species like weeds, thus giving them the ability to be resistant to herbicides.
Despite the debates surrounding plant engineering, genetically engineered food is produced and
exploiting the natural function of the enzyme Figure 2. Polymerase Chain Reaction.
Retrieved from:
polymerase, which copies genetic material http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/0
4etta/background/dna/media/dna_1_600.jpg
(Powledge, N.D.). According to Powledge, the
process is carried out by first separating the double helix structure of the original genetic material
into two strands by heating in to 90-96 degrees Celsius. Next, two primers consisting of
nucleotides attach themselves to the complimentary pairs of the now single-stranded DNA.
Lastly, the polymerase enzyme reads the template strand and matches it with the complimentary
nucleotides, resulting in two new helixes with the same code as the original genetic material (see
Figure 2). This process can be repeated, doubling the output every time; and each cycle only
takes one to three minutes (Powledge, N.D.). All of these advancements were important to the
field of genetic engineering, but it was the completion of the Human Genome Project after the
turn of the century coupled with the process of in vitro fertilization that has paved the way for the
In vitro fertilization is a process by which a zygote is formed using an egg and sperm cell
in a laboratory setting, outside of the mother’s body (Bavister 2002). The fertilized egg is then
placed in the uterus of the mother to be born conventionally. Bavister (2002) claims that in vitro
fertilization is a common treatment for couples with fertility problems when other forms of
assisted reproduction have failed. Baird (2007) argues that the knowledge of the entire human
genome paired with the process of in vitro fertilization led to the process of preimplantation
genetic diagnosis, or embryo screening. By this process, embryos can be screened for genetic
conditions that could lead to genetic diseases (Pray, 2008). If the embryo shows signs of these
genetic conditions, the embryo will most likely not be implanted. According to Pray (2008),
another use for preimplantion genetic diagnosis is for the controversial process of sex selection.
By screening the embryo, the sex of the future child can be determined, and the parents can
genetic engineering (Pike & Vo, 2007). Each has a different process and a different outcome.
Somatic genetic engineering was used far before germline genetic engineering, largely because
of its uses. Somatic genetic engineering deals with adding genes to cells other than sperm or egg
cells. This is the process used for gene therapy to correct diseases caused by specific genes. The
potential disease could be treated by inserting a healthy gene into the cells that are affected.
Somatic gene therapy is made possible by the use of viruses as a vector for carrying the gene that
is to be implanted. The viral gene is replaced by the therapeutic gene and then infects whatever
cells it normally infects, inserting the therapeutic gene into the cells that need it (Pike & Vo,
2007). The important difference between somatic and germline genetic engineering is that
somatic genetic engineering does not allow an implanted gene to be passed to any offspring
because it is not placed in any gametes. Germline genetic engineering represents the other form
of human genetic engineering. By this process, Pike and Vo (2007) explain that genes are
implanted into sperm cells, sex cells, or embryos in very early stages of development. This
means that the changes in the genetic code would be inheritable by any offspring and any further
generations that come to exist. Germline genetic engineering is a process associated with the idea
of parents designing their children to have more desirable traits by altering their genetic makeup.
Accompanied by the process of improving the genes of an unborn child is the idea of eugenics.
Eugenics is the process by which the human race would potentially improve itself by selective
breeding. According to Van Court (2004), those with more desirable traits are encouraged to
reproduce, while those with undesirable traits are discouraged from it. In terms of human genetic
engineering, undesirable traits would not be implanted into unborn embryos, and desirable traits
would be, thus improving the genetic code of the human race.
Another important aspect that would pertain to the future of genetic engineering is the
idea of eugenics, defined as a process by which a species is improved by using the laws of
heredity to select future offspring (Van Court, 2004). Eugenics can be traced back to the origins
of the human race, but Plato is considered the first to develop a philosophy about it, and Sir
Francis Galton scientifically organized the concept after reading Charles Darwin’s On the Origin
of Species (Sandall, 2008). Sandall explains how Dalton saw a clear correlation between the laws
of heredity and the idea of racial improvement, and called for eugenic action in order to achieve
that racial improvement. The Spartans and the Nazis are classic examples of eugenic societies,
but the process has history all over the world. In the United States, the process has been
advocated by Alexander Graham Bell, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Margaret
Sanger, to name a few (Sandall, 2008). The term eugenics currently has a negative connotation
because of the apparent link to genocide resulting from the Nazi regime’s use of eugenics, but
the definition of the term could be easily applied to human genetic engineering.
