To Change or Not to Change? That is the Question.

So Now that I have given you a brief introduction to the specific meaning behind genetic engineering, I will now introduce you to the Pros and Cons of such a process. Keep in mind that every action taken by human beings will naturally have both a favourable (or advantageous), and an unfavouable side to it. On the site www.ifgene.org it is said that the social process of genetic engineering is more of a debate than an actual dialogue, meaning that when looking at the issue there is no in-between, and that people will either be for or against it. The following are four main points from a website that are essentially the main points in the debates of those who are either in favour of or against the idea of genetic engineering in human beings.

(These sets of points come from the website: www.ifgene.org. They were written on April 27, 2001 in an article by a man named David Heaf. They are most likely a collection of debates considered by those who take interest in genetic engineering.)

PRO # 1:

• "With the discovery of DNA and unravelling the genetic code it contains, molecular biologists have finally come close to understanding what determines the form and function of organisms and can use this to design organisms at will."
• An advantage to this point is that with the discovery of how we are assembled, we may finally be able to understand our structure, and perhaps other stuctures of other organisms in doing so. This also brings up the point that we may, in the future, possess the ability to not only select favourable traits for our offspring, but also be able to change our own genetic structure.
  
• An obvious debate to this point would be the fact that the process of genetic engineering is not a natural process carried out by our bodies, and is therefore not ethically acceptable. In repose to this, would the act of breeding not in itself be an act of genetic engineering? Due to the fact that when seleting a partner, we generally choose one that has qualities and traits that are desirable to us (This point is brought up in the article as well when the Heaf says: "We have consciously interfered with evolution through breeding, habitat management and even selection of our own spouses for millennia without any noticeable dire consequences). Another debate that could be brought up would be that if we possesed the ability to change what we were, would alterior motives be involved in this process, other than perfecting our species?
  

PRO# 2:

• A quote from the christian bible states: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26)
• An advantage to this point would be that even in faith there appears to have been the knowledge that the human race was meant to evolve and change and have the ability to exist above all other species and alter them to their specifications.
• The debate to this point would be that the knowledge that the human race was meant to evolve and change existed, but it is whether it was meant to be natural or unnatural that is unclear. Nothing in this quote suggests that human beings should be subject to alteration in the future by any means other than breeding. In the article Heaf also makes the point in that by changing the genetic makeup of a person "Biotechnologists are playing God."
  

PRO# 3:

• "GE in the form of 'gene therapy' (somatic) could be used to repair damaged or replace missing genes in people who have genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis, severe combined immunodeficiency etc."
• An advantage to this point is that in future generations we may no longer see flaws in our genetic structure, such a disease or defects. It could be possible to treat problems within or bodies efficently and efffectively.
  
• The debate to this point would be that it may not be possible to instruct genes to do a specific job, as genes are already created to do certain jobs. It would extremely difficult, if not impossible, for one to discover the exact chains of amino acids (used in the structure of genes, and can come in chains of 20,000) that may be involved in a certain body process. There is also the point that illnesses constantly evolve just as humans do, and in order to fight these new versions of an illness alternate genes would have to be created in order to avoid getting this disease.
  

PRO# 4:

• "Cloning might one day be combined with GM to create babies designed to meet the wishes of the parents. People could clone themselves or even lost loved ones from their DNA."
• An advantage to this point would be that people would be able to design their children to be the image of what they percieve as "perfection." Another obvious advantage is that human beings would not have to endure sorrow or pain due to the loss of a loved one. It would be as simple as pressing a button and recieving a new human being that resembled in all ways oneself, so that a person may live forever.
• There are many debates to this point. The first obvious debate being that it is unethical to create a human being with the selfish intent of creating that being according to ones specifications, and wants for that persons life, rather than letting them coose their own life path. People are both a part of heredity and the enviroment in which they live, so would great dissapointment not occur when a child created to be a basketball star, decided that they would rather play piano for a living due to the enviroment to which they are exposed. This would also be a debate to cloning oneself, as the self cloned would ultimatley be both a product of the genes from which they are created as well as the enviroment to which they were exposed after creation. A different surrounding enviroment, could ultimately lead to a different human being than the one that it was originally created from. This point could also work towards the recreation of a lost loved one. Theoretically we need to have an equal balance of pleasure and pain, and if it were possible to recreate our lost loved ones how would we be able to feel pain? One also needs to adress the issue that when looking a this point, would the constant pleasure that we recieve not cause us to be come more animal than human in the fact that we are selfishly denying ourselves of other emotions?
  

While there are many more debates out there that either take genetic engineering to be an advantage or disadvantage to our species, these four points will at least give you something to think about until my next blog.