Running head: THE ETHICS OF HUMAN GENETIC ENGINEERING 1

The Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering

Myryka Arviso-Yazza

University of Utah
THE ETHICS OF HUMAN GENETIC ENGINEERING 2

Abstract

Innovations made with human genetic engineering must be facilitated with consideration to

ethical standards and guidelines. New technologies have made genetic manipulation of cells

much less expensive and more accessible. The distinction between genetic therapy and

genetic enhancement are surrounded by varying levels of controversy. Gene therapy could

be used to cure illness, while genetic enhancement can be used to improve humans. There is

controversy concerning the manipulation of germ cells, which could have unforeseen effects

on future generations. Genetic manipulation with the objective of perfection could have

severe negative effects on the human population and can lead to lack of genetic diversity.

Keywords: Genetic engineering, bioethics, human germline modification

THE ETHICS OF HUMAN GENETIC ENGINEERING 3

The Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering

When considering the technological advances of genetic engineering (GE), the topic

is inseparable from bioethics. Such innovations in GE have created controversy that has

reached beyond the scientific community. There is still much unknown when it comes to

genetic engineering, however it is vital that ethical standards and limitations are put in

place before further research is conducted.

Genetic engineering was once an incredibly expensive and time consuming process,

however thanks to advances made in science and technology, it has become a much more

affordable and viable procedure. Technologies such as ZFNs (zinc-finger nucleases),

TALENs (transcription activator-like effector nucleases) and most notably, CRISPR

(Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) have revolutionized genetic

engineering. The capability to manipulate the genetic makeup of humans is both amazing

and terrifying. We have the ability to manipulate life and with this ability, rises countless

ethical concerns that must be taken into consideration.

Many people have a positive outlook on human genetic engineering and the benefits

that can be gained from it with regards to human health. According to Steven Salzberg, a

professor of Biomedical Engineering, Computer Science, and Biostatistics at Johns Hopkins

University, genome editing is here, and it has tremendous potential to cure diseases and

reduce human suffering (Salzberg). Salzberg points out the benefits that GE could have

when applied for therapeutic purposes. GE has the potential to treat genetic illnesses and in

a more extreme ideology: eradicate disease entirely.

THE ETHICS OF HUMAN GENETIC ENGINEERING 4

While the application of GE for the treatment of various health defects may be

appealing, most controversy emerges when genetic engineering is considered for the

purpose of human enhancement. Some argue that there should be a strict line between

therapy and enhancement when establishing ethical guidelines. The risks associated with

gene therapy are much more justifiable to take when an individual is already suffering than

with the intent to modify the DNA of an already healthy individual.

Another thing that must be looked at is the differentiation of editing somatic cells

and germ cells. Modifying somatic cells would only affect the DNA of that one individual,

whereas the editing of germ cells could affect the individual, as well as their offspring.

Inheritable genetic modification would lead to unforeseeable genetic alteration to

generations of humans. This would be the human race taking evolution into their own

hands, which is a concept that should not be taken lightly.

Some question whether this technology should even be applied to the human

germline at all, they believe that the risks involved when messing with DNA outweigh the

potential benefits. On the other side of the argument, people believe that inheritable gene

therapy passes a risk-benefit analysis. John Harris, the Director of the Institute for Science,

Ethics and Innovation at the University of Manchester argues that sexual reproduction

presents just as many, if not more risks to the human germline. He believes that: if the

appropriate gold standard test for permissible risk of harm to future generations is sexual

reproduction, other germline changing techniques... would need to demonstrate severe

foreseeable dangers to fail (Harris). He, along with others believe that the risks associated
THE ETHICS OF HUMAN GENETIC ENGINEERING 5

with germline modification in order to prevent a health implication for generations is a

reasonable cost benefit strategy to attempt (Harris).

A statement made by Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of

Health, explaining as to why NHI will not provide funding for genetic engineering human

embryos discusses the serious and unquantifiable safety issues, ethical issues presented by

altering the germline in a way that affects the next generation without their consent

(Collins). The idea that Collins presents here suggests that because there is lack of consent

from individuals who will be affected by germline genetic modification, it is an unethical

practice. Harris challenges this concern, explaining that: It is irrelevant for the reason

that there are no relevant people in existence capable of either giving or withholding

consent to these sorts of changes in their own germline (Harris).

When looking at the ethics behind non-therapeutic genetic engineering, there tends

to be a slippery-slope mindset. Explained by Sonia Suter, the more we use technology to

select against lesser conditions and traits, the more perfectionist we may become as a

culture (Suter). This idea of perfectionism will become seemingly achievable through

human genetic modification and while it may be attractive in theory, the implications this

mindset would have on society are endless. One concern in particular that Suter explores,

involves the possibility of genetically modified babies. Suter points out that: parents who

engage in quality control of their children may become less willing to accept their children

as they are because these parents will be less tolerant of imperfections (Suter). This

obsession that the human race could (and to an extent, already has) develop with perfection

could have great negative effects on future generations.

THE ETHICS OF HUMAN GENETIC ENGINEERING 6

Another argument against germline genetic modification is that it would lead to lack

of diversity. The genetic enhancements that people would acquire would be reflective of

physical human values, which are very narrow. According to Michael J. Sandel, a professor

of government at Harvard University, most peoples conception of the varieties of goods is

very limited, and if they designed people their improvements would likely conform to

limited, predictable types (Sandel). This lack of imagination when modifying the human

genome, could ultimately lead to very little diversity in the human race.
THE ETHICS OF HUMAN GENETIC ENGINEERING 7

References

Collins, F. S., M.D., Ph.D. (2015, August 28). Statement on NIH funding of research using

gene-editing technologies in human embryos. Retrieved March 07, 2017

Harris, J. (2015). Germline Manipulation and Our Future Worlds. American Journal Of

Bioethics, 15(12), 30-34. doi:10.1080/15265161.2015.1104163

Kamm, F. (2005). Is There a Problem With Enhancement?. American Journal Of Bioethics,

5(3), 5-14. doi:10.1080/15265160590945101

Metz, S. (2016). How Far Can the U.S. Military Go to Building a Technology-Enhanced

'Super Soldier'?. World Politics Review (Selective Content), 1-3.

SALZBERG, S. (2015). Ready or Not, Human Bioenhancement Is Coming. Genewatch,

28(3), 10-11.

Sandel, M. J. (2004, April 01). The Case Against Perfection. Retrieved March 08, 2017

Suter, S. M. (2007). A BRAVE NEW WORLD OF DESIGNER BABIES?. Berkeley

Technology Law Journal, 22(2), 897-969.