All of the aforementioned procedures and ideologies contribute to the focus of the
research paper, which is the imminent possibility of parents “designing” their children based on
specific genes that pertain to specific attributes of personality, appearance, and health. If that
process becomes a reality, certain processes and ideologies would be altered or redefined. One
must ask themselves what would become of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Would the
process be altered such that embryos would be designed based on the requests of the parents, and
then chosen to match those requests? Would in vitro fertilization no longer be just a treatment for
couples unable to conceive by natural measures, but a common procedure for child birth? If
those questions become realities, somatic genetic engineering would become an irrelevant
practice, because no children would be born with genetic diseases that need fixing by way of
somatic gene therapy. The theory of eugenics also has the potential to be redefined by human
genetic engineering. Instead of using natural child birth as the foundation for change, could the
eugenics become associated with improving the human race by means of actually manually
There is no history strictly about the process of designing children with genetic
engineering, because it does not exist, but the technology that would be involved in that process
already exists. In terms of technology, nothing stands in the way of the advancement of
genetically engineered babies. Scientists are certainly eager for the chance to give every child the
right to a life without genetic diseases, but it may be possible that their judgment is clouded by
visions of fame, fortune, and praise. There are many known drawbacks to this technology, so it is
logical to wonder if there are also unknown areas of drawbacks that will not be discovered until
Human genetic engineering undoubtedly has mystical allures. It doesn’t take much of a
search to encounter a variety of convincing arguments for the development of human genetic
engineering with a purpose of bettering the human species. Adams (2004) argues that the human
race is running on outdated software, and in order to continue to positively progress, we need to
update our genetic code with human genetic engineering. The most promising notion of human
genetic engineering is the possibility of phasing out genetic diseases completely with germline
genetic engineering; if no genetic diseases are passed on to offspring, they will cease to exist
(Baird, 2007; Shanks, 2005). As a result, the number of aborted fetuses would decrease
dramatically since parents would no longer face the tough decision of aborting their child
because it will have a genetic disease. Also, money currently spent by the government to ensure
financial stability for genetically disabled humans could be spent elsewhere, leading to certain
A more radical possibility of human genetic engineering includes the ability for parents
to choose the genes of their children to code for a certain appearance, intellect, and even
personality. This ideology might seem closer to science fiction than reality, but if scientists can
link a gene to a trait, it can be genetically engineered. For instance, if scientists discovered a
particular set of genes that controlled the ability to recognize patterns, those genes could be
optimized and placed into embryos. This theory could even extend to the possibility implanting
animal traits into humans. Children could be born with the eyesight of an eagle or the scent
recognition of a dog. With all these potential benefits, one could find it hard to imagine why
anyone would argue against it. However, the potential downfall of humankind could be just the
case to go against human genetic engineering. Is the allure of controlling our own evolution and
natural selection overshadowing the imminent threat to our species posed by genetically
engineering ourselves?
This paper aims to point out the possible pitfalls and negative effects that may be
overlooked when discussing the future of human genetic engineering. Some may be blind to the
many possible outcomes from a lack of knowledge, but others could have their judgment clouded
by the excitement of creating genetic superhumans. Obvious ethical arguments focus on the
notion of “playing God,” but ethical arguments are purely opinion-based. Evans (2002) explains
that ethical debates about human genetic engineering naturally turn into political and social
debates, and ultimately into debates about who should have jurisdiction over the research.
Therefore, ethical views cannot be cited as evidence for or against human genetic engineering.
When debating the topic of human genetic engineering, certain fields need to be taken into
serious consideration: the effects on the future of the government and on American society and
social structure.
Social Outcomes
The social structure of the United States faces drastic changes if genetic engineering
reaches the point where it is possible for parents to design the genetic makeup of their children.
Classism has existed in the past to a certain degree, but the basis for that classism is unfounded.
