Implications of Genetic Technology

Genetic technology is implicated in some extremely controversial scientific developments. These include cloning, stem cell research, and genetic engineering of animals, agricultural products, and humans. The next apple one eats may in fact have been genetically engineered to resist disease and/or pesticides. Scientists can now clone animals. Researchers have mapped the human genome. These new and constantly emerging technologies are changing our world and the way we live in it. The question we must ask is, What are the implications of all these new technologies? Will they improve our lives, or will they introduce unpredicted risks that could cause widespread devastation instead? Is it ethical to clone a human being, or is that going too far? Genetics can isolate genes that cause chronic and life-threatening diseases such as cancer and multiple sclerosis. In addition to isolating the genes responsible, scientists are developing gene therapy which may prove to be a proactive treatment for disease. Genetic technology has the potential to enhance our world in many ways, but dangers along the way must be seriously considered.

Keywords Bioethics; Biotechnology; Cloning; Disability; Embodiment; Genomic Sequencing; Human Genome; Impairment; Medical Model; Social Model

Implications of Genetic Technology

Overview

New technologies are constantly emerging. Some of them come with greater concerns than others. With respect to genetic technology, one of the difficulties in understanding and weighing its consequences and implications is that they are not easy to understand to begin with. These are complicated ideas that are the domain of genetic scientists whose work exists almost solely in the laboratory. However, the fruits of their labor affect our lives every day, sometimes in unexpected ways. The food we buy at the grocery store is almost surely made of genetically modified food, unless it's organic. The foods we eat are just one thing that genetic research touches. It also affects such wide-ranging issues as prenatal screening, gene therapy, cloning, and genetic pharmacopeias. The fact is, genetic technology is so much a part of our lives that it's impossible to reverse the process. Farmers have transformed their crops and the way they grow food. Doctors have been trained to use certain therapies and tests, and prospective parents want to know if their future baby is going to be completely healthy. The more we introduce these technologies, the more people want them. Many people wonder if we have come too far too quickly without knowing the exact consequences of introducing mutated genes into our bodies and our ecosystem.

Genetics & Agriculture

The act of food shopping isn't something we normally pay that much attention to, other than whether or not the prices go up or down. We pick out the produce, put it in the cart, and move on. However, that tomato, apple, or ear of corn may no longer be the same as they were a generation ago. One genetic technology that is beginning to receive a fair bit of attention is that of genetically modified foods. Some would suggest that creating new kinds of produce that can resist disease and pesticides is one of the benefits of this new technology. The other side of the debate suggests that when we begin to genetically redesign what nature can produce, we may be introducing factors into our lives that could eventually get out of control. Genetically modified food was in fact taking place for some time before it received any international attention or scrutiny. In the mid-1990s, countries and scientific bodies began to state some concern over the possible effects of genetically modified crops on the soil, animals, and humans. As Pusztai explains, "In the environment there are always other things which will also be affected. In this world nothing stands in isolation; when one changes something, there are also consequences for other things around" (2002, p. 71).

There are two distinctly opposing views regarding genetically modified food: some see it as a way to alleviate and perhaps even end world hunger, while the opposite side of the spectrum fears it has the potential to destroy human civilization. One of the more difficult questions is what, if any, harm can genetically modifying foods do to the world's ecosystem? One possibility is the effect of genetic pollen. Every plant releases pollen, and genetically modified plants will release modified pollen. "The pollen produced by these plants, carrying new genes, cannot be contained. As a result, genetic pollution of natural crop varieties and of wild plant relatives may occur" (Jefferson, 2006, p. 34).

Some of the other inherent problems with genetically modified foods include regulation of the technology used to develop them, ownership and control over the food chain, and corporate responsibility (Kearnes et al., 2006). Some researchers believe that agricultural biotechnology has the potential to resolve some very difficult problems. Glasner and Rothman (2001) describe the benefits of such technology:

“The future is likely to include the use of transgenic plants to aid the reclamation of contaminated soils, to provide the basis for the factory production of vaccines, and to target the specific treatments for plant diseases — a plant equivalent of pharmacogenomics. It may well be that a significant proportion of the world's needs for fuel, fiber, food and some medicines will develop from agricultural biotechnology.” (Glasner & Rothman, 2001, p. 254)

