genetic modification argumentative essay

The GMO debate

August 15, 2018

The issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as they relate to the food supply is an ongoing, nuanced and highly contentious issue.

Individuals from the scientific and medical fields fall on both sides of the argument, some claiming that genetically modified crops are helping to solve issues concerning hunger, environmental sustainability and an increasing global population, while others believe they’re doing more harm than good.

With studies supporting both sides, many wonder: Who should we believe? To give a clearer sense of the issues and arguments that surround GMOs, Dr. Sarah Evanega, a plant biologist, and Dr. David Perlmutter, a neurologist, weigh in from opposing sides. Here’s what they had to say:

What’s your stance on GMO food?

Dr. Sarah Evanega: Genetically modified organism (GMO) food is safe. In that respect, my stance mirrors the position taken by the National Academies of Sciences and the majority of the world’s scientific community.

I eat GMO foods, as do my three young children, because I’m confident in the safety of these products. I support GMO food because I’m convinced that GMO crops can help reduce poverty and hunger among smallholder farmers in developing nations. They can also lessen the environmental impact of agriculture in general.

Genetic engineering is a tool that can help us breed crops that resist drought, diseases, and insect pests, which means farmers achieve higher yields from the crops they grow to feed their families and generate extra income. We have seen, time and again, that farmers who grow GMO crops in Africa, and South and East Asia earn extra money that helps them do things we Westerners take for granted — like send their children to school and buy a propane stove so they no longer have to cook over fires fueled by cow dung.

In developing nations, much of the weeding is done by women and children. By growing crops that can tolerate herbicide applications, the children are freed up to attend school and the women have time to earn income to help support their families.

I know many of the scientists who are using genetic engineering to breed improved crops, and I’ve witnessed their dedication to making the world a better place. I support GMO food because I’ve seen first-hand how it can improve people’s lives. For farmers, access to GMOs is a matter of social and environmental justice.

Dr. David Perlmutter: Genetic modification of agricultural seeds isn’t in the interest of the planet or its inhabitants. Genetically modified (GM) crops are associated with an increased use of chemicals, like glyphosate , that are toxic to the environment and to humans. These chemicals not only contaminate our food and water supplies, but they also compromise soil quality and are actually associated with increased disease susceptibility in crops.

This ultimately leads to an increase in the use of pesticides and further disrupts ecosystems. And yet, despite these drawbacks, we haven’t seen increased yield potential of GM crops, although that has always been one of the promises of GM seeds.

Fortunately, there are innovative alternatives to the issue of food insecurity that are not dependent on using GM crops.

Is GMO really less healthy than non-GMO food? Why or why not?

SE: From a health perspective, GMO food is no different than non-GMO food. In fact, they can even be healthier. Imagine peanuts that can be genetically engineered to reduce levels of aflatoxin , and gluten-free wheat , which would give those with celiac disease a healthy and tasty bread option. GM corn has cut levels of naturally-occurring mycotoxin — a toxin that causes both health problems and economic losses — by a third.

Other GMO foods, such as vitamin A-enriched Golden Rice , has been fortified with vitamins and minerals to create healthier staple foods and help prevent malnutrition.

In general, though, the process of engineering crops to contain a certain trait, such as pest-resistance or drought-tolerance, does nothing to affect the nutrient quality of food. Insect-resistant Bacillus thuringiensis   (Bt) crops actually reduce or eliminate the need for pesticide applications, which further improves their healthfulness and safety.

We have seen this in Bangladesh, where farmers would spray their traditional eggplant crops with pesticides right up until the time of harvest — which meant farmers were getting a lot of pesticide exposure and consumers were getting a lot of pesticide residue. Since growing pest-resistant Bt eggplant, however, they’ve been able to greatly reduce their pesticide applications . And that means GMO crops are healthier not only for the farmer, but the consumer.

Similarly, studies have shown a new disease-resistant GMO potato could reduce fungicide use by up to 90 percent . Again, this would certainly result in a healthier potato — especially since even organic farmers use pesticides.

I understand that people have legitimate concerns about highly processed foods, such as baked goods, breakfast cereals, chips, and other snacks and convenience foods, which are often made from corn, soy, sugar beets, and other crops that are genetically engineered. It’s the manufacturing process, however, that makes these items less healthy than whole foods, like fruits, vegetables, and grains. The origin of the ingredients is irrelevant.

DP: Without question, the various toxic herbicides that are liberally applied to GM crops are having a devastating effect. In terms of the nutritional quality of conventional versus GM food, it’s important to understand that mineral content is, to a significant degree, dependent on the various soil-based microorganisms. When the soil is treated with glyphosate, as is so often the case with GM crops, it basically causes sterilization and deprives the plant of its mineral absorption ability.

But to be fair, the scientific literature doesn’t indicate a dramatic difference in the nutritional quality comparing conventional and GM agricultural products in terms of vitamins and minerals.

It is now, however, well-substantiated that there are health risks associated with exposure to glyphosate. The World Health Organization has characterized glyphosate as a “ probable human carcinogen .” This is the dirty truth that large agribusiness doesn’t want us to understand or even be aware of. Meanwhile, it’s been estimated that over 1.6 billion kilograms of this highly toxic chemical have been applied to crops around the world. And to be clear, GM herbicide-resistant crops now account for more than 50 percent of the global glyphosate usage.

The connection between GM crops and use of chemicals poses a significant threat to the health of humans and our environment.

Does GMO food affect the health of the environment? Why or why not?

SE: GMOs have a positive impact on the health of the environment. Recently, a meta-analysis of 20 years of data found that growing genetically modified insect-resistant corn in the United States has dramatically reduced insecticide use. By suppressing the population of damaging insect pests, it’s also created a “halo effect” that benefits farmers raising non-GM and organic vegetable crops, allowing them to reduce their use of pesticides, too.

We’re also seeing the use of genetic engineering to breed crops that can produce their own nitrogen, thrive in dry conditions, and resist pests. These crops will directly benefit environmental health by cutting the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and water. Other researchers are working to accelerate the rate of photosynthesis, which means crops can reach maturity quicker, thus improving yields, reducing the need to farm new land, and sparing that land for conservation or other purposes.

Genetic engineering can also be used to reduce food waste and its associated environmental impact. Examples include non-browning mushrooms , apples, and potatoes, but could also be expanded to include more perishable fruits. There’s also tremendous potential in regard to genetically engineered animals, such as pigs that produce less phosphorus material.

In summary, GMO crops can have remarkable environmental benefits. They allow farmers to produce more food with fewer inputs. They help us spare land, reduce deforestation, and promote and reduce chemical use.

DP: No doubt. Our ecosystems have evolved to work in balance. Whenever harmful chemicals like glyphosate are introduced into an ecosystem, this disrupts the natural processes that keep our environment healthy.

The USDA Pesticide Data Program reported in 2015 that 85 percent of crops had pesticide residue. Other studies that have looked at the pesticide levels in groundwaters reported that 53 percent of their sampling sites contained one or more pesticides. These chemicals are not only contaminating our water and food supplies, they’re also contaminating the supplies for other organisms in the surrounding environment. So the fact that GM seeds now account for more than 50 percent of global glyphosate usage is certainly concerning.

Perhaps even more importantly, though, is that these chemicals are harming the soil microbiome. We are just now beginning to recognize that the various organisms living in the soil act to protect plants and make them more disease resistant. Destroying these protective organisms with the use of these chemicals weaken plants’ natural defense mechanisms and, therefore, will require the use of even more pesticides and other chemicals.

We now recognize that plants, like animals, are not autonomous, but rather exist in a symbiotic relationship with diverse microorganisms. Plants are vitally dependent upon soil microbes for their health and disease resistance.

To summarize, the use of pesticides for GM crops is disrupting ecosystems, contaminating the water and food supplies for the environment’s organisms, and harming the soil microbiome.

Is GMO food necessary to feed the entire world population? Why or why not?

SE:  With the world’s population expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, farmers are now being asked to produce more food than they’ve produced in the entire 10,000-year history of agriculture. At the same time, we’re facing extreme climate change events, such as prolonged droughts and severe storms, that greatly impact agricultural production.

Meanwhile, we need to reduce the carbon emissions, water pollution, erosion, and other environmental impacts associated with agriculture, and avoid expanding food production into wild areas that other species need for habitat.

We can’t expect to meet these enormous challenges using the same old crop breeding methods. Genetic engineering offers us one tool for increasing yields and reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint. It’s not a silver bullet — but it’s an important tool in the plant breeder’s toolbox because it allows us to develop improved crops more quickly than we could through conventional methods. It also helps us work with important food crops like bananas, which are very difficult to improve through conventional breeding methods.

We certainly can feed more people by reducing food waste and improving food distribution and storage systems worldwide. But we can’t afford to ignore important tools like genetic engineering, which can do a lot to improve the productivity and quality of both crops and livestock.

The social and environmental problems that we face today are unprecedented in scale and scope. We must use all the tools available to address the challenge of feeding the world while taking care of the environment. GMOs can play a part.

DP:  The argument that we need GMO food to feed the entire world population is absurd. The reality of the situation is that GM crops have actually not increased the yield of any major commercialized food source . In fact, soy — the most widely grown genetically modified crop — is actually experiencing reduced yields. The promise of increased yield potentials with GM crops is one that we have not realized.

Another important consideration in terms of food security is the reduction of waste. It’s estimated that in the United States, food waste approaches an astounding 40 percent . Leading health commentators, like Dr. Sanjay Gupta, have been vocal on this issue and highlighted food waste as a key component of addressing the issue of food insecurity. So there’s definitely a big opportunity to reduce the amount of food that needs to be produced overall by cutting waste out of the supply chain.

Is there a viable alternative to GMO food? If so, what is it?

SE:  There’s no reason to seek an alternative to GMO foods, from a scientific, environmental, or health perspective. But if people wish to avoid GMO food they can purchase organic products. Organic certification does not allow the use of genetic engineering. However, consumers need to be aware that organic food does carry a rather hefty environmental and economic cost.

A recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that organic food costs at least 20 percent more than nonorganic food — a figure that can be even higher with certain products and in various geographic regions. That’s a significant difference for families living within a budget, especially when you consider that organic food is not any healthier than nonorganic foods, and both types of food typically have pesticide residues that fall well below federal safety guidelines.

Organic crops also have an environmental cost because they’re generally less productive and require more tilling than conventional and GM crops. They also use fertilizers from animals, which consume feed and water and produce methane gas in their waste. In some cases, take apples for example, the “natural” pesticides that organic growers use are far more toxic to humans and the environment than what conventional growers use.

In terms of plant breeding, some of the improvements that are possible with genetic engineering simply couldn’t be accomplished through traditional methods. Again, genetic engineering offers plant breeders an important tool that can result in a healthy, eco-friendly approach to agriculture. There’s simply no scientific reason to avoid this technology in producing food for the world’s growing population.

DP: Absolutely. There are many innovators working on solutions to sustainably solve the issue of food insecurity. One area of focus has been reducing the waste across the supply chain. For example, Apeel Sciences , a company that has raised funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, developed a natural coating that’s made of leftover plant skins and stems. It can be sprayed on produce to slow the ripening process and extend shelf life, which helps consumers and supermarkets alike reduce food waste.

In addition to this, forward-thinking researchers are now deeply involved in studying the microorganisms that live on and near plants in terms of how they function to enhance not only the health of plants, but the quality and quantity of nutrients that they produce. According to British agricultural researcher Davide Bulgarelli, in a recent article published by The Scientist, “Scientists are looking to manipulate soil microbes to sustainably increase crop production — and novel insights into the plant microbiome are now facilitating the development of such agricultural tactics.”

The research that looks at how microbes benefit plants is consistent with similar research relating microorganisms to human health. So another alternative is to harness and take full advantage of the beneficial interaction between microorganisms and plants to create a healthier and more productive agricultural experience.

Dr. Sarah Evanega is a plant biologist who earned her doctorate degree from Cornell University, where she also helped lead a global project to help protect the world’s wheat from wheat stem rust. She’s currently the director of the Cornell Alliance for Science , a global communications initiative that’s seeking to restore science to the policies and discussions around genetically engineered crops.

Dr. Perlmutter is a board-certified neurologist and four-time New York Timesbest-selling author. He received his MD from the University of Miami School of Medicine where he was awarded the Leonard G. Rowntree Research Award. Dr. Perlmutter is a frequent lecturer at symposia sponsored by institutions such as the World Bank and IMF, Yale University, Columbia University, Scripps Institute, New York University, and Harvard University, and serves as an Associate Professor at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. He also serves on the board of directors and is a fellow of the American College of Nutrition.

This article first appeared on Healthline .

Get Our News Blast

You might also enjoy.

The Oxford Scientist

The University of Oxford's independent science magazine

Are GMOs safe? The debate over genetically altered foods

By Isabel Schmidt

The debate over the safety of genetically altered foods has been present since their inception in the 1990s . Indeed, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have often been viewed as being ‘unnatural’ . Greenpeace went as far as to destroy a field of GM corn in Norfolk in 1999, but the defendants were later acquitted by a sympathetic jury in a landmark trial. Yet, the advent of newer gene editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 (where a nuclease and guide RNA are used to specifically cleave DNA and remove or insert genes) has expanded the field of genetically altered foods worldwide. Despite distinctions between the historically-used method of gene modification and these new gene editing technologies, the use of GMOs continues to be viewed as dangerous by the public.

Genetic Modification versus Gene Editing

First, some definitions. Genetic modification refers specifically to the identification of desirable traits in an organism followed by the copying and insertion of these pieces of information into a new organism. Gene editing, on the other hand, refers to the process of snipping out and removing specific DNA sequences using CRISPR-Cas9 to switch certain genes on or off, all within the same organism. The process of gene editing is often perceived as a sped-up process of what could occur via natural or artificial selection.  Conversely, the end result of genetic modification typically would not occur naturally.

Plants being genetically altered through the artificial selection of desired traits is nothing new. The plant Brassica oleracea manifests as cabbage, brussels sprouts, kale, broccoli, cauliflower, or kohlrabi depending on how the plant has been cultivated. Each form of the crop—known as ‘cultivars’—stems from farmers selectively planting seeds from plants that displayed desirable characteristics (called ‘phenotypes’), and these characteristics then becoming more prevalent over time. For example, European farmers specifically selecting crops with flower clusters has given us cauliflowers. Yet, these products are generally not recognised as GMOs as their evolution is seen as being ‘natural’.

Genetic modification of food crops should either improve the nutritional value and quality of the resource or ease its production, as highlighted in international agreements like the Cartagena Protocol. Genetic modification enabled the creation of insect resistant corn in the 1990s , fulfilling the requirement of improving food quality by bypassing the need to use pesticide on the crop yields. Scientists isolated a specific DNA sequence in the soil bacterium Bacillus thiurengensis that was known to produce an insecticidal protein. This sequence was then copied and transformed into the corn plant, now dubbed “Bt corn”. The location and expression of this insecticidal protein can then be moderated with different promoters (DNA sequences that proteins bind to and initiate transcription), such as CaMV 35S or PEP carboxylase. These GMO plants are then resistant to damage from insects such as the European corn borer.

