In this way, socioeconomics would also be affected if genetic modification was available for the public’s use. Procedures will be expensive; in vitro fertilization already costs nearly $20,000 in the USA without any genetic testing (Regalado 31). The application of improved intelligence, spatial reasoning, and other genetic enhancements will exponentiate these expenses, making genetically elite children available only for those who can pay. This will further widen the inequality gap, particularly when considering the species’ evolution. Are certain traits to be forced to extinction while others are selected? The issue, Stephen Baird notes, is that “there is no universally accepted ideal of biological perfection. To make intentional changes in the genes that people will pass on to their descendants would require that we, as a society, agree on how to classify good and bad genes” (15). This determination would lead to droves of social controversies and cultural disputes. What is typically overlooked, is that the embryos being discussed are indeed potential humans. The pro-choice liberal movement has allowed for a majority of this embryo termination and experimentation because embryos still fail to be considered as people in legislature. Genetic scientists operate on the assumption that if a twenty-three week old fetus can be aborted and killed, Americans should have no objections to tampering with the genetics of embryos. As a result, in IVF and PGD, unwanted embryos are discarded or terminated without minimal consideration. Similarly, in research labs, scientists are out to accomplish and patent biotechnology. In the United States and several other countries, biologists are conducting research on the production of chimeras, genetically engineered human-animal hybrids. M. L. Tina Stevens and Stuart A. Newman explain that “some will encourage development of hybrid embryos to late term or even birth because, not being entirely human, they would be available for experimentation” (7). If the purpose of genetic engineering is to eliminate defects, what will happen to these hybrid creatures who are not fully human? The effect on human genetic diversity is also critical query.
…show more content…
One argument is that genetic engineering based on a uniform idea of biological perfection will lead to generations of genetically identical or similar people, also known as a monoculture. The evolutionary harm argument is built on the notions that a genetically similar population will make the human species more susceptible to disease and inhibit the range of adaptability to respond to biological challenges, leading to human extinction. Russell Powell addresses these issues in his article “The Evolutionary Biological Implications of Human Genetic Engineering.” He focuses on assessing the relationship between genotypic and phenotypic diversity. Individuals behind the evolutionary harm movement incorrectly assume that one gene correlates to one specific phenotype. Powell mentions, “in doing so, they succumb to the ‘gene-for’ fallacy or the idea that each gene codes for a single trait and (conversely) that each trait arises from the operation of a single gene” (207). The connection between genes and phenotypes rather extremely complex. Biological traits rely on interactions between various genes and additional variables both inside and outside of the organism. (Baird 14) Therefore, a human biological monoculture is an unrealistic circumstance. This phenotypic diversity, also means that gene will continue to evolve and result in different phenotypes. If disease pathogens adapt resistance to human immune responses, the human genome will still be capable of evolving the lymphatic system to react (Powell 216) Based on this information, genetic similarity may not directly lead to human extinction, but still can not be dismissed as a threat. If performed strategically and successfully, germline engineering for disease prevention could be effective for human evolution. The quandary is the lack of accuracy involved with current genetic modification technology. For public application of germline engineering and gene editing technology, it would have to first be perfected in mammalian animals and then tested on humans. The current science is still relatively unpredictable. Despite the incredible the precision of CRISPR, accuracy is an issue. During MIT biologist Guoping Feng’s experiment with monkeys, the rate of efficiency that an embryo would live and be successfully modified, was found to be only about 5%. Feng found that “only about half the embryos will lead to live births, and of those
One argument is that genetic engineering based on a uniform idea of biological perfection will lead to generations of genetically identical or similar people, also known as a monoculture. The evolutionary harm argument is built on the notions that a genetically similar population will make the human species more susceptible to disease and inhibit the range of adaptability to respond to biological challenges, leading to human extinction. Russell Powell addresses these issues in his article “The Evolutionary Biological Implications of Human Genetic Engineering.” He focuses on assessing the relationship between genotypic and phenotypic diversity. Individuals behind the evolutionary harm movement incorrectly assume that one gene correlates to one specific phenotype. Powell mentions, “in doing so, they succumb to the ‘gene-for’ fallacy or the idea that each gene codes for a single trait and (conversely) that each trait arises from the operation of a single gene” (207). The connection between genes and phenotypes rather extremely complex. Biological traits rely on interactions between various genes and additional variables both inside and outside of the organism. (Baird 14) Therefore, a human biological monoculture is an unrealistic circumstance. This phenotypic diversity, also means that gene will continue to evolve and result in different phenotypes. If disease pathogens adapt resistance to human immune responses, the human genome will still be capable of evolving the lymphatic system to react (Powell 216) Based on this information, genetic similarity may not directly lead to human extinction, but still can not be dismissed as a threat. If performed strategically and successfully, germline engineering for disease prevention could be effective for human evolution. The quandary is the lack of accuracy involved with current genetic modification technology. For public application of germline engineering and gene editing technology, it would have to first be perfected in mammalian animals and then tested on humans. The current science is still relatively unpredictable. Despite the incredible the precision of CRISPR, accuracy is an issue. During MIT biologist Guoping Feng’s experiment with monkeys, the rate of efficiency that an embryo would live and be successfully modified, was found to be only about 5%. Feng found that “only about half the embryos will lead to live births, and of those