There is no argument that can disprove the fact that every human is inherently equal in the sense
that every human is the same species. If parents have the ability to improve the genetic code of
their children, the human species will cease to be just one species. To make that conclusion,
several things must be assumed to be true. The first is that the opportunity for parents to design
their children would come at a cost. The second is that the majority of the population would not
be able to afford such a procedure for their future children. Last is the assumption that such
By following the first two assumptions, only families with enough money will be able to
design their children to be more attractive and intelligent than the average human. These
genetically designed children will be more likely to grow up to be financially successful and
have enough money to design their own children. This trend would continue, and the lineage of
By the last assumption, the procedure for genetically engineering one’s child would be
performed by a privatized company. With the consumers of the child designing service getting
richer with each generation, the privatized companies would be able to charge more and more for
their services. This seems like a natural trend of economics, but the importance lies in the
distance that has been created between the families that can afford to design their children and
the families that cannot. Such a system would not allow for that gap to ever be bridged;
genetically designed families would begin occupying more positions of power and wealth,
driving all other families to lower class positions, closing the door on the dream of designing
their own children. Looking far enough down the road, genetically designed humans would
occupy a certain percentage of the uppermost echelon of society, while all others would subside
to being labor workers and holding positions with minimal power. By this time, one might
wonder what the effects have been on the actual genetic code of “humans.” It would not be
surprising to find that such extended periods of germline genetic engineering have changed the
Very little research exists that aims to prove that possible outcome, but some writers have
discussed the thought. Silver (1997) argues that the result of this process would be the separation
of humans into two non-mating species – the genetically engineered population and the non-
genetically engineered population. The most difficult question will be to decide which species
unimaginable because an event has never transpired among a species with enough self-awareness
to understand what has happened. That is not to say that such an occurrence has not taken place
among less intelligent species. In fact that occurrence is the reason for the diversity of species on
this plant; all species are derived from a common ancestor, separated by genetic changes over
long periods of time. African cichlids are a prime example of speciation over a relatively short
period of time. Cichlids in Lake Victoria and Lake Malawi exhibit very high rates of speciation
resulting from sexual selection (Ritchie, 2007). This example can be applied to the situation of
genetically engineered children because the speciation would result from the lack of mating
between the genetically engineered population and the non-genetically engineered population.
Governmental Involvement
The role that the government will play in the advancement of human genetic engineering
could go two separate ways. One way would allow capitalism in the United States to continue
existing at the consequence of de-humanizing its own citizens. The other would allow equality
among the citizens to exist at the cost of turning the country into a socialist or communist
regime. The first way mentioned, as described by Silver (1997), Wright (1999), and Deneen
The government would remain a separate entity, collecting heavy taxes from the rich. As the
technology progresses, society would begin to separate itself into two social classes, based on the
methods previously mentioned. The government would receive a larger and larger percentage of
its money from the rich, genetically engineered group. At the same time, the lower class, non-
engineered population would become more and more financially dependent on the government.
As this trend continues, the separation would grow, and the non-engineered population would be
diminished to very low paying positions at best. The other direction mentioned that the
government could take would require the government to be in charge of all human genetic
This move would likely create the onset to a socialist country, with the possibility of becoming a
communist regime. The extent to which these genetic engineering processes could be carried out
would depend totally on how much money the government is able to put into it. Depending on
the future financial state of the nation, everyone could have the opportunity to design their
children, or nobody could have the opportunity to design their children. This solves the problem
of the potential rift between species, but it compromises the democratic basis on which the nation
was formed.