This process is much more controversial. Critics have raised concerns about the potentially detrimental effects of Bt corn on non-target insects as well as the risk of Bt toxin leaking into the soil. But these concerns are not unique to genetically modified crops, with traditional pesticides sharing these risks. A more unique concern, however, is the transfer of herbicide-resistant gene markers from GMOs to invasive species through horizontal gene transfer. This could wreak havoc on surrounding environments (although, to date, this has been very rare). To safeguard against this risk, strategies using alternative markers have been developed, and strict regulations have accompanied the rise in GMOs. For example, GMOs undergo strict testing regimes before release onto the market, and many are only used as feed for livestock.

And yet, the potential benefits of altering species to produce more food with greater nutritional value ( such as golden rice containing vitamin A or carrots with a higher calcium content that prevent osteoporosis ) are undeniable, especially as the worldwide population continues to rise. Production of GM crops has increased 100-fold in the last 25 years , with genetically altered crops such as corn, soybean, cotton, potato, canola approved for commercialisation in the US alone .

The international response to GMOs

International treaties have been established to tackle the lingering distrust and confusion around genetically modified foods. A key aim of these treaties has been to dissociate new GMO and gene editing techniques from traditional plant breeding and selection strategies. For example, the 2000 Cartagena protocol —currently including 173 signatories—outlined the differences between genetically edited versus genetically modified foods.

The purpose of GMO regulations are broadly similar worldwide: to ensure they are safe for human consumption, animal consumption, and the environment. Yet, the approaches taken varies from country to country. Indeed, process-oriented approach es tend to focus on the regulation of the specific genetic modification techniques, while product-oriented approaches emphasise the safety of the resultant product, without regard for the process. This can lead to discrepancies in approaches internationally, which can hinder trade and stifle innovation in the field.

In fact, rules and acceptance of farming GMOs varies internationally. For example, India is pro the cultivation of GM crops, with an adoption rate of 95% for Bt cotton. But, countries such as Ecuador, Venezuela, and Peru have extremely strict rules preventing GMO cultivation—the prohibition of transgenic seeds and crops is even mentioned in Ecuador’s constitution!

International legislation is continually changing. In the United Kingdom, a bill was introduced to Parliament in May to relax EU–era restrictions which forbade the use of gene editing technology in food production. If this passes, gene edited tomatoes that are rich in Vitamin D could soon be on UK shelves . However, this bill specifically excludes genetically modified plants. In the United States, where typically more GM crops are cultivated, a 2016 federal law mandated that foods made with GMOs should be explicitly labelled as such.

Ultimately, genetically modified crops should be approached with caution while also recognising their potential benefits. Farmers were indirectly altering the genetics of plants decades before gene modification techniques were introduced, and the processes of gene modification and gene editing are simply further examples of scientific progress.

From this section

Disorders of consciousness are a clinical minefield. Here’s how we could be doing better

To believe or not believe: Does free will exist?

BioArt: Producing art through biochemistry

CBD: Miracle or myth? 

Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against Essay

Introduction, legislation, a way to stop it.

First of all it is necessary to mention that the development of the genetic engineering has originated the appearing of genetically modified foods and organisms. Originally, the genetically modified foods are derived from the organisms. The fact is that, genetic modification is the changing of the DNA code by the means of the genetic engineering, thus, the genes of the organisms are deviating from the normal genes of similar organisms, consequently, these organisms may be regarded as mutants.

It is stated that the genetically modified foods first appeared on the market in 1990s. These products were soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil, but animal products have been developed. Thus, Stewart (2004, 56) sates the following: “ in 2006 a pig engineered to produce omega-3 fatty acids through the expression of a roundworm gene was controversially produced. Researchers have also developed a genetically-modified breed of pigs that are able to absorb plant phosphorus more efficiently, and as a consequence the phosphorus content of their manure is reduced by as much as 60%. ”

It is stated that while the technological and scientific progress and development in the sphere of biology and molecular researches promises an essential potential for the benefits of the humanity in the sphere of deeper understanding of nature and its laws, the humanity imposes essential risks on the health of peoples and ecological safety of thee environment. The existing biological diversity is the largest treasure of the planet, and, there is strong necessity to save it intact: without removing or adding anything.

For Genetic Modification

Originally, the discussion on the matters of the GMO is rather broad and burning. It should be stated that the benefits of the genetic modification are discussed and stated much rarer than the harms. Consequently, it is necessary to discuss the benefits first. The fact is that, the benefits are rather promising and sound excitingly. These are the foods which grow faster, they are not subjected to insect attacks. There may be several harvests in a season: the genetic modification is aimed to struggle with hunger and poverty in the driest regions and regions where locust or other plant pests make serious obstacles for gathering sufficient harvests.

Here, all the potential benefits are exhausted, and the severe truth begins. It is necessary to mention that the impact of the genetically modified foods on the human organism has not been studied properly. The consequences of artificial genetic diversity are not known for the ecosystem of our planet. The ecologic safety has not been approved, as there were no tests for it.

Against Genetic modification

Still, the facts, which are the most stubborn thing in this world, approve the danger of genetic modification, as it is the direct violation of the laws of the nature. Thus, since 2004 some cotton plantation workers are subjected to serious allergic reactions to Bt cotton (genetically modified breed), and experience no reaction contacting with normal cotton. Moreover, the longer the contact was, the severer the consequences and the reaction of the organism. Doctors report that nearly 100 cases were registered in 2004, and more than 150 in 2005. The symptoms are the itching, and red swollen eyes.

As for the allergic reactions, Deal and Baird (2003) in his research stated the following: “ The increased concentrations of tryptophan in the ferment or may in turn have led to increased production of trace impurities. Shortcuts had been taken in the purification process to reduce costs. For example, a purification step that used charcoal adsorption to remove impurities had been modified to reduce the amount of charcoal used. It is possible that one or more of these modifications and/or the environment for manufacture allowed new or greater impurities through the purification system. ”

Taking into account the world statistics, it should be stated that 37 lethal cases have been already registered because of genetically modified foods consumption. Close to 1500 people were disabled. As for the facts against GMO, they are in general the following:

• Allergens are contained in extreme proportions in GMO. There is no doubt, that allergens are transferred to plants by the means of genetic modification.
• The genetic modification by the means of such called horizontal gene transfer and recombination my become the reason of appearing genetically new bacteria and viruses. Taking into account that the humanity does not have immunity for such threats, the consequences may be fatal.
• If new types of viruses and bacteria appear, the immunity is not the only thing that will not be able to fight it. There will be no remedy against it, as all the antibiotics (even the wide spectrum of action) are effective against known bacteria. All the remedies will become useless.

Taking into account the danger of genetically modified bacteriological danger, it will be necessary to cite Stewart (2004): “ BSE demonstrates how little we understand. We assume feed contaminated with animal remains caused it, but organophosphates may be implicated too. There is uncertainty how it is passed on. We do not know how to cure it. We do not even know how to test for it. Now we are creating thousands of transgenic life forms, releasing them into the environment, eating them, and we are supposed to believe they can guarantee no disasters. ” Nothing will be left but hoping for the best.

Originally, the main danger is covered in the fact that genetic modification is the process of creating the genetic mazes and manipulating the genetic codes in the ways, which are not natural. The processes, which are not natural, can not be totally controlled by a human, as the natural surrounding differs from a laboratory one on the one hand, and the genetics has not reached the high levels yet on the other hand. Thus, the fact of genetic pollution is quite possible. This means that GMO’s may spread all over the world and influence the genetic codes of natural organisms by interbreeding with them. Thus, the not modified environment may become genetically polluted, and the destiny of future generations appears to be unforeseeable and uncontrollable. There will be no way back, as if the interbreeding starts, it will be impossible to stop it, thus, the environment will change essentially and forever.

The fact that because of the commercial interest the fact of the presence of GMO in foods is concealed and not labeled makes everyone alerted. Surely, it may be reasoned by the general fear of genetically modified foods on the one hand, still, the fears are not unreasonable. Generally speaking, the people have the right to know what they are buying and eating, nevertheless, the public is deprived of the right to know about the presence of the GMOs, thus, there is no possibility to avoid them. However, the legislation in some states and world countries obliges the food industries mark their foods.

Moreover, some countries are supporting the idea of total prohibition of genetic modification of foods and organisms in general. Thus, In March 1996 the European Parliament voted against full and complete labeling of genetic modified food. Currently, there are numerous organizations all over the world, who aim to shed some light on the issues of genetic modifications, the benefits and dangers of GMOs and the potential consequences. Some of them are Greenpeace, Biowatch South Africa, and True Food Network.

Originally, the only way to stop the spread of GMOs is to stop researches in these spheres. The way to stop the research process is to restrict it with the intellectual property rights. Stewart (2004) emphasizes the following: “ The proprietary nature of biotechnology products and processes may prevent their access for public-sector research. This might have a stronger negative impact in developing countries where no private research initiatives are in place. In addition, most developing countries still do not provide patent protection to biotechnological products and technologies. Because patents have a national scope, the entry of products developed through proprietary biotechnologies could be prevented in those external markets where patent protection exists”

Finally it is necessary to mention that the genetic modification of the foods brings more dangers and hazards than benefits. Originally, these are the games with the laws and rules of nature, and the humanity is not able to realize the danger of such games in its full measure. The fact is that, there is strong necessity to protect the existing biological diversity and respect it as the global heritage. As North American Indians told “we did not inherit our planet from our ancestors – we borrowed it from our progenies”.

The fact is that, there are numerous obstacles, which prevent genetic modification experiments from being stopped: these are the commercial interests, the strong belief that genetic modification will help to benefit, and some others. Still, there are movements and tendencies in some States for prohibiting the experiments and production of the genetically modified foods, as the statistics and the facts are not consoling.

Deal, Walter F., and Stephen L. Baird. “Genetically Modified Foods: A Growing Need Plant Biotechnology Can Help to Overcome the World’s Concern for Feeding Its Ever-Growing Population.” The Technology Teacher 62.7 (2003): 18.

Stewart, C. Neal. Genetically Modified Planet: Environmental Impacts of Genetically Engineered Plants. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 12). Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-for-and-against/

"Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against." IvyPanda , 12 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-for-and-against/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against'. 12 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against." March 12, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-for-and-against/.

1. IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against." March 12, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-for-and-against/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against." March 12, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-for-and-against/.

• Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Food Production
• Ethical Issues Behind Feeding People With GMOs
• Genetically Modified Organisms: Benefit or Harm?
• A Technique for Controlling Plant Characteristics: Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture
• Genetically Modified Foods: Pros or Cons
• How Politics Have Influenced Production of GMOs?
• Genetically Modified Foods and Pesticides for Health
• Genetically Engineered Food Against World Hunger

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

GMOs Argumentative Essay

Most people are conscious that they should eat healthy foods, high in protein, low in fat, containing the recommended daily allowance of vitamins and minerals, etc. Food biotechnology sometimes leads to opposition from consumer groups and anti-biotechnology from activist groups. In terms of human safety, a common perception is that GMO containing foods have been inadequately tested for the presence of unpredicted allergens or toxins which can lead to harmful results. Research shows however that GMOs might be very helpful in a lot of countries. Despite the various arguments that GMOs (genetically Modified Organisms) do more harm than good to us, I believe that it is more beneficial than harmful.

Related Papers

Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica

Alexandra Pricop

John Fagan , C. Robinson

Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the GM crop industry and its supporters. They say that GM crops: Are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops Are strictly regulated for safety Increase crop yields Reduce pesticide use Benefit farmers and make their lives easier Bring economic benefits Benefit the environment Can help solve problems caused by climate change Reduce energy use Will help feed the world. However, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true.

Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics

Anne I Myhr

Antropologicas

Francesca Bray

Applied Sciences

Carmen Rubio Armendáriz

The development and consumption of genetically modified (GM) crops are surrounded by controversy. According to proponents, only molecular biology approaches and genetic engineering tools are realistic food shortage solutions for the world’s ever-growing population. The main purpose of this study is to review the impact of GM products on human, animal, and environmental health. People still reject GM crops not only because of safety concerns, but also for moral reasons. Toxicity, allergies, and possible horizontal gene transfer (HGT) to the environment or to other species have been associated with the marketing of GM products. Moreover, the scarce data available about the long-term implications of using GM crops is another opponent concern. Nevertheless, science has evidenced no harm from GM crops use to date but has, instead, reported several benefits that result from their commercialization, such as economic, environmental, and health benefits for the general public. Legislation an...

Science, Technology, & Human Values

Sheldon Krimsky

Prominent scientists and policymakers assert with confidence that there is no scientific controversy over the health effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—that genetically modified crops currently in commercial use and those yet to be commercialized are inherently safe for human consumption and do not have to be tested. Those who disagree are cast as “GMO deniers.” This article examines scientific reviews and papers on GMOs, compares the findings of professional societies, and discusses the treatment of scientists who have reported adverse effects in animal feeding experiments. This article concludes by exploring the role that politics and corporate interests have had in distorting an honest inquiry into the health effects of GMO crops.

Roger Blench

Richard Kuper

RELATED PAPERS

Stem cell reports

Johanna Bolander

Ankur Bajpai

maruf hasan

Abstracta Iranica

Remy Boucharlat

Shirley Gobara

Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR)

Paul Schwager

Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development

Nkiruka Ukibe

Signe Klöpper

Austin Chiumia

Hearing Research

Lisa Hunter

Hadi Surya Wibawanto Sunarwadi

Ramil Baylarov

Community Empowerment

RATIH PUTRI DAMAYATI

Akademik Gastroenteroloji Dergisi

Cengizhan Yigitler

Interface - Comunicação, Saúde, Educação

Sandra L U C I A Correia Lima Fortes

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

Simon J. Joseph

Dr. A M I R A F Z A L

Um Reino Cristão na África Subsaariana - O Congo e Portugal nos Séculos XV e XVI

Casimiro Dos Santos

abbas rabiee

International Journal of Mosquito Research

Psympathic : Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi

Sri Maslihah

Psichiatria e Psicoterapia Culturale

Goffredo Bartocci

European Journal of Pharmacology

İsmail Hakki Ulus

European Journal of Ophthalmology

Kahaki Kimani

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Inheritable Genetic Modification Arguments Pro and Con

Arguments Against Inheritable Genetic Modification

1. IGM would lead to treating children and all people like objects . Germline technologies would contribute strongly to parental expectations of "pre-selecting" their children's traits, and to the cultural construction of human beings as biologically perfectible artifacts. This would change the nature of the parent-child relationship, and would likely have other profound and destabilizing socio-cultural impacts.

2. IGM is a eugenic technology that would almost certainly increase the social and economic disparities between privileged elites and the great majority of others. Germline manipulation would always be expensive, and real or perceived "enhancements" would thus accrue to the offspring of the affluent. Even proponents of IGM acknowledge that such practices could lead to the emergence of "genetic castes," and of social rifts so vast that any notion of a common humanity could be lost, with horrific consequences.

3. It is effectively irreversible. Unanticipated negative effects of IGM would be passed on to all future generations.

4. Inheritable genetic modification constitutes inherently unsafe human experimentation. It would be impossible to anticipate fully the effects of inserting genes into human cells.