Genetics & the Human Body — Redesigning Humans

The mere mention of genetics and the human body nowadays conjures up notions of 'designer children' — couples sitting down with a scientist and literally creating the child of their dreams. The use of genetics was largely humanitarian in its origins — mapping the human body in order to understand our DNA and the sources of disease, and the development of gene therapy. Researchers who delve into the intricacies of genetic technology note that it is important not to think of it as a science that exists in isolation, but rather in cooperation with other technologies. Unlike other technologies, however, genetics has the capacity to make changes for generations to come. It will "make changes that are transmissible into succeeding generations, and may even alter in advance specific future individuals through direct 'germ-line' or embryonic interventions… [and it] may be able, through so-called genetic enhancement, to create new human capacities" (Kass, 2000, p. 77).

Along with these new possible enhancements, however, comes the inevitable discussion about the nature of the human body and what it means to be human. The notion of identifying the gene for predisposition to Alzheimer's sounds like a simple issue — at first. Since it is unlikely that expecting parents would want their future child to have this condition, they might want to eliminate those genes. But, this leads to an inherent dilemma in how much we should change the human body. Some disability rights activists claim that these new technologies will eventually weed out anyone who has any kind of impairment and thus the notion of disability as a subculture would no longer exist.

Eliminating Disability

The lives of people with impairments have been ruled by the medical model for centuries. Their bodies were for the most part considered "aberrations" or "abnormal." Terms used to describe them evolved from "crippled" to "handicapped" to "people with disabilities." The latter suggests that the person has an impairment, but that the perception of disability is a social construct. This is the social model — the opposite of the medical model, which seeks to "cure" people with disabilities of their afflictions. As Scully (2003) explains,

“The social models' most fundamental criticisms of the medical model is that it wrongly locates 'the problem' of disability in the individual and neglects the social and structural. By contrast, a social model sees social, economic and environmental factors as at least as important as biological ones in the construction of disability.” (Scully, 2003, p. 267)

Disability may become a thing of the past as a result of the Human Genome Project. The implication for the lives of people with disabilities is potentially enormous. This project "introduces the idea that there is a single normal human genome, and that once we know what it is, it will define for us what is normal for human corporeality" (Scully, 2003, p. 268). This could be the end of physical, learning, emotional, or neurological differences in human civilization. The implication is that once we begin to "weed out" certain diseases or conditions, it becomes hard to stop, which leads to the possibility of eliminating any kind of impairment. But what kind of a world would we have without people who have had distinct differences, such as Beethoven (who was deaf), Helen Keller (blind and deaf), Thomas Edison (learning disability), and many more unique individuals whose contributions to society are immeasurable?

The Controversy over Cloning

In the 1960s and '70s, the notion of cloning was the subject of science fiction and fantasy. Today, it is very real. To date, there has never been a human cloned (apart from natural cloning in the form of identical twins), but animals are being cloned on a fairly regular basis. There have even been a small number of businesses that offer pet lovers the (expensive) opportunity to clone their pets. One of the reasons why cloning presents such a difficult issue for society is that cloning is often considered a means of creating perfect people and eliminating diversity and difference. While this is one concern, another is that it shows little deference for life, and humanity becomes reduced to the creation of people in a cold laboratory. It also raises ethical, legal, and religious concerns. Many groups are opposed to it, as they worry about trying to take control of conception and the traits that will be allowed in the cloning process. "Broadly, the ethical objections to human cloning concern intervention in nature; aiming for perfect bodies (implications of imperfect sameness: racism, eugenics, sexism, able-ism, ageism, hetero-normativity); and the danger for the sustainability of human kind (bio-diversity)" (Essed & Goldberg, 2002, p. 1067).

A highly charged question in this debate is, Who would be cloned? The most likely answer is, those who can afford it. If so, what does that say about society in general and the future of humanity? Essed and Goldberg (2002) point out that if people of privilege can clone themselves as the power class (and continue to reinforce that), then they will also be able to clone people in other, less powerful social categories as the service class(es). This translates to little more than slavery. Another cautionary tone signaled is the concern that cloning may do for humanity what standardized tests try to do for education: It will create a discourse and a culture of sameness, exclusion, and privilege (Essed & Goldberg, 2002).