A Suitable Path for the Future of Human Genetic Engineering
The future of human genetic engineering could take many shapes, some that would
improve humankind on a revolutionary level, and some that would destroy humankind on a
disastrous level. It seems likely though, that the future of human genetic engineering will take a
path somewhere between the two extremes. There will always be those in favor and those
opposed, so as long as the debate continues, it will not be allowed to get out of hand. Humans
have proven they are capable of making great advancements for the benefit of the species, but
with those advancements have also come instances of dehumanization and corruption. So this
The idea of genetically designed babies does not seem to be a common interest of the
entire globe. Countries like France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Canada, and Australia have all
placed bans with stiff “crime against humanity” prison sentences on research regarding human
cloning and stem cell research, which are integral aspects of human genetic engineering
field, it seems as though the trend will continue with more countries placing bans on the
technology instead of lifting them. Since countries are instituting such bans, it alludes to the idea
that the potential negative consequences are being realized more and more. Until solutions are
formed to prevent those consequences, human genetic engineering should remain an untouched
subject. This is not to say, however, that advancements will not be made in the field. Scientists
will continue finding cures for genetic diseases with human genetic engineering technology, and
controversial experiments will continue despite ethical debates. Looking farther down the road,
natural human progression suggests that scientists will eventually find a way to genetically
engineer unborn babies to be smarter and more attractive. This process will never be lawfully
recognized, though. Instead, extremely extensive screenings will be carried out by doctors to
provide in depth analyses of early-stage fetuses. These screenings will be able to predict virtually
all aspects of the child’s personality and appearance. Parents will have to pay a price only
affordable to upper-class citizens. Similar to today, parents will then be able to decide whether
they want to keep or abort the child based on the findings of the screening. The difference will be
in the reasons for a fetus being aborted. Instead of making the decision to abort a fetus because it
will be born with a genetic disease, parents might choose to abort it because it will not be as
intelligent or attractive as they would have liked. It cannot be ignored that future scientists and
doctors could be willing to illegally genetically engineer a child to the specifications of a parent
for an extremely high price. Such an operation would be highly punishable by law, and one
would certainly be hard pressed to find a provider willing to carry out the procedures.
All things considered, the likelihood of a science fiction future resulting from human
genetic engineering is farfetched at best. Pop culture seems to magnify the reaches of technology
to impress the audience. If life progresses according to science fiction predictions, we would
already be deep into the age of flying cars and robot servants. The topic of human genetic
engineering is in its infant stages, and the technology will become understood in far greater detail
in the years to come. As of now, genetically designed babies are not an issue of extreme
importance; it is the ideologies that provide the greatest opportunity for scrutiny. What matters is
the ways in which society would handle such a technology. It is reassuring that the realization of
such a technology is far off, because if it were suddenly upon us, humanity would be at a loss for
ways to successfully and safely implement such a practice without sacrificing the ideals we build
Adams, M. (2004). The top ten technologies: #7: Genetic engineering of humans . NaturalNews,
Baird, S. (2007, April). Designer babies: Eugenics repackaged or consumer options? (Cover
story). Technology Teacher, 66(7), 12-16. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic
Bavister, B. (2002). Early history of in vitro fertilization. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from
http://www.reproduction-online.org/cgi/reprint/124/2/181
Bevan, M. (2001). Information and guide to plant genetic engineering. Retrieved August 30,
Bohlin, R. (2000). Human genetic engineering. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/humgeneng.html
Deneen, S. (2001, January). Designer people. (Cover story). E - The Environmental Magazine,
12(1), 26. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.
Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing god? Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public
FitzGerald, K. (2002, August). Knowledge without wisdom: Human genetic engineering without
147-162. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.
Hayes, R. (2000). The politics of genetically engineered humans. Loka Institute, Retrieved
http://cnx.org/content/m14834/latest/
biotechnology-and-genetic-engineering
Pike, G., & Vo, H. (2007). The genetic engineering of humans. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from
http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/fall07/p28.pdf.
Powledge, T. The polymerase chain reaction. Breakthroughs in Bioscience, Retrieved August 30,
Pray, L. A. (2008). Embryo screening and the ethics of human genetic engineering . Nature
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Embryo-Screening-and-the-Ethics-of-60561
Ritchie, M. (2007). Sexual selection and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Sandall, R. (2008). Sir Francis Galton and the roots of eugenics. Society, 45(2), 170-176.
Shanks, P. (2005). Human genetic engineering: a guide for activists, skeptics, and the very
Books.
Van Court, M. (2004). The case for eugenics in a nutshell. The Occidental Quarterly, Retrieved
Wright, R. (1999, January 11). Who gets the good genes? (Cover story). Time, 153(1), 67.