Rebuttals to Arguments Against Inheritable Genetic Modification

1. Germline-engineered children need not be considered "objects" to any greater degree than are non-germline-engineered children.

2. Society can redress inequalities created by IGM by distributional transfers of resources after the fact, or can prevent inequalities by making IGM services available to all people.

3. We can aim to modify genes at the germline level in ways that block their transmission to the next generation.

4. All innovative efforts at medical progress entail some risk. Society can pledge to compensate anyone who suffers. Many problems that might be created as a result of germline modification could be corrected by using the same techniques that caused them.

Arguments in Favor of Inheritable Genetic Modification

1. Inheritable genetic modification can be used to allow couples to avoid passing on serious genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs.

2. Inheritable genetic modification can allow a couple, both of whom are homozygous for a defective gene, to have a healthy child that is related to both of them.

3. Inheritable genetic modification can allow couples to "enhance" their children to be healthier, longer lived, more athletic, more intelligent, more attractive, and in general to have more of the qualities that all of us wish for our children.

4. Inheritable genetic modification will occur even if banned, because demand will be strong and people will be willing to pay. Rather than encourage black markets and likely abuses, we should legalize the practice so that it can be safely regulated.

Rebuttals to Arguments in Favor of Inheritable Genetic Modification

1. It is simply not true that IGM is needed to allow parents to avoid passing on serious genetic disease. Other means already exist to accomplish this same goal, in all but a vanishingly small number of cases. In the technique known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, for example, couples at risk of passing on a gene-related disease use in vitro fertilization to conceive several zygotes, and only those found to be free of the harmful gene are implanted and brought to term. No manipulation of genes is required. Egg and sperm donation, and adoption, are also available. Germline manipulation is necessary only if you wish to "enhance" your children with genes they wouldn't be able to get from you or your partner.

2. Persons homozygous for genetic diseases who are able to marry and have children typically have a mild form of the disease, and thus their children are likely to have the mild form as well. In any event, the number of cases of the situation described is rare, and the merits of developing germline engineering for those very few cases does not warrant the incredible risks that this would entail for human society.

3. To embark on a trajectory of germline "enhancement" would change forever the nature of human life and society, would likely erode our sense of a common humanity, and would feed back upon itself in ways that we would be quite incapable of predicting. We can enhance our lives and those of our descendants in a myriad of ways, without running the risks that germline modification entails. Furthermore, parental rights are not absolute. They are always evaluated in relation to the well-being of children and of society.

4. To argue that IGM is inevitable, and therefore should be legalized, disregards historical experience and common sense. One might as well argue that because child abuse and murder occur, they should be made legal. Strong, effective laws, and public advocacy, can reduce or even eliminate black-market germline engineering.

Summary Comment

Although different people will judge one or another argument concerning inheritable genetic modification in different ways, the Center for Genetics and Society believes that when all the arguments are considered together the case for allowing it is not compelling, and that the potential harms of doing so are immense.

Last modified June 1, 2006

Related Articles

End of the future of humanity.

Not the species, certainly, but the Institute of that name, which was founded by transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2005 as a research group at Oxford University. According to a recently posted Final Report , its goal was “to pursue the big questions in a transdisciplinary way” by pulling together “researchers from disciplines such as philosophy, computer science, mathematics, and economics.” This evolved before long into the study and promotion of  “ effective altruism ” and “ longtermism ” as...

How to Avoid a Genetic Arms Race

Aggregated News

A quiet biological revolution in warfare is underway. The genome is emerging as a new domain of conflict. The level of destruction that only nuclear weapons could previously achieve is fast becoming as accessible as a cyberattack.

Now for the...

Verve Halts Trial for Lead Gene Editing Program Due to Safety Concerns

Verve Therapeutics  has  suspended enrollment  in the Phase Ib Heart-1 study evaluating its lead gene editing program VERVE-101 following a serious adverse event, the company announced Tuesday.

A patient, who received a 0.45-mg/kg dose of VERVE-101, developed a grade 3...

The TESCREAL bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence

The stated goal of many organizations in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) is to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI), an imagined system with more intelligence than anything we have ever seen. Without seriously questioning whether such a system can...

The Center for Genetics and Society is fiscally sponsored by Tides Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Please visit www.tides.org/state-nonprofit-disclosures for additional information. © 2023 Tides Center, through the Center for Genetics and Society. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy . Terms of Use .

• Open access
• Published: 21 November 2019

Is selecting better than modifying? An investigation of arguments against germline gene editing as compared to preimplantation genetic diagnosis

• Alix Lenia v. Hammerstein 1   na1 ,
• Matthias Eggel 1   na1 &
• Nikola Biller-Andorno   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7661-1324 1  

BMC Medical Ethics volume  20 , Article number:  83 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

20k Accesses

8 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Recent scientific advances in the field of gene editing have led to a renewed discussion on the moral acceptability of human germline modifications. Gene editing methods can be used on human embryos and gametes in order to change DNA sequences that are associated with diseases. Modifying the human germline, however, is currently illegal in many countries but has been suggested as a ‘last resort’ option in some reports. In contrast, preimplantation genetic (PGD) diagnosis is now a well-established practice within reproductive medicine. Both methods can be used to prevent children from being born with severe genetic diseases.

This paper focuses on four moral concerns raised in the debate about germline gene editing (GGE) and applies them to the practice of PGD for comparison: Violation of human dignity, disrespect of the autonomy and the physical integrity of the future child, discrimination of people living with a disability and the fear of slippery slope towards immoral usage of the technology, e.g. designing children for specific third party interests. Our analysis did not reveal any fundamental differences with regard to the four concerns.

We argue that with regard to the four arguments analyzed in this paper germline gene editing should be considered morally (at least) as acceptable as the selection of genomes on the basis of PGD. However, we also argue that any application of GGE in reproductive medicine should be put on hold until thorough and comprehensive laws have been implemented to prevent the abuse of GGE for non-medical enhancement.

Peer Review reports

The recent discovery of CrisprCas (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats - Crispr associated systems) set in motion a worldwide wave of scientific progress in the field of gene editing. CrisprCas is a comparatively cheap, efficient, precise, and easy-to-use alternative to already existing gene editing tools [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. These scientific advances present major ethical concerns, especially in regard to the potential use of CrisprCas on germline cells: Spermatozoa, oocytes and their progenitors, e.g. embryonic cells in early development - cells that take part in reproduction and therefore pass on their genetic content to the next generation. At present, human germline gene editing (GGE) is prohibited by national legislation and international declarations, e.g. by the Oviedo Convention published by the Council of Europe in 1997 [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Gene editing techniques could be applied to human embryos within the context of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in order to modify disease associated genes and therefore interrupt the transmission of hereditary conditions. The work of Liang et al. [ 7 ] published in 2015, which uses CrisprCas on non-viable human embryos to investigate the efficacy and specificity of the method, initiated an international debate on the permissibility of such research as well as future clinical applications. While the international community was still engaged in a controversy discussion about the morality of germline gene-editing in human reproductive cells, the pot was stirred in November of 2018 when journalists covered the CrisprCas gene-edited twins born in China [ 8 ]. Opponents of GGE argue that the danger of unpredictable effects on future generations, technical difficulties compromising patient safety, as well as other serious ethical concerns outweigh potential benefits of germline gene editing [ 9 ]. Further, it is argued that with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), an effective tool for avoiding the transmission of severe hereditary diseases in assisted reproductive technology (ART) already exists, which renders the use of germline modification unnecessary for the majority of cases [ 9 , 10 ]. PGD was first introduced in 1990 by a British team as a means of preventing the transmission of X-chromosomal linked disease [ 11 ]. The concept of PGD is that several embryos created via IVF treatment are analyzed for genetic anomalies associated with specific diseases, with the objective of identifying and selecting an unaffected embryo for transfer into the uterine cavity, while the remaining embryos are discarded [ 12 ]. Since the 1990s and after considerable controversy, PGD has become an established practice in Europe covered by law and national guidelines [ 13 ]. According to the Center for Genetics and Society “there is no persuasive medical reason to manipulate the human germline because inherited genetic diseases can be prevented using embryo screening techniques” [ 14 ]. Also, In 2018, the recommendation published by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE/ ESHG) discusses adoption or gamete donation as possible alternatives to GGE, [ 15 ]. Of course, if a couple wishes to conceive a genetically related child, PGD is the only real alternative to GGE.

However, in ca. 19% of cases IVF only leads to one viable embryo [ 16 ]. In this case a parent who is a carrier of a dominant disease only has a 50% of begetting a “healthy” child. Also, for rare cases, e.g. when both parents are homozygous carriers of a recessive transmitted disease like cystic fibrosis, PGD does not represent an alternative to GGE as all produced embryos would be affected by the gene defect.

Thus, a recommendation published in 2017 by the National Academy of Science and National Academy of Medicine (NAS/NAM) concludes that clinical research on GGE in assisted reproductive technology should be considered a morally permissible option if no other alternatives exist [ 17 ]. In accordance, the recently published report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in 2018 concludes that GGE could be ethically acceptable if “reproductive cells that have been subject to heritable genome editing interventions are (should only be) only used for purposes that are consistent with the welfare of the future person” and if “the use of heritable genome editing interventions is (should be) consistent with social justice and solidarity so that it should not be expected to increase disadvantage, discrimination, or division in society” [ 18 ].

The ESHRE/ ESHG recommendation argues that, from a deontological perspective, GGE is morally more permissible than PGD because PGD leads to the selection between embryos instead of ‘treating’ them [ 15 ]. This begs the question whether GGE should rather be preferred over PGD, instead of being an ultima ratio option for cases of severe hereditary diseases.

To evaluate the validity of this claim, the present article analyzes and compares GGE and PGD in more detail. Four of the most prominent ethical concerns that have been raised against GGE are evaluated and compared to the practice of PGD: Violation of human dignity, disrespect of the autonomy and the physical integrity of the future child, discrimination of people living with a disability and the fear of slippery slope towards immoral usage of the technology, e.g. designing children for specific, third party interests [ 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. We selected these four concerns as they play a prominent role in public discourse and are often used as categorical arguments against GGE. By comparing GGE and PGD with a view to these arguments we want to see if PGD – as an established, legal practice in many countries – fares any better than GGE. If both technologies were comparable with regard to these arguments this would be an interesting finding given the by now widespread acceptance of PGD and the skepticism concerning GGE. We are aware that the arguments chosen represent a selection. There are many additional important issues to discuss including social justice, equality and allocation of resources within a society [ 10 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 ]. It would go beyond the scope of this article to address them all. Also, some of these concerns are not specific to gene editing but hold true for modern medicine in general. For instance, safety and security are very important concerns in this context. We do not want to dwell on these arguments here, for we think they would distract from ethical concerns that are more specific to germline gene editing. Therefore, for the sake of the argument, we will assume that PGD and GGE will in the near future be considered equally accessible and equally safe (while also acknowledging that at this moment in time this might not yet be the case).

The timeliness, relevance and urgency of addressing the ethical issues of germline gene editing and prenatal genetic diagnosis is highlighted by recent publications and recommendations, e.g. from the National Ethics Committee of Switzerland 2016 (NEC) [ 19 ], the National Academy of Science and the National Academy of Medicine 2017 (NAS; NAM) [ 17 ]; the Berlin Brandenburg Akademie der Wissenschaften 2015 (BBAW) [ 20 ], the Nuffield Council [ 18 ] and the background document of the European Society of Human Genetics and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 2018 (ESHG/ ESHRE) [ 15 ]. Therefore, we believe that this paper can help inform current policy discussions and may be of interest to health care professionals, in particular in the fields of reproductive medicine and pediatric care. Medical professionals play an important role in advocating children’s rights to good health care and by being involved in long term care of children living with a genetic disease they understand different aspects and impacts of certain diseases on the patient’s and the parents’ lives. Further, their opinion will guide future parents who seek advice for family planning.

Human dignity and the human genome

The Council of Europe emphasizes human dignity in its recommendation on Genetic Engineering in 1982 by stating that “the rights to life and to human dignity protected by Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights imply the right to inherit a genetic pattern which has not been artificially changed” [ 23 ]. Building upon this, the Oviedo Convention of 1997, which serves as a legally binding treaty between its ratifying countries, prohibits the gene modification of germline cells [ 4 ]. Further, the UNESCO Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights in 1997 (UDHGHR) states that “the human genome underlies the fundamental unity of all members of the human family, as well as the recognition of their inherent dignity and diversity. In a symbolic sense, it is the heritage of humanity.” [ 24 ]. Human dignity has been linked to the human genome in at least two ways: The respect for the intrinsic worth of an individual human being in relation to its genome as well as the importance of the human genome for the integrity of the human species [ 25 ]. Human germline gene modification and human dignity has been discussed on both levels.

Risk of instrumentalization

In several recent bioethics recommendations [ 15 , 17 , 19 , 20 ] The danger of violating human dignity by modifying the genome of a future child in order to fulfil the parental and/or societal expectations, thereby undermining the right to self-determination has been discussed. In other words, coming into existence would no longer be left to chance, but would be linked to certain - genetic - conditions.

The discussion regarding violation of human dignity often revolves around the concepts of ‘intrinsic value’ and ‘instrumentalization’. “Instrumentalization” in this context can be understood as someone (agent) using an entity (means) in a certain way (mode) for a specific purpose [ 26 ]. The concept of intrinsic value claims that all human beings have an intrinsic value that must be respected. Respect for the intrinsic value of a person demands that every person should be treated as an end in themselves and should never be reduced to their instrumental value, i.e. they should never be treated as a mere means to someone else’s end [ 25 ]. Kant formulated this in his categorical imperative as “act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. “[ 27 ].

Opponents now claim that GGE represents a risk of instrumentalization. To test the validity of this claim, we have to look at the specific context in which the technology is employed. In our example, future parents (agent) use an embryo (means) for GGE (mode) in the interest of “X” (purpose). If “X” solely means the interest of the parents to get a healthy child, then one can potentially argue that GGE in this context represents an instrumentalization since the embryo is only used as a mere means to the end of the parents (i.e. interest to get a healthy child). If “X” represents the interests of the parents for their future child and the interests of the future child to have a healthy life, e.g. if GGE is used with due respect for the child’s best interests and subject to the principle of beneficence, then it can hardly be argued that GGE is treating the future child as a mere means for the ends of the parents and as such would not represent a morally problematic form of instrumentalization.

It is difficult to see how modifying an embryo in GGE would represent a morally more problematic form of instrumentalization (i.e. treatment as a mere end) compared to discarding surplus embryos as done in PGD as long as its use is restricted to the selection of embryos based on medical characteristics such as severe hereditary monogenetic diseases.

Importantly, this is not at all to say that we oppose the generation and destruction of embryos for reproductive purposes. This is to show that it is difficult to argue against GGE on grounds of instrumentalization when comparing GGE to the morally accepted practice of PGD.