Further Insights

Social & Ethical Questions

In an age when it is very possible that genetically engineering a person could become a reality, some serious considerations come to the fore:

• Is genetic manipulation a violation of individual's rights?

• Is it appropriate to genetically enhance a human being?

• If a person is genetically enhanced, how does that person fit into society? (Miah, 2000)

According to Childress (2003), "Genetic technologies are being developed and applied every day. The could question is being answered. The should question is not being asked enough" (p. 173).

One of the more difficult concepts is that of embryonic rights. In an age where parents can possibly have access to technology to create a certain kind of person, what rights does the embryo have? To some, an embryo is a person, but to others this is not the case. This is not only about creating certain more valued characteristics, but also about the manipulation of the genes of a life form. The debates will likely rage for some time to come about whether or not anyone has the right to genetically manipulate an embryo.

The appearance in 1996 of Dolly the sheep, the world's first cloned animal, was considered in many scientific circles to be a great success. However, prior to cloning Dolly, there were 277 fertilized eggs that did not develop successfully. The question becomes: How far do we go to destroy life in order to create life?

Some researchers suggest that if and when parents have access to genetic information but choose not to use it, will they be penalized by society for allowing a child with disabilities to be born? The answer is yes. In 1996, a health maintenance organization (HMO) attempted to cut off a family's insurance when they found in prenatal screening their child had a predisposition for cystic fibrosis. The HMO wanted the fetus aborted, and the family refused. Eventually, the family won out after threatening to sue (Childress, 2003, p. 158).

One of the most positive results of genetic technology has been the success of DNA testing to resolve crimes. The use of DNA testing has already overturned convictions and saved men from death row. Yet, the most positive outcome of DNA testing is probably yet to come. "Those who are guilty in the relatively small percentage of cases where DNA evidence is available will be convicted with much greater confidence, and those who can be exonerated by DNA will be exonerated before or at trial" (Risinger, 2007, p.773). In 1992, attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld established the Innocence Project, which uses DNA testing to exonerate people wrongly convicted of crimes.

Viewpoints

The Need for Future Research

Some researchers have suggested that the implications of genetic technology are not being researched enough in comparison to the number of technologies constantly emerging. There is often too much of a rush to get a patent on a new technology and make money on it without completely considering the full range of consequences of unleashing these technologies into the world. The concern is that people are far too interested in demonstrating what they can do in order to get the big research grants and move forward with a new idea without fully thinking through and testing the possible complications and results.

Teitel (2000) believes that there should be an end to introducing new genetically modified foods into the word before more testing is done to ensure their safety. This obviously implies that there has been and continues to be insufficient testing on genetically modified foods. This translates into the reality that modified foods are on the store shelves but we still do not know exactly how they will affect humans or the rest of the ecosystem over time.

The Issue of Patenting Life

Another potential long-term issue is that of patenting life. This literally means that someone might create a hybrid or mutation and put a patent on it. In essence, they own a life form. Teitel explains that the race to patent life is for one reason only: profit. This basically puts a price on a form of life. In other words, if a company creates a certain type of dog, then it literally owns the patent to create the dog. Each time a dog of this species is born, the big biotech company makes money. In other words, "Genetic engineering is based on owning life whether you own a species or a part of a species" (Teitel, 2000, p. 43). This presents a disturbing trend in what may become the ability to own a part of the human body. If a certain cell or protein is created then patented, the company that hires the researcher owns the patent. The question becomes whether or not anyone should be able to own a living organism. The debate over whether or not anyone should be able to own or patent a life form has become a worldwide debate, along with cloning and other areas of genetic technology.

Conclusion

Except for the issue of global warming, there is perhaps no issue today that affects the entire world's population as much as the implications of genetic technology. These new technologies will not only alter the way we live our lives, but may have the potential to alter the very nature of the human race. It is perhaps ironic that humanity itself may serve as its own greatest threat. While we often worry about disease, accidents, and the possible impact of a meteor, humanity is moving very quickly into unchartered territory that has both great benefits and real dangers.

Terms & Concepts

Bioethics: Ethics as they are affected by advances in medicine and biology.

Biotechnology: The technology based on biology and used in agriculture, food, and medicine. It is often referred to under the broader term "genetic engineering."