Annotated Bibliography
Adams, M. (2004). The top ten technologies: #7: Genetic engineering of humans . NaturalNews,
Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.naturalnews.com/001337.html
Adams has an optimistic view about the future of humankind with the implementation of
genetic engineering in humans. He describes our current genetic code as “outdated
software” that needs to be upgraded if humans want to continue to make positive
progress. By deciding what kind of being we want to be in the future, we can solve all the
problems we are likely to have. Adams recognizes the dangers involved with this idea
though; he offers that humans are not even close to being mature enough to make a
decision about changing who we are as a species. Furthermore, scientists are extremely
far from understanding how our genes relate to human behavior, and could not possibly
begin to discuss a method for controlling one’s personality through genetic engineering.
Adams ends with the final thought that genetic engineering in humans would be an
essential step in the betterment of our species, but the time for doing so should not be in
the near future.
Baird, S. (2007, April). Designer babies: Eugenics repackaged or consumer options? (Cover
story). Technology Teacher, 66(7), 12-16. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic Search
Complete database.
Humanity is moving in the direction of self-modification, and the allure is very difficult
to dismiss. The benefits could be outstanding, but the drawbacks could be equally
terrible. The basic science behind genetic engineering is discussed with its roots going
back to in vitro fertilization. In vitro fertilization paved the way for preimplantation
genetic diagnosis (PGD). The advancements in the field that would make “designer
babies” possible are then discussed. Advanced reproductive technologies, cell and
chromosome manipulation, genetics, and genomics are the major fields that pave the way
for human genetic engineering. Arguments are then made for and against the notion of
“designer babies,” citing the ability to cure genetic diseases as a benefit, and the
consequence of having to terminate a large number of embryos as a drawback.
Bohlin, R. (2000). Human genetic engineering. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/humgeneng.html
Doctor Raymond Bohlin answers several pressing questions about human genetic
engineering. He explains how genetic engineering could potentially be used to treat and
cure genetic diseases in humans. However, Bohlin suggests a cautious approach to
dealing with genetic diseases. He worries that gene therapy will soon be used for mere
inconveniences instead of life threatening diseases. On the issue of creating genetically
modified super humans, Bohlin cites the views of “anti-change” Christians and “pro-
change” authors and scientists. Bohlin opines that the idea of selecting a child’s sex
should not be taken casually. Even though there are many innocent reasons for choosing
a child’s sex, there are many discriminatory reasons as well, and distinguishing between
the two could prove difficult.
Deneen, S. (2001, January). Designer people. (Cover story). E - The Environmental Magazine,
12(1), 26. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.
The possible future that could result from the successful implementation of human
genetic engineering is far different from the world today. What begins with targeting and
curing genetic diseases could end with children being designed by their parents for a
price, thus creating a separation of species. The timetable for all this to occur seems to be
extremely far off according to scientists in the field. The article claims that the debates on
ethical issues are almost irrelevant because the box has already been opened. The
question to ponder is not if human genetic engineering will occur, but when. The author
then speculates as to what kind of traits could be modified by parents in the future and
where the line would be drawn with respect to designing a child. A warning is also given
pertaining to the plausible environmental effects that would be almost impossible to
predict. Without understanding the implications that follow breakthroughs like this,
significant harm could fall upon humankind. Lastly, the likely path that technology will
take in the future is discussed in relationship to human genetic engineering and human
life in general.
Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing god? Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public
bioethical debate. Chicago University Press.
Bioethics has become an increasingly important topic in the field of biomedical research
in the past 30 years. The book explores how bioethics has become such a popular subject,
and how far the jurisdiction of bioethics can actually reach. The debates about human
genetic engineering have come a long way since the topic was first discussed, and those
debates are beginning to “thin out.” That means that instead of debating about both the
long term goals and how to get there, debates are focusing only on how to get there. The
book also explores the tendency of human genetic engineering debates to evolve into
social and political debates about who should have the jurisdiction over the research
being performed. Lastly, the role that bioethics will have in future debates about new
technologies in the field of human genetic engineering is discussed.
FitzGerald, K. (2002, August). Knowledge without wisdom: Human genetic engineering without
religious insight. Christian Bioethics: Non-ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, 8(2), 147-
162. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.
Significant benefits resulting from human genetic engineering have yet to be seen, but the
outlook looks promising. New technology in the field seems to point in the direction of
beneficial knowledge about human genetics and the associated genetic engineering.