Integrity of the human species

In an article by Annas et al. germline genetic modification is described as a “crime against humanity” as it changes the foundation of the human species and therefore threatens human rights [ 28 ]. Bearing in mind the events leading to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948 (UDHR) - World War II and the Nazi atrocities - the need to protect the human genome as a ‘consensus’ for all of humanity, without discriminating anyone on the basis of cultural or religious stigmata or mental states becomes evident. The history of eugenic practices, not only under the Nazi regime but also across the world, motivated the protection of the human genome, especially in the face of advancements in gene technology. However, the implication of this for gene modifications is unclear since there is not one human genome [ 29 ]. What is generally regarded as “the human genome” is a mere snapshot of evolution since all genomes are naturally undergoing constant change [ 30 ]. Although two unrelated individuals share a majority of their genes, an average human genome exhibits 4,1–5 millions variants compared to a reference genome, leading to different phenotypes including different expression of diseases [ 31 , 32 ].

GGE to prevent genetically inherited diseases, would change an allele of a specific gene which is associated with a disease and would replace it with another (“healthy”) allele of the same gene. Thus, over time, no “new” genes are introduced into the gene pool, only the relative abundance of specific alleles is changed. Based on the assumption that only disease-associated genes are replaced with alleles without the specific mutation and under the assumption that the dynamic state of the human genome is included in Annas et al.’s argument on the ‘heritage of humanity’ [ 28 ], it is not evident why replacing one allele associated with a disease with another variant of the same gene would violate the integrity of the human species. Here, the Nuffield Council concludes that “there is much more to being human than the possession of a particular kind of genome” [ 18 ]. Another expression of this concern refers to ‘the naturalness’ or ‘sacredness’ of the human genome. The “naturalness” argument is based on the idea that nature is “good” and that it is wrong to intervene in nature. David Hume has argued that an ‚ought’ cannot be derived from an ‚is’ [ 33 ] and thus the foundation for the normative claim not to change nature is missing without whom one cannot derive any moral duties, responsibilities or moral guidelines for action.

Further, in today’s modern medicine it is unclear how “natural” forms of treatment are supposed to be distinguished from “unnatural” forms, e.g. most medical interventions aiming to prevent or treat a disease, such as the application of antibiotics to fight infection or resuscitation to fight death, could by the same token be considered as ‘unnatural’.

Arguments regarding the ‘sacredness’ of the human genome claim normative force by referring to the authority of god. We argue that claims regarding the authority of a divine being have little weight in secular contexts. Even if it did, it is unclear how changes to the human genome by human germline editing are fundamentally different from other (accepted and performed) actions to change or select human genes and genetic traits, e.g. selective mating (in a voluntary context, i.e. an individual choice based on perceived attractiveness of a partner or her skills [ 16 ]), epigenetic changes or PGD.

Based on this, we do not believe that the objections to GGE based on ‘naturalness’ or ‘sacredness’ hold much normative weight [ 17 , 19 , 20 ].

As stated, GGE could change the relative abundance of certain alleles in human populations. The same, of course, holds true for PGD. Under the assumption that no artificial or “foreign” genes are introduced through GGE, PGD and GGE are not fundamentally different with regards to their impact on the human gene pool.

Physical integrity and autonomy of the future child

• Physical integrity

The Child Right International Network (CRIN) refers to ‘bodily integrity’ by stating” … everyone, including children, has the right to autonomy and self-determination over their own body, and the only person with the right to make a decision about one’s body is oneself” [ 34 ]. Although not covering the complexity of the issue, the right of autonomous decisions over one’s own body and the right of self-determination are very important components in order to protect the ‘physical’ or ‘bodily’ integrity of a person [ 35 ].

In the following we will discuss the validity of the claim that GGE violates the child’s physical integrity by interfering with its genome without having the child’s consent and to what extend this can be applied to PGD [ 19 , 20 ].

Opponents to GGE point to Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which imply that the future child has “the right to inherit a genetic pattern which has not been artificially changed” [ 23 ]. This argument, we think, is problematic on grounds that Gyngell et al. [ 16 ] have pointed out: “social forces have been affecting our genome for generations.[...] social and environmental influences affect gene expression through epigenetic effects, and these changes may be passed on to the next generation. “[ 16 , 36 ]. Based on this, culture and parenting as well as germline gene editing affect our genome and gene expression. The difference is that the first leads to epigenetic changes (e.g. DNA methylation), whereas the second leads to changes in the actual base sequence of the DNA. However, both represent biochemical changes to the same molecule, and both lead significant phenotypic changes and as such, it is difficult to argue that one is different from the other and fundamentally different to other influences on the expression of the genome, e.g. parental decisions without the consent of the child.

The ‘non-identity problem’ was initially described by Parfit [ 37 ] and deals with the question how current actions can affect future generations, e.g. we affect the lives of future generations “by determining the kinds of social, political, economic and environmental circumstances that prevail. Our choices impact not only on what social conditions are left behind, but also who lives under those conditions. The very existence and identities of future generations depend on what choices and decisions we make. Yet if the identities of future generations depend on what we do now, then whoever exists in the future cannot claim to have been harmed by our actions when those actions turn out to be a condition of their existence.” [ 38 ].

This can be applied to PGD as follows: After a positive test result (meaning that the embryo carries the disease - associated gene mutation), parents can choose for or against one specific embryo. Therefore, the embryo will be born with its impairment or it will not come into existence as a person at all. According to the “non-identity” problem, one cannot harm someone when the alternative is non-existence. In the case of PGD, the selection of an embryo would thus not prevent nor cause harm, respectively or violate the physical autonomy or self-determination of a future child since the alternative would have been non-existence. From this, it follows that prevention of harm from a future child cannot serve as argument against or in favor of PGD.

With regard to GGE in the context of the physical integrity of the unborn child, one has to consider whether the successful correction of the gene mutation will a) change the identity of the future child, b) whether GGE is a necessary condition that an embryo is chosen for implantation, and c) whether the modification is in the best interest of the future child.

In response to the first issue, it can be argued that modifying one gene does not change the identity of a person, respectively an embryo as a person-to-be, since it changes only a very small part of its biomolecular structure, which is by nature constantly subject to change, e.g. mutations due to external stimuli such as sun light or natural mistakes in DNA duplication and repair. Of course, a severe disease can have a significant influence on a person’s life, but so do other circumstances such as education or where a child grows up. The choice of how to educate a given child will impact its life in many ways but does not lead to different children. Analogously, a life with or without a certain disease cannot be interpreted as choosing between different persons, but rather changes the course of a person’s life. Therefore, we follow the interpretation that GGE does not change the identity of an embryo as a person-to-be, since the same individual would be born - with or without a disease-causing gene.

Regarding the second, it depends whether GGE is a necessary condition for implantation. If that is the case, then GGE doesn’t represent a potential harm for the future child, for the alternative to GGE would have been ‘non-existence’.

Assuming that GGE is not a necessary condition for the parents to choose a specific embryo for implantation, e.g. parents would implant an embryo with or without GGE or irrespective of the success of GGE, then GGE can potentially harm the future child. For example, prospective parents who both carry two alleles of the gene causing cystic fibrosis may come to the decision that they will only implant the embryo if it first undergoes genetic modification. This modification might have potential harmful side-effects. Thus, to defuse the objection that GGE threatens to violate the unborn child’s physical integrity, GGE would have to be save enough that the genetic modification is allegedly in the best interest of the future child. In clinical practice, the concept of ‘informed consent’ plays a major role in protecting the physical integrity of a patient. Medical procedures may only be performed if the patient or her legal representative consents to a certain intervention after considering the relevant facts, risks and alternatives. GGE as one treatment option among others in pediatric care, the decision whether or not to proceed with it has to be taken by the parents ensuring the informed consent with regard to the best interests of their future child. Thus, applying GGE to an embryo with the best interest for the future child in mind does not per se imply a violation of its physical integrity if the resulting future child will in all likelihood not be worse off than the child from the untreated embryo would have been.

To summarize, the non-identity problem and the concern of violating the future child’s physical integrity potentially apply to GGE but not to PGD. However, when parents take the informed decision to apply GGE on an embryo in order to prevent the manifestation of a severe hereditary disease under careful consideration of risks and benefits for the child, GGE can hardly be seen as a violation of the physical integrity of the future child. While PGD can only be endorsed through reproductive autonomy - reproductive autonomy and acting beneficently towards the future child are potential arguments in favour of GGE. Thus, under the conditions explained above, GGE should not be seen as an infringement of the physical integrity of the future child – or at least not as a fundamentally different infringement compared to other parental (medical) decisions for their unborn or non-autonomous child, e.g. nutrition, lifestyle of pregnant mother, education, etc.

Feinberg has objected that a child has a right to an ‘open future’. He explains that children hold ‘anticipatory autonomy rights’ [ 39 ], rights that they do not have yet but will gain once they reach maturity and become capable of exercising them. One of these is the right to live an autonomous life and to make one’s own decisions e.g. concerning health care. Feinberg states that irreversible decisions should be postponed until “the child reaches maturity and is legally capable of making them himself” [ 39 ]. Thus, the right to an open future restricts what parents (and others) are allowed to do to children or the unborn child. Feinberg identifies “rights-in-trust,” as rights that „look like adult autonomy rights ... except that the child cannot very well exercise his free choice until later when he is more fully formed and capable ... rights that are to be saved for the child until he is an adult, but which can be violated “in advance,” so to speak, before the child is even in a position to exercise them... His right while he is still a child is to have these future options kept open until he is a fully formed self-determining adult capable of deciding among them “[ 39 ]. GGE is an irreversible decision, potentially changing major parts of a person’s life in important ways. On the account of Feinberg, the right to an open future in the discussion on GGE thus poses the question whether GGE is morally acceptable given its potential to significantly change a person’s life without having her consent.

Mills on the other hand claims that it is unclear what it means to keep options open in the context of what it means to be a “good parent” [ 40 ]: “Should our goal be to raise our children so that that they will have, as adults, as many options as possible, to give them, insofar as we can, a maximally “open” future? Or should our goal be more directive, to lead our children toward a more specifically shaped future that we ourselves endorse? “Thus, Feinberg’s theory has been criticized on the ground that it is “impossible and undesirable to try to provide children with an ‘open future’ in any meaningful sense” [ 41 ]. A lot of necessary parental decisions concerning external factors, e.g. a child’s education, religion, diet, sports, friends, neighborhood etc. are unavoidable and will have an impact on the future life of the child. Mills argues that it is not only not possible but even more importantly not desirable for parents to be “neutral” in raising their children and „steering them, however imperceptibly, toward one option rather than another “[ 40 ]. Thus, parenting always requires some (unavoidable and non-neutral) steering (making decisions for the child without its consent) which are biased by what we deem (morally) desirable or in the best interest of the child. However, the positions of Feinberg and Mills are not always necessarily mutually exclusive, especially when chosen a moderate interpretation of the right to an open future [ 42 ]. Many parenting decisions will lead to temporary closure or opening of doors. However, this is often reversible in nature and thus still maintains (according to our understanding of Feinberg) the possibility for an open future for the child. Of course, parenting will always lead to opening some doors more than others. Past experiences can never be made undone and some decisions made by parents can be re-shaped in the future while others might potentially be irreversible. But such is the nature of parenting.

Preventing a severe hereditary disease by changing the DNA sequence in an embryo potentially opens up opportunities for that individual later in life, e.g. to pursue a regular education or to become an athlete. On the other hand, the person will not experience what it means to live with the condition in question. As Gyngell et al. have pointed out, GGE to eliminate a disease would under certain circumstances rather represent an autonomy-enhancing effect (due to it’s effect on health and the possibilities for the future child) thus outweighing restrictions on autonomy “due to the presence of domination, manipulation or control” [ 16 ] of the parents. Or to rephrase, GGE to prevent severe hereditary diseases with the goal to increase the health of a future child will likely open many doors that would be closed otherwise. Likewise, it is rather „disease and disorder, not gene editing [...] that presents the greatest threat to future autonomy” [ 16 ]. Based on this, GGE cannot be rejected based on Feinberg’s account.

The concept of the right to an ‘open future’ can’t be applied to PGD: In PGD the parents choose between two embryos (existence vs non-existence) and not between two options for one embryo. This again highlights - similarly to the non-identity-problem - the conceptual difference and diverging ethical concerns between PGD and GGE, namely selection between embryos vs. therapeutic options for one embryo [ 10 ].

• Discrimination of people living with a disability

Social vs. medical model of disability

Central to the medical model of disability is a malfunction of the body, e.g. not being able to walk. In contrast, the social model argues that disadvantages experienced by people living with a disability are a result of the mismatch between the variability of the human body and societal norms what a body should be like, e.g. the inaccessibility of buildings or public transportation due to stairs when ambulating in a wheelchair [ 41 , 43 ].

Since the introduction of prenatal testing (PNT) for malformation of the fetus or genetic aberrations followed by selective abortion in the 1970s in order to enhance reproductive choice, the disability rights movement argues that such interventions discriminate people living with a disability [ 44 , 45 , 46 ]. It has been argued that these tests reinforce the ‘medical model’ of disability, while leaving aside social components with the respective disability [ 47 ]. Along these lines J. Scully has pointed out that “If it is true that a significant proportion of the disadvantage of certain disabilities come from social arrangements and not the impairment per se , we should then be aware that prioritizing genetic interventions is choosing to tackle a socially based difficulty through biological means” [ 46 ]. GGE and PGD enforce the medical model of disability in similar ways - both methods aim to fulfil the parental wish of begetting a healthy child through a medical intervention. Thus, PGD and GGE compared to the social model can be understood as two fundamentally different approaches to the same problem.

Disability and disease are very broad terms. Disadvantages caused by one condition may be more easily socially explained - and potentially removed through changes in outer circumstances - than others. For example, whether or not being restricted in daily routine, education or work life when ambulating in a wheelchair highly depends on the infrastructure provided. Whether or not a child with trisomy 21 is included within the neighborhood and adequately supported in school heavily depends on societal attitudes and willingness to invest. In contrast, living with hereditary immunodeficiency is much harder to tackle by societal measures because bacteria and viruses can hardly be eliminated from our daily life. Thus, notwithstanding its relevance, the social model of disability can alleviate some aspects of disease burden, however, it cannot cover all of them.

The ‘expressivist argument’

In PGD an embryo is chosen or discarded based on a specific genetic trait. Similarly, in GGE an embryo with a specific genetic trait is subject to modification and under the assumption that the modification is successful, the embryo is chosen for implantation.

This now begs the question whether this imposes a Yes or No statement towards an embryo or future child or towards a specific genetic trait and disease, e.g. whether the choice for or against a specific genotype discriminates people living with the respective condition.

A Hasting Centre report in 1999 morally objects prenatal testing [ 45 , 48 ] based on the ‘expressivist argument’ which claims that “selective abortion after prenatal diagnosis is morally problematic as it expresses negative or discriminatory attitudes, not merely about a disabling trait, but about those who carry it.” [ 44 ]. The report states that “... with discrimination more generally (...) a single trait stands in for the whole. (...) The tests send the message that there’s no need to find out about the rest” [ 48 ]. Advocates of the expressivist argument claim that PGD and GGE discriminate people living with the respective condition, as it implies that the condition is ‘not wanted’. Importantly, according to the argument, perceived discrimination is morally relevant even if discrimination was not intended.