Cloning: The scientific process of making an identical biological copy of a living organism. Plants and animals have been cloned, but not humans.

Disability: Under the medical model, disability is considered the inability of a person to perform a specific function or functions. Under the social model, disability is a social construct and is the result of social oppression that labels people as "disabled."

Genomic Sequencing: Another term for DNA sequencing.

Human Genome: The complete DNA sequence contained in the twenty-three pairs of chromosomes in human cells.

Impairment: Under the social model of disability, an impairment is the lack of a specific physical or neurological function in the body.

Medical Model: The model that has been primarily responsible for dictating the discourse on the nature of the human body. It has been responsible for deciding on the parameters for a "healthy body" and a "normal body." This model also states what dysfunctions in the human body should qualify as a disability.

Social Model: The model that has been used more recently in the discourse on the body. This model suggests that impairment is a lack of function in a specific area of the body but disability is the result of labeling and social oppression. The social model also suggests that people with disabilities are only labeled as such because it is a historical construct that has been in use since the time of the English Poor Laws in eighteenth-century England.

Bibliography

Childress, K. D. (2002). Genetics, disability, and ethics: Could applied technologies lead to a new eugenics? Journal of Women and Religion, 20 157-178. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=10299357&site=ehost-live

Essed, P., & Goldberg, D. T. (2002). Cloning cultures: The social injustices of sameness. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 25,1066-1082. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7714367&site=ehost-live

Glasner, P. & Rothman, H. (2001). New genetics, new ethics? Globalisation and its discontents. Health, Risk & Society, 3( 3), 245-259. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=5322906&site=ehost-live

Jefferson, V. (2006). The ethical dilemma of genetically modified food. Journal of Environmental Health, 69, 33-34. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21646210&site=ehost-live

Kass, L. R. (2000). The moral meaning of genetic technology. Human Life Review, 26, 76-89. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3036860&site=ehost-live

Kearnes, M., Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J., & Wynne, B. (2006). From bio to nano: Learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Science as Culture, 15, 291-307. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23311592&site=ehost-live

Miah, A. (2000). The engineered athlete: Human rights in the genetic revolution. Culture, Sport, Society, 3, 25-41. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6897874&site=ehost-live

Nicholas, B. (2001). Exploring a moral landscape: Genetic science and ethics. Hypatia, 16, 45-63. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4074411&site=ehost-live

Pusztai, A. (2002). GM food safety: Scientific and institutional issues. Science as Culture, 11, 69-92. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6222476&site=ehost-live

Risinger, M. D. (2007). Innocents convicted: An empirically justified factual wrongful conviction rate. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97,761-806. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27653343&site=ehost-live

Schwab, G. (2012). Replacement humans. Thamyris/Intersecting: Place, Sex & Race, 25, 79-93. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78549377

Scully, J. L. (2003). Drawing lines, crossing lines: Ethics and the challenge of disabled embodiment. Feminist Theology: The Journal of the Britain & Ireland School of Feminist Theology, 11, 265. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Gender Studies Database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=fmh&AN=9548178&site=ehost-live

Shulman, S. T. (2002). Of oncomice and men. Technology Review, 105, 87. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7241887&site=ehost-live

Susumu, S. (2011). The ethical issues of biotechnology: Religious culture and the value of life. Current Sociology, 59, 160-172. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=59196389

Teitel, M. (2000). Changing the nature of nature. Multinational Monitor, 21(1/2), 38-44. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=2771504&site=ehost-live

Wilson-Kovacs, D., Wyatt, D., & Hauskeller, C. (2012). “A Faustian bargain?” Public voices on forensic DNA technologies and the National DNA Database. New Genetics & Society, 31, 285-298. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78064374

Suggested Reading

Avise, J. C. (2004). The hope, hype and reality of genetic engineering. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bert, T. M. (2007). Ecological and genetic implications of aquaculture activities. Netherlands: Springer.

Blank, R. H. (1981). The implications of genetic technology . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Evans, J. H. (2010). Contested reproduction: Genetic technologies, religion, and public debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Keller, E. F. (2000). The century of the gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lee, T. F. (1994). Gene future: The promise and perils of the new biology. New York: Plenum Press.

Miah, A. (2004). Genetically modified athletes: The ethical implications of genetics in sports. London, England: Taylor & Francis.