Because of that imminent possibility, questions must be raised about how that technology
will coincide with healthcare, or if it will even coincide with healthcare at all. The newest
and most promising practices in the field of human genetic engineering are discussed in
depth. Also discussed is the relationship between human genetic engineering and the
previously held theories about human nature. Lastly, in regards to these new practices,
FitzGerald discusses the need for humans to gain wisdom about the subject and not just
knowledge.
Pike, G., & Vo, H. (2007). The genetic engineering of humans. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from
http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/fall07/p28.pdf.
Pike and Vo explore the realities and possibilities of genetic engineering in humans from
a social and scientific standpoint. The term “eugenics” is used to describe a form of
genetic engineering used in the past to try and improve the human race. The term “direct
genetic engineering” is used to describe what is thought to be the present day definition
of genetic engineering by use of somatic engineering and germline engineering to
actually change the DNA of a human. Pike and Vo discuss the rights of to want to better
themselves, and that could mean genetically engineering themselves. The opposition is
also acknowledged, and how genetically engineering humans would be like “playing
God” and could potentially lead to a social classification system based on a person’s
DNA screening. Pike and Vo finally settle upon the opinion that despite all the
drawbacks, genetic engineering in humans has the ability to be very beneficial to
mankind.
Pray, L. A. (2008). Embryo screening and the ethics of human genetic engineering . Nature
Education, Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Embryo-
Screening-and-the-Ethics-of-60561
There are two very opposite sides to the debate over human genetic engineering. The
process of “reprogenetics” to select and modify genes in embryos before they are born is
a very controversial topic. Pray also explains the process of preimplantation genetic
diagnosis (PGD), a form of embryo screening, to ensure offspring will not inherit certain
genetic diseases. PGD is also used to determine the sex of an embryo so as to avoid
certain sex-linked diseases. A more controversial use of PGD is to screen for individual
diseases. Lastly, Pray discusses how the opposition feels about PGD and why a large
amount of people are skeptical about the process.
Shanks, P. (2005). Human genetic engineering: A guide for activists, skeptics, and the very
perplexed . New York, NY: Nation Books.
Technology surrounding genetic engineering spans across a wide range of ethics. Some
practices like targeted drugs and genetic testing are largely accepted practices. While
other practices like genetically engineered babies and the creation of new species is
mostly seen as unacceptable. This book discusses many important issues surround genetic
engineering, as well as some of the less talked about issues. It provides the reader with
insight as to how genetic engineering works and to what extent it can be used by modern
technological standards. Lastly, implications are discussed that could result if genetic
engineering is completely successful in the future.
Van Court, M. (2004). The case for eugenics in a nutshell. The Occidental Quarterly, Retrieved
August 16, 2009, from http://www.eugenics.net/papers/caseforeugenics.html
Eugenics is a practice that has been around for centuries, and the idea might not be as
farfetched as one might immediately assume. A bridge is made between the idea of
eugenics and human genetic engineering with a main focus on intelligence. Van Court
claims that intelligence is mostly hereditary, and civilization is directly related to the
level of intelligence present. Van Court also states that the higher the degree of
civilization that exists, the better off the population will be. The main point is that we are
currently evolving to become less and less intelligent because the less-intelligent people
are reproducing more than those with higher intelligence. Van Court’s final argument for
eugenics is that our civilization will invariably decline unless we reverse the trend that is
occurring, and eugenics through use of genetic engineering is a possible vessel to achieve
this.
Wright, R. (1999, January 11). Who gets the good genes? (Cover story). Time, 153(1), 67.
Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.
With the dawn of human genetic engineering upon us, the discussion must be had as to
who will be in control of the probable eugenic processes. Though science fiction might
scare people away from the notion of government regulation, it might be the better
option. Putting the eugenics in the hands of perfection-driven parents could be far more
disastrous that a government controlled operation. If the government doesn’t get its hands
dirty with human genetic engineering, it would become a privatized company only
accessible to families with enough money to design their children. If done correctly, the
government could ensure that poor and rich families alike have the same opportunities to
improve the quality of life of their children. Unless our country suddenly becomes a
totalitarian regime, the likelihood of A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley becoming
reality is extremely small.