However, there is a fundamental difference between preferring a future child not to have a specific disease and valuing life or human beings living with said disease as a life not worth living or a life less valuable. Similarly, Savulescu has challenged the general validity of the ‘expressivist argument’ by highlighting the importance of differentiating between disability and persons living with a disability. He states that “selection reduces the former, but is silent on the value of the latter” [ 49 ]. This is especially interesting in the context of medicine - In medicine, after all, it is the goal to treat diseases and most people that are suffering from a disease will undergo treatment (if available). And probably almost everybody will agree that this does not represent a discrimination of people carrying this disease.

According to Savulescu there is no moral reason to deny parents access to PGD on the basis of the ‘expressivist argument’. He points out that the individual choice of parents must not be understood as a general statement on people living with that disease. A comparison can be drawn to a case in which parents want their obese child to lose weight. The fact alone that they encourage their child to live an active life and eat healthy food to lose weight is not discriminatory towards other obese people, unless the respect, love and appreciation of the parents for the child depend on successful weight-loss. In this context, GGE should be understood as a medical option to avoid the manifestation of a severe hereditary disease. The (medical) intervention itself - the prevention of a severe hereditary disease for one specific embryo – should not be perceived as discriminatory even if the genotype of the embryo is decisive for the parental decision to use or discard of a specific embryo.

Notwithstanding that the expressivist argument and perceived discrimination of carriers of certain diseases might not stand up to ethical scrutiny, one can still discuss the moral relevance of this perceived discrimination. If it is regarded as morally relevant, then society and the medical community should be made aware of this aspect and measures could be implemented to decrease the perceived discrimination e.g. through education of the public on disability and disease and better integration of people living with a specific disease in our society. However, we do not think that PGD or GGE should be objected based on the expressivist argument.

• Slippery slope argument

The basic structure of a slippery slope argument (SSA) is that if a certain action (A) is allowed, another action (B) will necessarily follow or is very likely to follow. At the point in time when (A) is under review with regard to its moral permissibility, (B) is judged to be clearly wrong. Therefore, A must not be allowed in order to protect the prohibition of (B). The two events (A) and (B) may be linked by multiple intermediate steps [ 50 ]. The validity of a SSA - at least in a logical reasoning - depends on the likelihood of (B) and whether (A) inevitably or very likely leads to a ‘loss of control’ resulting in (B) [ 50 ]. Thus, slippery slope arguments have the structure of having „an initial, seemingly acceptable decision, (2) a dangerous outcome that is unacceptable, and (3) a process or mechanism leading from the initial decision to the dangerous outcome” [ 51 ].

Nick Agar suggested a distinction of “morally wrong” and “morally problematic” interventions. N. Agar argues that all instances of an intervention properly identified as essentially morally wrong are morally wrong (e.g. most agree that blowing up your neighbor’s car without a compelling justifying reason is always morally impermissible). However, morally problematic interventions are problematic precisely because they comprise both morally bad and morally good interventions” [ 52 ], e.g. PGD and GGE can potentially be used for gender selection, but they can also be used for the prevention and treatment of severe hereditary diseases. Based on this, GGE and PGD, should be seen as morally problematic but not morally wrong interventions because of their potential applications ranging from morally good to morally wrong [ 52 ].

Opponents of GGE formulate slippery slope arguments analogously to the above- provided SSA structure: If germline gene editing was allowed in human medicine for severe hereditary diseases (A), this would necessarily lead to violation of human dignity through eugenic use of the technology, instrumentalization of future children through non-medical enhancement and increased inequity in society through an artificial distribution of favourable biological characteristics among people living within this society (B) [ 15 , 17 , 19 , 20 ].

Validity of the SSA against GGE

We will argue that the assumption that allowing GGE for medical purposes (A), e.g. treating severe hereditary diseases, inevitably or most likely leads to (B) rests on several empirical assumptions that are, prima facie, not obvious or difficult to prove.

First, for (B) to follow from (A), (B) obviously has to be scientifically feasible, i.e. it has to be scientifically possible to genetically modify strenght, eye and hair colour, height, stamina, intelligence, charisma, dexterity, agility, etc. Second, Walton coined the term “drivers” for social and political factors “driving forward of the chain of argumentation from the premises to the conclusion (the claim that the predicted disastrous outcome will occur) [...] [ 53 ]. This means that, the notion that allowance of (A) will lead to an increased moral acceptability of (B) either implies that (A) and (B) are either similar on a fundamental level or that there are obvious drivers pushing towards (B), for otherwise the causality between allowing (A) leading to (B) seems not comprehensible. Third, the loss of control caused by (A) leading to (B) rejects the possibility that regulations and laws are means to prevent sliding down the slope. We will elaborate on these assumptions below.

One potential driver is scientific developments and the probability that geneticists will be able to reliably predict what genes need to be changed in order to increase the likelihood of some ‘positive’ phenotype e.g. intelligence, athletic prowess, charisma, appearance, etc. Indeed, it may one day potentially become possible to identify and modify genes important for muscle growth, agility, dexterity, perseverance, intelligence, humor, among others. However, to this day, the knowledge regarding many of these complex traits (which are not necessarily only genetic in nature) is still limited (with eye and hair colour being exceptions). Without the scientific feasibility (A) cannot (yet) lead to (B). For the sake of the argument we will however assume that it is or soon will be scientifically feasible. In our opinion, there are, prima facie, no obvious reasons supporting the claim that only because we “could” that we actually “would” use GGE for non-medical purposes.

This claim is based on the believe that the moral acceptance for using gene editing for medical purposes would increase moral acceptance for non-medical use of GGE and eugenics. This assumptions rests on the idea that public acceptance for (A) is high, whereas (B) is perceived as clearly wrong. This view is reflected in a statement of the US National Academies stating that “with stringent oversight, heritable germline editing clinical trials could one day be permitted for serious conditions; non-heritable clinical trials should be limited to treating or preventing disease or disability at this time and that „genome editing for enhancement should not be allowed at this time “[ 54 ]. Furthermore, the assumption implies that (A) and (B) are fundamentally similar or that there are specific drivers leading to a loss of control and sliding towards (B).

The rationale behind GGE for the treatment of severe (hereditary) diseases is therapeutic, i.e. to cure a disease to generate health. The use of GGE for non-medical purposes is, as the name implies, non-therapeutic in nature, i.e. it is an enhancement and/or change of a “non-disease” phenotype, e.g. increased height or change of hair color, respectively.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and plastic surgery can, in theory, also be used for non-therapeutic purposes. However, this is not seen as sufficient reason to prohibit these practices. Also, from a medical ethics point of view these two applications seem prima facie not similar but rather fundamentally different. The principle of beneficence claims that physicians have a duty to prevent harm from a patient. If GGE is understood as therapy and the future child as patient, then one could make an argument that physicians should act in the best interest of the future child and thus, GGE for the treatment of severe diseases could be compatible with the principle of beneficence. However, this does not hold true for GGE for non-medical purposes.

Further, we do not think that there are uncontrollable drivers pushing us down the slope. On the contrary, we think that there is at least one driver that can push us in the opposite direction. According to Walton an SSA “needs to be set in a framework of deliberation that is social, that even involves whole countries, and is highly dependent on forming policies that will set laws in place. As the technology evolves, the debates will continue, and rules will be proposed by governments formulating statutes that will be binding on the courts and will be subject to legal argumentation. What prevents the gray area from playing its part in generating a slippery slope argument is the formation of bright lines, clear rules that can tell us that we can only go so far in the sequence of actions and no further” [ 53 ]. This implies that the risk of a slippery slope depends on jurisdictions in countries and that SSAs should always take the power of laws to prevent a slippery slope from occurring into consideration.

The power of laws and regulations to prevent a slippery slope is illustrated by the following example in the Netherlands, where euthanasia has become an established part of Dutch medical practice since the 70s [ 55 ]. Euthanasia was not legalized, but ‘mercy killings’ were overlooked by Dutch prosecution. In the 90s a legislation was introduced that (although still not legalizing euthanasia) came with certain restrictions for it. Doctors now had to report cases of ‘mercy killing’ which were subject to investigation to determine if the doctors should be prosecuted. This shows how sliding on the slope may work in both directions, i.e. how moral and legal actions can prevent an uncontrolled movement from (A) to (B).

If GGE ever becomes feasible in human reproductive medicine, jurisdictions around the globe will face the difficult challenge of how to regulate it. The regulation of genetic tests including PGD is relevant here for two reasons: First, the genetic testing of an embryo will be the foundation of any application of GGE [ 15 ]. Second, it is likely that the regulation of GGE - or at least how indications are defined - will resemble the regulation of PGD in a certain country. GGE on human reproductive cells is still prohibited in many countries, e.g. Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Switzerland, Netherlands, whereas PGD is a widely accepted and legal practice. The regulation of PGD varies between countries around the world in mainly two aspects: How regulation is enforced (e.g. legislation vs. less enforceable guidelines) and what indications are eligible. Most European countries do have effective regulations in place [ 13 , 56 ]. For example, Swiss legislation clearly restricts the use of PGD for cases of severe hereditary diseases and defines the term ‘severe hereditary disease’ through specific criteria (e.g. conditions that lead to analgesia resistant pain, reduced motoric abilities through paralysis or inability to communicate) in order to clarify which conditions are eligible for PGD [ 57 ]. However, differences within different European jurisdictions exist, e.g. some countries allow PGD for different indications, e.g. HLA typing of donor siblings (HLA compatibility of donor and recipient is important to organ or bone marrow transplantation. If a child suffers e.g. from leukaemia and no suitable bone marrow donor is found, then parents could select from a number of embryos the one embryo that would be most suitable as a donor for the older sibling) [ 13 ]. Under Belgian law, it is stated that PGD may not be used to pursue eugenic aims - further regulation is left to medical centers carrying out IVF treatments [ 58 ]. The UK has published a list of conditions approved eligible to PGD by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act [ 59 ] .

Regulation of PGD in the US and in China differ from that in Europe. The US has no federal law regulating the use of PGD (or GGE) but leaves it to the state legislation. On the whole, a liberal approach emphasizing reproductive liberty is followed, resulting in 9% of PGD usage for social sexing. Furthermore, centers exist which, upon parental request, provide PGD to select in favor of certain diseases such as dwarfism or deafness [ 60 ]. In China, an enormous increase of PGD usage was reported, highlighting differences in the societal attitude towards PGD in comparison to Western Europe. In particular, moral concerns regarding eugenic use or discrimination of disability are much less pronounced in China. Nevertheless, the Chinese government has restricted the use of PGD, which may not be used to select for non-medical features [ 61 ].

To conclude, slippery slope arguments are often based on and depend on multiple empirical claims, which are difficult to prove, however, we think that without any empirical proof, there is, prima facie, no strong reasons to accept the SSA as imperative objection to GGE. Further, attitudes and regulations regarding PGD within Europe are similar but not equal and European regulations for PGD tend to be more developed or stricter compared to the US and China. Even though we acknowledge the difficulties of guaranteeing an appropriate legal framework we argue that there is no reason to believe that a loss of control with GGE could not be prevented through appropriate laws and regulations – as the practice of PGD and the Dutch example of Euthanasia shows. We agree with Walton that “the burden of proof “regarding the likelihood of GGE for medical purposes(A) leading to the “morally catastrophic” use of GGE for eugenics (B) is on “the side of those who use the slippery slope argument against continuing with germline therapy” [ 53 ].

The autonomy of the parents and the right to know and not to know

Respecting patient autonomy and the “right to know”, i.e. a patient’s right to be informed about the risks and benefits of a specific treatment, has recently gained importance in medical ethics and medical practice as a fundamental ethical and legal principle [ 62 , 63 ]. Recent developments in the patient-doctor relationship show a shift from a “paternalistic” model in which the doctor is allowed to withhold information towards more autonomy for the patient based on full knowledge. In this context, the “right to know” is considered of paramount importance as necessary condition for patients to make autonomous decisions. In recent years, whole genome sequencing has become available for PGD so that multiple genetic disorders can now be tested for simultaneously. Given the increasing number of choices to weigh against each other in order to find the ‘best’ option, it is important to discuss implications on decision making in modern reproductive medicine. Advocates of PGD and GGE argue that to empower future parents to take an autonomous decision, sufficient information (i.e. knowledge regarding the genetic make-up of the embryo) should be available to those that want to base their considered judgement on this kind of information.

Sandell, on the other hand, has raised concerns that this potentially represents a detrimental tendency towards a ‘hyperagency’ to master every aspect of life in general and child rearing in particular [ 64 ]. A study evaluating attitudes towards PNT has highlighted concerns about increasing social pressure upon parents. Not testing could be perceived as giving away control over the health of a future child, therefore not being a responsible parent [ 65 ]. Opponents to PGD and GGE have argued that this kind of overemphasize on autonomy might lead to a loss of the right not to decide . In the case of PGD and GGE, this implies that the future parent would then become morally obliged, rather than entitled, to act autonomously [ 66 ]. In light of this, it has been argued that the burden of knowledge (for patients or future parents) can potentially be unbearable and thus it was called for a right not to know . The rationale behind this claim is that genetic testing might provide the patient with information regarding increased risks from serious diseases without having any means to reduce these risks or to get treatment [ 63 ]. Advocates of the “right not to know” claim that knowledge of these risks are potentially too great of a burden and cause unbearable psychological stress. Along these lines, it is argued that the knowledge regarding genetic traits of an embryo can also come with the burden of knowledge and choice. It is argued that the right not to know follows from the “do no harm” principle and that autonomy leaves open the possibility to choose not to know and as such, is fundamentally different to a paternalistic doctor-patient model.

Together, this shows that decision making in reproductive medicine is very challenging, taking into account the emotions and uncertainty that are natural to the process of creating a family. It would be disastrous if the concept of autonomy (be it the right to know or not to know) were to be transformed into a duty to control one’s life or the future child’s life, and thus, it is of paramount importance that autonomy of future parents is secured.

PGD and GGE both represent challenging decisions regarding an equilibrium between accepting and pushing aspects of parenting. Parenting comes with the responsibility of acting in the best interest of the child without its consent. Importantly, the interpretation of what duties and responsibilities parents have is left to the autonomous parents (as long as their practice is within the limits of the law). Similarly, we believe, that PGD or GGE represent choices for the autonomous parents and as such, are not fundamentally different to widely accepted child rearing measures, as long as they are done in the best interest for the health of the future child. In light of this, arguments based on parental autonomy should not be used against the application of gene technologies in ART in order to prevent the manifestation of a severe hereditary disease but should be used to stress the importance of appropriate regulations and laws to secure the autonomy of future parents and future children.

In this paper, we have discussed four arguments against the use of human GGE in the context of severe hereditary diseases. The first argument concerned the dignity of the human genome on the level of the individual and the level of the human species. We have argued that GGE to prevent a severe disease is not fundamentally different from other actions parents take without the consent of their child, e.g. as long as GGE is applied in the best interest of the future child for a healthy life and not in the interest of the parents for themselves, i.e. if the future child is an end in itself, then the intrinsic value of the future child is respected and its dignity is not violated.

In our opinion, arguments linking human dignity to the integrity of “the” human genome are weak because the human gene pool underlies constant changes and presents a great variety between its individual. It’s also unclear why and how the normative claim not to modify the human genome could be deduced from a reference to the “nature” of the genome. Moreover, in today’s medicine there is no line between “natural” and “unnatural” therapy. Also, references to the sacredness of nature based on the authority of god is not a valid reason to prohibit action in a secular world. We have also argued that in comparison to the widely accepted practice of PGD which leads to discarding surplus embryos, GGE cannot be considered a fundamentally different form of instrumentalization (assuming that either of these practices represent an instrumentalization in the first place which is a notion we do not agree with).

The second argument was related to physical integrity and the right to physical autonomy and self-determination.

The ‘non-identity problem’ described by Parfit [ 37 ] deals with the question of how current actions can affect future generations. Since one cannot argue that it’s harming someone when an alternative does not exist, we do not think that one can argue that PGD can harm the future child. GGE on the other hand can potentially harm the future child. However, we have argued that as long as GGE is considered reasonably safe and as long as GGE is applied in the best interest of the child, then GGE is not a fundamental infringement of the physical integrity or autonomy of the future child – or at least not a fundamentally different infringement compared to other parental medical decisions for their unborn child, e.g. nutrition, lifestyle of pregnant mother, etc.

J. Feinberg called for ‘anticipatory autonomy rights’ of the unborn child, such as the right to live an autonomous life and to make one’s own decisions. We argued that Mills’ idea of ‘directive and biased parenting’ is not mutually exclusive with Feinberg’s claim for a ‘maximally open future’ for the future child. In fact, we have argued that GGE is not fundamentally different to PGD or other parental decisions taken without the consent of the child in the best interest of the future child. GGE to prevent severe hereditary diseases would in fact, by bettering the health of a future child likely open more doors that would be closed otherwise. In fact, GGE is autonomy-enhancing not reducing.

Next, we turned to the argument that “selective abortion after prenatal diagnosis is morally problematic as it expresses negative or discriminatory attitudes, not merely about a disabling trait, but about those who carry it” [ 44 ]. We agreed with Savulescu who challenges the expressivist argument by highlighting the difference between disability and persons living with a disability [ 49 ]. According to Savulescu, selection implies a normative statement regarding a disease but is silent on the value of persons living with said disease [ 50 ]. We used the example of an obese child and the parents’ wish and efforts to make their child lose weight in the health interest of their child. In our opinion, the counterintuitive and clearly wrong implication of the expressivist argument would be that the parents wish and efforts in our example represent a discrimination of obese people. The expressivist argument is thus defeasible for both PGD and GGE.

The fourth argument concerned the slippery slope arguments that GGE for preventing severe hereditary diseases would lead to human enhancement and eugenics. We acknowledge, that GGE and PGD should both be considered as “morally problematic” (in an Agarian sense, because they potentially allow for morally good or morally bad interventions. However, we do not think that GGE and PGD should be considered morally wrong interventions. GGE for medical purposes is fundamentally different to GGE for non-medical applications. There are, prima facie, no reasons to believe that the moral acceptance for both is similar. Also, specific ‘drivers’ have yet to be identified that make a ‘loss of control’ and sliding down the slope towards eugenics inevitable. Importantly, as our example of euthanasia in the Netherlands has shown, laws and regulations provide a strong means not only to prevent sliding down the slope, but in fact, potentially provide a means to move up into the other direction. However, we do agree that ‘selective mentality’, hyperagency and overemphasize on autonomy in modern medicine potentially represent challenges for legalizing GGE. However, this does not provide imperative objections to PGD or GGE, but rather shows that a public and political discussion is necessary on how society defines responsible parenthood in the context of reproductive medicine and genetic tests. To prevent misuse of GGE, the practice should be put on hold until appropriate laws and regulations are put into effect. It is important that these laws promote the autonomy of the parents (be it the right to know or the right not to know) and the future child.

To summarize, we do not think that any of the discussed objections provide imperative grounds to object PGD or GGE. PGD and GGE both aim at helping parents have a healthy, genetically related child. However, the two methods differ from each other in concept and scale. With PGD parents can only select from a limited number of embryos they themselves have conceived. GGE, on the other hand, bears the potential to modify genomes to have specific wanted traits. Following the arguments provided in this paper, the claim that the genetic modification of an embryo in order to prevent the manifestation of a severe hereditary disease is at least as morally acceptable as PGD, as postulated by the ESHRE/ ESHG, can be considered valid under the following conditions: Only gene variants that already exist within the human gene pool are used and GGE is restricted to promoting the child’s interest in good health in cases of severe hereditary diseases.

However, this paper is not a plea to rush towards clinical use of GGE. Our conclusion is limited to the arguments discussed above. As pointed out in the introduction, other important moral concerns (e.g. social justice, distribution of scarce resources, intergenerational relationships [ 67 ]) will need to be taken into consideration, too. It is important to mention again that we set all safety and technical issues aside for the sake of the argument. Naturally, prior to any clinical implementation of GGE, addressing these concerns including a harm-benefit-analysis is inevitable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Berlin Brandenburg Akademie der Wissenschaften

The Child International Network

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats - Crispr associated systems

European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Germline gene editing

In-vitro-fertilization

National Academy of Science and National Academy of Medicine

National Ethics Committee of Switzerland

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

Prenatal testing

UNESCO Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights

Universal Declaration on Human Rights

Mali P, et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science. 2013;339(6121):823–6.

Article   Google Scholar  

Jinek M, et al. RNA-programmed genome editing in human cells. Elife. 2013;2:e00471.

Cong L, et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science. 2013;339(6121):819–23.

Europe, C.o., Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, in 164, C.o. Europe, Editor. 1997.

Araki M, Ishii T. International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:108.

Isasi R, Kleiderman E, Knoppers BM. Editing policy to fit the genome? Framing genome editing policy requires setting thresholds of acceptability. Science. 2016;351(6271):337–9.

Liang P, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell. 2015;6(5):363–72.

Cyranoski D, Ledford H. Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry. Nature. 2018;563(7733):607–8.

Lanphier E, et al. Don‘t edit the human germ line. Nature. 2015;519(7544):410–1.

Cavaliere G. Genome editing and assisted reproduction: curing embryos, society or prospective parents? Med Health Care Phil. 2018;21(2):215–25.

Handyside AH, et al. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature. 1990;344(6268):768–70.

Sermon K, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Lancet. 2004;363(9421):1633–41.

Präg P., M.M.C., Assisted Reproductive Technology in Europe: Usage and Regulation in the Context of Cross-Border Reproductive Care, in Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences. 2017, Springer Link p pp 289-309.

Gallagher, J. US ʻwill not fund research for modifying embryo DNAʼ. 2015; Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-32530334 . Accessed 25 Mar 2018.

De Wert G, et al. Responsible innovation in human germline gene editing: background document to the recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018.

Gyngell C, Douglas T, Savulescu J. The ethics of Germline gene editing. J Appl Philos. 2017;34(4):498–513.

National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine, Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics and Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2017.

Bioethics, N.C.o., Genome Editing and Human Reproduction: social and ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2018.

Humanmedizin, N.E.K.B., Gene editing an menschlichen Embryonen - Eine Auslegeordnung, N.E.K.B. Humanmedizin, Editor. 2016.

Reich J., F.H., Fehse B., Hampel J., Hucho F., Köchy K., Korte M., Müller-Röber B., Taupitz J., Genomchirurgie beim Menschen - Zur verantwortlichen Bewertung einer neuen Technologie, B.-B.A.d. Wissenschaften, Editor. 2015: Berlin.

Cahill, L.S., Germline genetics, human nature, and social ethics. Design and Destiny: Jewish and Christian Perspectives on Human Germline Modification, 2008: p. 145–166.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Mulvihill JJ, et al. Ethical issues of CRISPR technology and gene editing through the lens of solidarity. Br Med Bull. 2017;122(1):17–29.

Assembly, P., Recommendation on Genetic Engeneering , in Recommendation 935 , C.o. Europe, Editor. 1982.

UNESCO, Universal declaration on the human genome and human rights, UNESCO, Editor. 1997.

Andorno R. Human dignity and human rights as a common ground for a global bioethics. J Med Philos. 2009;34(3):223–40.

Camenzind, S., Instrumentalisierung. Zur Transformation einer Grundkategorie der Moral in der Ethik der Mensch-Tier-Beziehung., in Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien. 2019, Universität Wien: Wien.

Kant, I., J.W. Ellington, and I. Kant, Grounding for the metaphysics of morals; with, On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns. 3rd ed. 1993, Indianapolis: Hackett pub. Co. xiv, 78 p.

Annas GJ, Andrews LB, Isasi RM. Protecting the endangered human: toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations. Am J Law Med. 2002;28(2–3):151–78.

Google Scholar  

Venter JC, et al. The sequence of the human genome. Science. 2001;291(5507):1304–51.

Fu W, Akey JM. Selection and adaptation in the human genome. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2013;14:467–89.

Genomes Project C, et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature. 2015;526(7571):68–74.

Li WH, Sadler LA. Low nucleotide diversity in man. Genetics. 1991;129(2):513–23.

Hume, D., A treatise of human nature. Retrieved ed. 1739, London: John Noon.

Network, C.R.I. Bodily integrity. [cited 2019; Available from: https://home.crin.org/issues/bodily-integrity .

Herring J, Jesse W. The Nature And The Significance Of The Right To Bodily Integrity. Cambridge Law J. 2017;76(3):566–88.

Meaney MJ. Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2001;24:1161–92.

Parfit, D. Reasons and Persons. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1984.

Watene K. Nussbaum's capability approach and future generations. J Human Dev Capabilities. 2013;14(1):21–39.

Feinberg, J., The Child's Right to an Open Future, in Whose Child? Children's Rights, Parental Authority, and State Power. 1980: Totowa NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.

Mills C. The Child's right to an open future? J Soc Phil. 2003;34(4):499.

Albert, B., Briefing note: the social model of disability, human rights and development, D.K.R. Project, Editor. 2004.

Millum J. The foundation of the child's right to an open future. J Soc Philos. 2014;45(4):522–38.

Thomas C. Female forms: experiencing and understanding disability. Buckingham: Open Univ. Press; 1999.

Gonter C. The Expressivist Argument, Prenatal Diagnosis, and Selective Abortion: An Appeal to the Social Construction of Disability. Macalester J Philosophy. 2004;13(1):3.

Asch A, Barlevy D, Disability and Genetics: A Disability Critique of Pre-natal Testing and Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis. eLS. Wiley: Chichester, 2012.

Scully JL. Disability and genetics in the era of genomic medicine. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9(10):797–802.

Asch, A., Disability and Genetics: A Disability Rights Perspective. eLS. Wiley: Chichester, 2006.

Parens E, Asch A. Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2003;9(1):40–7.

Savulescu J. Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics. 2001;15(5–6):413–26.

van der Burg W. The slippery slope argument. Ethics. 1991;102(1):42–65.

Rizzo MJ, Whitman DG. The camel’s nose in the tent: Rules, theories and slippery slopes. UCLA Law Rev. 2003;51:539–92.

Agar N. Why we should defend gene editing as eugenics. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2019;28(1):9–19.

Walton D. The slippery slope argument in the ethical debate on genetic engineering of humans. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017;23(6):1507–28.

Medicine, T.N.A.o.S.a.t.N.A.o. With Stringent Oversight, Heritable Germline Editing Clinical Trials Could One Day Be Permitted for Serious Conditions; Non-Heritable Clinical Trials Should Be Limited to Treating or Preventing Disease or Disability at This Time 2017 [cited 2017; Available from: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=24623 . Accessed 20 Mar 2018.

McGleenan T. Human gene therapy and slippery slope arguments. J Med Ethics. 1995;21(6):350–5.

Anniek Corveleyn, E.Z., Michael Morris, Elisabeth Dequeker, James Lawford Davies, Karen Sermon, Guillermo Antiñolo, Andreas Schmutzler, Jiri Vanecek, Fransesc Palau, Dolores Ibarreta, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in Europe, E. Commission, Editor. Type: EUR - Scientific and Technical Research Reports. OPOCE; 2007. ISBN: 978-92-79-05654-3. ISSN: 1018-5593. http://www.jrc.es/publications/pub.cfm?id=1531 .

Bundesrat, S., Botschaft zur Änderung der Verfassungsbestimmung zur Fortpflanzungsmedizin und Gentechnologie im Humanbereich (Art. 119 BV) sowie des Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetzes (PrÄimplantationsdiagnostik), in 13.051, Bundesrat, Editor. 2013.

Pennings G. Belgian law on medically assisted reproduction and the disposition of supernumerary embryos and gametes. Eur J Health Law. 2007;14(3):251–60.

Authority, H.F.a.E. PGD conditions. 2018; Available from: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/pgd-conditions/ . Accessed 19 Mar 2018.

Bayefsky MJ. Comparative preimplantation genetic diagnosis policy in Europe and the USA and its implications for reproductive tourism. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016;3:41–7.

Cyranoski D. China’s embrace of embryo selection raises thorny questions. Nature. 2017;548(7667):272–4.

Gillon R. Ethics needs principles—four can encompass the rest—and respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”. J Med Ethics. 2003;29(5):307–12.

Andorno R. The right not to know: an autonomy based approach. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(5):435–9.

Sandel, M.J., The case against perfection: what’s wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering. Atl Mon, 2004. 292(3): p. 50-4, 56-60, 62.

Lewis C, Silcock C, Chitty LS. Non-invasive prenatal testing for Down’s syndrome: pregnant women’s views and likely uptake. Public Health Genomics. 2013;16(5):223–32.

Roter D. The practice of autonomy: patients, doctors, and medical decisions (review). J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25(4):770–4.

Rehmann-Sutter C. Why human Germline editing is more problematic than selecting between embryos: ethically considering intergenerational relationships. New Bioethics. 2018;24(1):9–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2018.1441669 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Dr. Anna Deplazes for the interesting discussions and Dr. Adrian v. Hammerstein for proofreading the manuscript.

The work of Dr. Matthias Eggel is funded by the Messerli Foundation, Switzerland. The funding body was not involved in any way in this work (e.g. the design of the study, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data nor in writing the manuscript).

Author information

Alix Lenia v. Hammerstein and Matthias Eggel contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 30, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland

Alix Lenia v. Hammerstein, Matthias Eggel & Nikola Biller-Andorno

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AH, ME and NBA made equal contributions to the design of the study. AH and ME drafted the manuscript. AH, ME and NBA contributed substantially to revisions of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the submitted manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikola Biller-Andorno .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

v. Hammerstein, A.L., Eggel, M. & Biller-Andorno, N. Is selecting better than modifying? An investigation of arguments against germline gene editing as compared to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. BMC Med Ethics 20 , 83 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0411-9

Download citation

Received : 17 June 2019

Accepted : 16 September 2019

Published : 21 November 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0411-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bioethics; germline gene editing; preimplantation genetic diagnosis
• Human dignity

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Food

Genetically Modified Food Argumentative Essay

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Food , Genetics , GMO Food , Customers , Marketing , Market , Risk , Government

Words: 1100

Published: 10/06/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

There is a growing trend of genetically modified foods, which has seen their entry in the market. Consumers are faced with the task of deciding whether to buy these foods or not. Taking into account their effects, some informed consumers use these foods while others decide to do away with them. On the other hand, uninformed consumers end up consuming these foods without knowledge on their effects. There are two opposing views regarding genetically modified food. Those in favor argue that they should be allowed in the market and the decisions to consume or not to be left with consumers. They believe the government should play a role in informing people about the effects and the benefits of this food. Those in opposition to genetically modified food believe that the food should not be allowed in the market. This argument is based on the negative effects of the genetically modified food. They do not consider the positive side or the benefits. In my opinion, I agree with the first view that is in support for the presence of genetically modified food in the market. The government should make sure that the producers of this food meet the required standards and carry out tests before sales.

Introduction

Genetically modified food is food produced from organisms whose genes have been modified with the use of genetic engineering. The genetic material of these organisms is altered in a way that the biological process does not take place naturally. This is done in plants, animals and other microorganisms that human beings use as food. Agricultural economists have been tasked to find out the relevance of the two opposing views regarding genetically modified food. However, personal perception and judgments take a central role in this. The question should, therefore, be whether the government and relevant authorities are doing enough to enhance consumer autonomy among its uninformed citizens (Colson, 2013).

Consumer autonomy and genetically modified food

Consumer autonomy is the ability of consumers to make decisions whether to use genetically modified food or not because they are clearly informed of the benefits and effects of this food. Several arguments have been fronted against the consumption of genetically modified food pointing out on the risks associated with consumption of this food. Some of these arguments advocate for the total elimination of this food in the market. They claim that because of some health effects associated with this food it is not favorable for human consumption. What the advocates of this notion forget to mention is the positive attributes associated with both consumption of this food and its production (Phillips, 2013). Proponents of a total ban on genetically modified food should remember that before this food is released to the market, it has to be tested whether it is fit for human consumption. Their claim for health risks includes faster growth that might expose people to diseases such as obesity. Gaining much weight due to consumption of genetically modified food can be controlled through consumption of reduced amounts and diet. People can also lose weight through regular exercising that helps in burning excess fats in the body. Therefore, as much as their ground for argument is valid there are corrective measures that can be taken to avoid the risks associated with consumption of genetically modified food. The benefits that come with the presence of genetically modified food outweigh the risks associated with their consumption. However, there is a need for policy enforcement to put in place regulations so that uninformed consumers are made aware of the risks and benefits associated with this food. This way they can make autonomous purchasing decisions without being compelled to consume the food unaware (Cabuk, 2014). Some of the benefits that come with the introduction of genetically modified food include the technology itself with which they are produced. They promote technological inventions and innovations within which the society grows. An enhanced market for this food creates employment the producers, suppliers and the society. This food has helped save lives in various parts of the world through food aid to third world countries in need of food support. There are many countries surviving and sustaining their populations through genetically modified food. The government should make efforts to promote the provision of tested genetically modified food in the market together with the natural food. This will allow those consumers not willing to have genetically modified food to opt for the natural food. This way it will gain appeal among many people with a negative attitude towards it. Studies have indicated a more appeal for this food among the American people as compared to those of the United Kingdom. However, efforts to label this food in America have met opposition while in the United Kingdom labeling seems to gain the support of many.

In my opinion, genetically modified food should be allowed in the market because its benefits outweigh the risks. The benefits start from the technological advancements that come with it, employment opportunities and enhanced nutritional contents. This food is used to support the fast growing world population and reducing chances of global food crisis. Arguments in opposition to genetically modified food are narrow and point out to risks that can be controlled by individuals. However, there is a need for government and relevant authorities to put in place measures to that will ensure only scientifically tested food reaches the consumers. Consumer awareness about risks and benefits is necessary. They should also ensure both natural food and genetically modified food is available in the market but with clear differentiation to allow autonomous purchasing decisions.

Çabuk, S., & Tanrikulu, C. (2014). The Role of Perceived Risk, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Innovativeness in Willingness-To-Buy Genetically Modified Foods. Cag University Journal of Social Sciences, 11(1). Colson, G., & Rousu, M. C. (2013). What do consumer surveys and experiments reveal and conceal about consumer preferences for genetically modified foods?. GM crops & food, 4(3), 158-165 Deal, W. F., & Baird, S. L. (2003). Genetically Modified Foods: A Growing Need: Plant Biotechnology Can Help to Overcome the World's Concern for Feeding Its Ever-Growing Population.(Resources in Technology). The Technology Teacher, 62(7), 18. Phillips, D. M., & Hallman, W. K. (2013). Consumer risk perceptions and marketing strategy: The case of genetically modified food. Psychology & Marketing, 30(9), 739-748. Siipi, H., & Uusitalo, S. (2011). Consumer autonomy and availability of genetically modified food. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 24(2), 147-163.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1015

This paper is created by writer with

ID 258151252

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Expulsion essays, upper respiratory tract essays, chippewa essays, antonio vivaldi essays, boyne essays, executive branch essays, body temperature essays, 1980s essays, abolition of man essays, professional writing essays, glitnir essays, ejusdem essays, free research paper on the role of emirates airlines in indian economy, the mountain madness challenge business plan examples, instructors name argumentative essay examples 2, anxiety disorders phobia essay sample, example of article review on academic freedom, art and architecture essay example 3, the fusion of the pagan and the christian essay example, working with and leading people report sample, example of essay on freedom of speech, european debt crisis term paper examples, example of essay on when drug dog sniff the narcotic outside home, non verbal communication essay examples, example of confucianism research paper, example of essay on quiet guys can do great things too a black accountants success story, example of finding the connection themes in lives on the boundary by mike rose essay, example of book review on illusions by richard bach, walmart and their tranformation to the e business environment essay examples, solutions essay example, face book case study example, good example of colombia not a failed state article, philadelphia its earliest years presentation example, free application letter about my career, sample presentation on international accounting standards board, good example of presentation on dualism incorporated, ehrenreich creative writings, colonists creative writings, downloading creative writings, constituents creative writings, grandmother term papers, cartilage term papers.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Genetics — GMO

Essays on Gmo

Genetically modified food essay topics and outline examples, essay title 1: genetically modified food: benefits, risks, and ethical considerations.

Thesis Statement: This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of genetically modified (GM) food, exploring its potential benefits in agriculture and food security, examining the associated risks, and discussing the ethical implications of altering the genetic makeup of organisms.

• Introduction
• Understanding Genetic Modification: Techniques and Applications in Agriculture
• The Benefits of GM Food: Increased Crop Yields, Reduced Pesticide Use, and Improved Nutrition
• Potential Risks and Concerns: Environmental Impact, Allergenicity, and Long-Term Health Effects
• Ethical Dilemmas: Ownership of Genetic Resources, Consent, and Consumer Rights
• Regulation and Labeling: Balancing Innovation with Transparency
• Conclusion: The Complex Landscape of Genetically Modified Food

Essay Title 2: GMOs and Global Food Security: Examining the Role of Genetically Modified Crops

Thesis Statement: This essay focuses on the relationship between genetically modified crops and global food security, investigating how GM technology can address challenges such as population growth, climate change, and sustainable agriculture.

• The Global Food Crisis: Feeding a Growing Population
• GM Crops as a Solution: Drought Resistance, Pest Tolerance, and Enhanced Nutrition
• Environmental Considerations: Sustainable Farming and Reduced Carbon Footprint
• Challenges and Criticisms: Concerns About Corporate Control and Biodiversity
• Case Studies: Success Stories and Lessons from GM Crop-Adopting Countries
• Conclusion: The Promise and Pitfalls of Genetically Modified Crops for Food Security

Essay Title 3: Informed Consumer Choices: GMO Labeling and the Right to Know

Thesis Statement: This essay explores the debate over GMO labeling, emphasizing the importance of transparency in food labeling, consumers' right to know about GM ingredients, and the implications of labeling policies on the food industry and public perception.

• The GMO Labeling Movement: Origins, Goals, and Advocacy
• Transparency vs. Industry Interests: The Controversy Surrounding Labeling Laws
• Consumer Perceptions: Trust, Skepticism, and Informed Decision-Making
• Global Perspectives: Labeling Practices in Various Countries
• Impact on the Food Industry: Compliance, Product Formulation, and Market Trends
• Conclusion: Balancing Consumer Rights and Industry Interests in GMO Labeling

Michael Pollans Eat Food Food Defined

Benefits of gmo labeling, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Gmo Debate: Weighing The Pros and Cons

Genetically modified food, research the impact of genetically modified food on health, why gmo foods are bad, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Arguments for Genetically Modified Food

Harmful effects of gmo products, gmo: negative sides and a higher purpose, the potential of gmos to help combat world hunger, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Gmos: History, Effects, and Controversies

Genetic engineering: using biotechnology in gmo, environmental impact of plastics, gmos, and animal captivity, the use and safety of gmos from a skeptical point of view, the genetically modified food as the risk in the society, research whether genetically modified food is good or bad, banning unlabeled genetically modified food, the impact of gmos on humans and the environment, genetically modified organisms: soybeans, questionable idea of genetic modification of humans, in vitro meat as a sustainable solution, genetically modified foods: history of creation and use, the issue surrounding the health dangers of genetically modified food, cereals as a staple & refined food, the potential harm of consuming genetically modified food, gene editing and the future of food, the issues surrounding the consumption of genetically modified foods, the future of food supply and agriculture, discussion on the theme of genetically modified foods, the importance of genetically modified food for the storage of the african savannah.

Genetically modified foods (GM foods), also known as genetically engineered foods (GE foods), or bioengineered foods are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering.

The first genetically modified food approved for release was the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994. It was engineered to have a longer shelf life by inserting an antisense gene that delayed ripening. China was the first country to commercialize a transgenic crop in 1993 with the introduction of virus-resistant tobacco. In 1995, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Potato was approved for cultivation, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the US.

Genetically modified foods are usually edited to have some desired characteristics, including certain benefits for surviving extreme environments, an enhanced level to nutrition, the access of therapeutic substances, and the resistance genes to pesticide and herbicides. These characteristics could be beneficial to humans and the environment in certain ways.

Studies show that GMO crops have fewer chances of mutating compared to non-GMO crops. Over 12% of global farmland grows GMO crops. 54% of all GMOs worldwide grow in the Third World countries. Soybeans count for half of all GMO crops grown worldwide.

Relevant topics

• Time Travel
• Natural Selection
• Mathematics in Everyday Life
• Agriculture
• Language Diversity

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Academic Departments
• Centers, Institutes & Labs
• Faculty Directory
• Offices & Programs
• Patient Care
• Student Resources
• Faculty Resources

Can't find what you're looking for?

• Centers, Institutes & Labs
• Offices & Programs

This is a site-wide search. if you already know what you're looking for, try visiting a section of the site first to see A-Z listings.

Results for " "

Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering

Section menu, introduction.

The cells of a human being or other organism have parts called “genes” that control the chemical reactions in the cell that make it grow and function and ultimately determine the growth and function of the organism.  An organism inherits some genes from each parent and thus the parents pass on certain traits to their offspring.

Gene therapy and genetic engineering are two closely related technologies that involve altering the genetic material of organisms. The distinction between the two is based on purpose. Gene therapy seeks to alter genes to correct genetic defects and thus prevent or cure genetic diseases. Genetic engineering aims to modify the genes to enhance the capabilities of the organism beyond what is normal.

Ethical controversy surrounds possible use of the both of these technologies in plants, nonhuman animals, and humans.  Particularly with genetic engineering, for instance, one wonders whether it would be proper to tinker with human genes to make people able to outperform the greatest Olympic athletes or much smarter than Einstein.

Confusing Terminology

If genetic engineering is meant in a very broad sense to include any intentional genetic alteration, then it includes gene therapy.  Thus one hears of “therapeutic genetic engineering” (gene therapy) and “negative genetic engineering” (gene therapy), in contrast with “enhancement genetic engineering” and “positive genetic engineering” (what we call simply “genetic engineering”).

We use the phrase “genetic engineering” more narrowly for the kind of alteration that aims at enhancement rather than therapy.  We use the term “gene therapy” for efforts to bring people up to normalcy and “genetic engineering” or “enhancement genetic engineering” for efforts to enhancement people’s capabilities beyond normalcy.

Somatic Cells and Reproductive Cells

Two fundamental kinds of cell are somatic cells and reproductive cells. Most of the cells in our bodies are somatic – cells that make up organs like skin, liver, heart, lungs, etc., and these cells vary from one another.  Changing the genetic material in these cells is not passed along to a person’s offspring.  Reproductive cells are sperm cells, egg cells, and cells from very early embryos.  Changes in the genetic make-up of reproductive cells would be passed along to the person’s offspring.  Those reproductive cell changes could result in different genetics in the offspring’s somatic cells than otherwise would have occurred because the genetic makeup of somatic cells is directly linked to that of the germ cells from which they are derived.

Techniques of Genetic Alteration

Two problems must be confronted when changing genes.  The first is what kind of change to make to the gene.  The second is how to incorporate that change in all the other cells that are must be changed to achieve a desired effect.

There are several options for what kind of change to make to the gene.  DNA in the gene could be replaced by other DNA from outside (called “homologous replacement).  Or the gene could be forced to mutate (change structure – “selective reverse mutation.”)  Or a gene could just be added.  Or one could use a chemical to simply turn off a gene and prevent it from acting.

There are also several options for how to spread the genetic change to all the cells that need to be changed.  If the altered cell is a reproductive cell, then a few such cells could be changed and the change would reach the other somatic cells as those somatic cells were created as the organism develops.  But if the change were made to a somatic cell, changing all the other relevant somatic cells individually like the first would be impractical due to the sheer number of such cells.  The cells of a major organ such as the heart or liver are too numerous to change one-by-one.  Instead, to reach such somatic cells a common approach is to use a carrier, or vector, which is a molecule or organism.  A virus, for example, could be used as a vector.  The virus would be an innocuous one or changed so as not to cause disease.  It would be injected with the genetic material and then as it reproduces and “infects” the target cells it would introduce the new genetic material.  It would need to be a very specific virus that would infect heart cells, for instance, without infecting and changing all the other cells of the body.  Fat particles and chemicals have also been used as vectors because they can penetrate the cell membrane and move into the cell nucleus with the new genetic material.

Arguments in Favor of Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering

Gene therapy is often viewed as morally unobjectionable, though caution is urged.  The main arguments in its favor are that it offers the potential to cure some diseases or disorders in those who have the problem and to prevent diseases in those whose genes predisposed them to those problems.  If done on reproductive cells, gene therapy could keep children from carrying such genes (for unfavorable genetic diseases and disorders) that the children got from their patients.

Genetic engineering to enhance organisms has already been used extensively in agriculture, primarily in genetically modified (GM) crops (also known as GMO --genetically modified organisms).  For example, crops and stock animals have been engineered so they are resistant to herbicides and pesticides, which means farmers can then use those chemicals to control weeds and insects on those crops without risking harming those plants.  In the future genetic enhancement could be used to create crops with greater yields of nutritional value and selective breeding of farm stock, race horses, and show animals.

Genetically engineered bacteria and other microorganisms are currently used to produce human insulin, human growth hormone, a protein used in blood clotting, and other pharmaceuticals, and the number of such compounds could increase in the future.

Enhancing humans is still in the future, but the basic argument in favor of doing so is that it could make life better in significant ways by enhancing certain characteristics of people.  We value intelligence, beauty, strength, endurance, and certain personality characteristics and behavioral tendencies, and if these traits were found to be due to a genetic component we could enhance people by giving them such features.  Advocates of genetic engineering point out that many people try to improve themselves in these ways already – by diet, exercise, education, cosmetics, and even plastic surgery.  People try to do these things for themselves, and parents try to provide these things for their children.  If exercising to improve strength, agility, and overall fitness is a worthwhile goal, and if someone is praised for pursuing education to increase their mental capabilities, then why would it not be worthwhile to accomplish this through genetics? 

Advocates of genetic engineering also see enhancement as a matter of basic reproductive freedom.  We already feel free to pick a mate partly on the basis of the possibility of providing desirable children.  We think nothing is wrong with choosing a mate whom we hope might provide smart, attractive kids over some other mate who would provide less desirable children.  Choosing a mate for the type of kids one might get is a matter of basic reproductive freedom and we have the freedom to pick the best genes we can for our children.  Why, the argument goes, should we have less freedom to give our children the best genes we can through genetic enhancement?

Those who advocate making significant modification of humans through technology such as genetic engineering are sometimes called “transhumanists.”

Arguments Against Gene Therapy

Three arguments sometimes raised against gene therapy are that it is technically too dangerous, that it discriminates or invites discrimination against persons with disabilities, and that it may be becoming increasingly irrelevant in some cases.

The danger objection points out that a few recent attempts at gene therapy in clinical trials have made headlines because of the tragic deaths of some of the people participating in the trials.  It is not fully known to what extent this was due to the gene therapy itself, as opposed to pre-existing conditions or improper research techniques, but in the light of such events some critics have called for a stop to gene therapy until more is known.  We just do not know enough about how gene therapy works and what could go wrong.  Specific worries are that

• the vectors may deliver the DNA to cells other than the target cells, with unforeseen results
• viruses as vectors may not be as innocuous as assumed and may cause disease
• adding new genes to a nucleus does not guarantee they will go where desired, with potentially disastrous results if they insert in the wrong place
• if the changes are not integrated with other DNA already in the nucleus, the changes may not carry over to new cells and the person may have to undergo more therapy later
• changing reproductive cells may cause events not seen until years later, and undesirable effects may have already been passed on to the patient’s children

The discrimination objection is as follows.  Some people who are physically, mentally, or emotionally impaired are so as the result of genetic factors they have inherited.  Such impairment can result in disablement in our society.  People with disabilities are often discriminated against by having fewer opportunities than other people.  Be removing genetic disorders, and resulting impairment, it is true that gene therapy could contribute to removing one of the sources of discrimination and inequality in society.  But the implicit assumption being made, the objection claims, is that people impaired through genetic factors need to be treated and made normal.  The objection sees gene therapy as a form of discrimination against impaired people and persons with disabilities.

The irrelevance objection is that gene therapy on reproductive cells may in some cases already be superseded by in-vitro fertilization and selection of embryos.  If a genetic disorder is such that can be detected in an early embryo, and not all embryos from the parent couple would have it, then have parents produce multiple embryos through in-vitro fertilization and implant only those free from the disorder.  In such a case gene therapy would be unnecessary and irrelevant.

Arguments Against Genetic Engineering

Ethicists have generally been even more concerned about possible problems with and implications of enhancement genetic engineering than they have been about gene therapy.  First, there are worries similar to those about gene therapy that not enough is known and there may be unforeseen dangerous consequences.  These worries may be even more serious given that the attempts are made not just toward normalcy but into strange new territory where humans have never gone before.  We just do not know what freakish creatures might result from experiments gone awry.

Following are some other important objections:

• Genetic engineering is against the natural or supernatural order.  The thought here is that God, or evolution, has created a set of genes for human beings that are either what we should have or that offer us the best survival value.  It is against what God or nature intended to tinker with this genetic code, not to bring it up to normal (as in gene therapy), but to create new kinds of beings. This type of objection is compatible both with “creationism,” the belief that God created humans just as they are, and also the belief in evolution.  On the latter view, humans consciously enhancing their genes is considered different than allowing the natural process of evolution to “choose” the genes we have.
• Genetic engineering is dehumanizing because it will create nonhuman, alienated creatures.  Genetically engineered people will be alienated from themselves, or feel a confused identify, or no longer feel human, or the human race will feel alienated from itself.  Genetically engineered people won’t have a sense of being part of the human race but they will not have enough in common with other such creatures to feel like they belong with any of them either.  People will be alienated even from their radically different genetically engineered children, who could very well be a separate species.
• Genetic engineered creatures will suffer from obsolescence.  Computers become obsolete quickly as newer models are introduced.  But this could happen to genetically engineered people.  The hot gene enhancement of one year will be old news several years later.  Parents will be obsolete by the standards of their children, and teenagers will be hopelessly outclassed by their younger siblings.
• Genetic engineering is a version of eugenics and evokes memories of the historical eugenics movement of the earlier part of the twentieth century in America and Nazi Germany.  “Eugenics” is the view that we should improve the genetics of the human race; often advocated are such practices as selective breeding, forced sterilization of “defectives” and “undesirables” (people with genetic disorders or undesirable characteristics or traits, people with disabilities, people of other races, people of other ethnic groups, homosexuals), and euthanasia of such populations.  It probably reached an extreme form in Nazi Germany, where mass exterminations took place, but eugenics sentiments existed prior to that in the U.S.  These practices are now largely viewed as morally abhorrent.  Critics of genetic engineering see it as an attempt at eugenics through technology.

Gene therapy is becoming a reality as you read this.  Genetic engineering for enhancement is still a ways off.  Plenty of debate is sure to occur over both issues.

More Centers, Institutes and Labs

• Baker Research Lab
• Becevic Telehealth Lab
• Biomedical Informatics
• Cardiac Cell Physiology Lab
• Center for Education and Development
• Center for Health Ethics
• Center for Health Policy
• Center for Medical Epidemiology and Population Health (CMEPH)
• Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
• Center for Precision Medicine
• Child Health Research Institute
• Christopher S. Bond Life Sciences Center
• Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory
• Cosmopolitan International Diabetes Center
• Craniofacial Research Center
• Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center
• Electron Microscopy Core Facility
• Ellis Fischel Cancer Center
• Fay Research Lab
• Functional Assessment Screening Team
• Health Informatics in Diabetes Research (HIDR) Core
• Health Intervention and Treatment Research Lab
• Immunity & Autoimmunity Research Lab
• International Institute of Nano and Molecular Medicine
• Lei Research Lab
• Microcirculation Laboratory
• Missouri Orthopaedic Bioskills Laboratory
• Mizzou OneHealth Biorepository
• Mizzou Sleep Research Lab
• MU Center for Translational Neuroscience
• MU Student Health Center
• MU Surgical Center for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (MUSCORE)
• Narrative Medicine and Health Innovation Lab
• Pulmonary Imaging Research Lab
• Rural Health Research Center
• Shelden Clinical Simulation Center
• Subramanian Research Lab
• Thompson Center for Autism and Neurodevelopment
• Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics

Happenings at MU School of Medicine

Stories that inspire.

Local youth explore medicine firsthand at CALEB Science Club

School of Medicine Featured in MizzouForward Investment in Student Success Initiatives

Weith, Wiewel and Wittels Wrap Up Medical School, Share a Common Destination

School of Medicine Awards 117 Degrees at Spring ’24 Commencement

See All News

Columbia, MO 65212 Contact

Emergency Information

Sign up for our monthly newsletter

Copyright © 2023 — Curators of the University of Missouri . All rights reserved. DMCA and other copyright information . Equal Opportunity/Access/Affirmative Action/Pro Disabled & Veteran Employer . For website issues, contact MU Health Care Communications . Contact the MU School of Medicine .

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Study Suggests Genetics as a Cause, Not Just a Risk, for Some Alzheimer’s

People with two copies of the gene variant APOE4 are almost certain to get Alzheimer’s, say researchers, who proposed a framework under which such patients could be diagnosed years before symptoms.

By Pam Belluck

Scientists are proposing a new way of understanding the genetics of Alzheimer’s that would mean that up to a fifth of patients would be considered to have a genetically caused form of the disease.

Currently, the vast majority of Alzheimer’s cases do not have a clearly identified cause. The new designation, proposed in a study published Monday, could broaden the scope of efforts to develop treatments, including gene therapy, and affect the design of clinical trials.

It could also mean that hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone could, if they chose, receive a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s before developing any symptoms of cognitive decline, although there currently are no treatments for people at that stage.

The new classification would make this type of Alzheimer’s one of the most common genetic disorders in the world, medical experts said.

“This reconceptualization that we’re proposing affects not a small minority of people,” said Dr. Juan Fortea, an author of the study and the director of the Sant Pau Memory Unit in Barcelona, Spain. “Sometimes we say that we don’t know the cause of Alzheimer’s disease,” but, he said, this would mean that about 15 to 20 percent of cases “can be tracked back to a cause, and the cause is in the genes.”

The idea involves a gene variant called APOE4. Scientists have long known that inheriting one copy of the variant increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s, and that people with two copies, inherited from each parent, have vastly increased risk.

The new study , published in the journal Nature Medicine, analyzed data from over 500 people with two copies of APOE4, a significantly larger pool than in previous studies. The researchers found that almost all of those patients developed the biological pathology of Alzheimer’s, and the authors say that two copies of APOE4 should now be considered a cause of Alzheimer’s — not simply a risk factor.

The patients also developed Alzheimer’s pathology relatively young, the study found. By age 55, over 95 percent had biological markers associated with the disease. By 65, almost all had abnormal levels of a protein called amyloid that forms plaques in the brain, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s. And many started developing symptoms of cognitive decline at age 65, younger than most people without the APOE4 variant.

“The critical thing is that these individuals are often symptomatic 10 years earlier than other forms of Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Reisa Sperling, a neurologist at Mass General Brigham in Boston and an author of the study.

She added, “By the time they are picked up and clinically diagnosed, because they’re often younger, they have more pathology.”

People with two copies, known as APOE4 homozygotes, make up 2 to 3 percent of the general population, but are an estimated 15 to 20 percent of people with Alzheimer’s dementia, experts said. People with one copy make up about 15 to 25 percent of the general population, and about 50 percent of Alzheimer’s dementia patients.

The most common variant is called APOE3, which seems to have a neutral effect on Alzheimer’s risk. About 75 percent of the general population has one copy of APOE3, and more than half of the general population has two copies.

Alzheimer’s experts not involved in the study said classifying the two-copy condition as genetically determined Alzheimer’s could have significant implications, including encouraging drug development beyond the field’s recent major focus on treatments that target and reduce amyloid.

Dr. Samuel Gandy, an Alzheimer’s researcher at Mount Sinai in New York, who was not involved in the study, said that patients with two copies of APOE4 faced much higher safety risks from anti-amyloid drugs.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved the anti-amyloid drug Leqembi last year, it required a black-box warning on the label saying that the medication can cause “serious and life-threatening events” such as swelling and bleeding in the brain, especially for people with two copies of APOE4. Some treatment centers decided not to offer Leqembi, an intravenous infusion, to such patients.

Dr. Gandy and other experts said that classifying these patients as having a distinct genetic form of Alzheimer’s would galvanize interest in developing drugs that are safe and effective for them and add urgency to current efforts to prevent cognitive decline in people who do not yet have symptoms.

“Rather than say we have nothing for you, let’s look for a trial,” Dr. Gandy said, adding that such patients should be included in trials at younger ages, given how early their pathology starts.

Besides trying to develop drugs, some researchers are exploring gene editing to transform APOE4 into a variant called APOE2, which appears to protect against Alzheimer’s. Another gene-therapy approach being studied involves injecting APOE2 into patients’ brains.

The new study had some limitations, including a lack of diversity that might make the findings less generalizable. Most patients in the study had European ancestry. While two copies of APOE4 also greatly increase Alzheimer’s risk in other ethnicities, the risk levels differ, said Dr. Michael Greicius, a neurologist at Stanford University School of Medicine who was not involved in the research.

“One important argument against their interpretation is that the risk of Alzheimer’s disease in APOE4 homozygotes varies substantially across different genetic ancestries,” said Dr. Greicius, who cowrote a study that found that white people with two copies of APOE4 had 13 times the risk of white people with two copies of APOE3, while Black people with two copies of APOE4 had 6.5 times the risk of Black people with two copies of APOE3.

“This has critical implications when counseling patients about their ancestry-informed genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease,” he said, “and it also speaks to some yet-to-be-discovered genetics and biology that presumably drive this massive difference in risk.”

Under the current genetic understanding of Alzheimer’s, less than 2 percent of cases are considered genetically caused. Some of those patients inherited a mutation in one of three genes and can develop symptoms as early as their 30s or 40s. Others are people with Down syndrome, who have three copies of a chromosome containing a protein that often leads to what is called Down syndrome-associated Alzheimer’s disease .

Dr. Sperling said the genetic alterations in those cases are believed to fuel buildup of amyloid, while APOE4 is believed to interfere with clearing amyloid buildup.

Under the researchers’ proposal, having one copy of APOE4 would continue to be considered a risk factor, not enough to cause Alzheimer’s, Dr. Fortea said. It is unusual for diseases to follow that genetic pattern, called “semidominance,” with two copies of a variant causing the disease, but one copy only increasing risk, experts said.

The new recommendation will prompt questions about whether people should get tested to determine if they have the APOE4 variant.

Dr. Greicius said that until there were treatments for people with two copies of APOE4 or trials of therapies to prevent them from developing dementia, “My recommendation is if you don’t have symptoms, you should definitely not figure out your APOE status.”

He added, “It will only cause grief at this point.”

Finding ways to help these patients cannot come soon enough, Dr. Sperling said, adding, “These individuals are desperate, they’ve seen it in both of their parents often and really need therapies.”

Pam Belluck is a health and science reporter, covering a range of subjects, including reproductive health, long Covid, brain science, neurological disorders, mental health and genetics. More about Pam Belluck

The Fight Against Alzheimer’s Disease

Alzheimer’s is the most common form of dementia, but much remains unknown about this daunting disease..

How is Alzheimer’s diagnosed? What causes Alzheimer’s? We answered some common questions .

A study suggests that genetics can be a cause of Alzheimer’s , not just a risk, raising the prospect of diagnosis years before symptoms appear.

Determining whether someone has Alzheimer’s usually requires an extended diagnostic process . But new criteria could lead to a diagnosis on the basis of a simple blood test .

The F.D.A. has given full approval to the Alzheimer’s drug Leqembi. Here is what to know about i t.

Alzheimer’s can make communicating difficult. We asked experts for tips on how to talk to someone with the disease .