genetic engineering pros and cons essay

20 Genetic Engineering Pros and Cons for the Biotechnology Era

Genetic engineering is part of the brave new world of biotechnology, but is changing the genes of living things the right thing to do?

Green Coast is supported by its readers. We may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you if you buy through a link on this page . Learn more .

As the third decade of the twenty-first century rolls on, advancements in genetic engineering, a leading area of biotechnology, continue to gain momentum. Humans are now capable of making applied and consistently transmitted changes to the genetic composition of living things, with impacts on organisms and our environment that are already being felt.

Genetic engineering certainly offers a lot of promise, but many people are concerned that it may harbor devastating consequences that humanity has not yet comprehended. In this article, we’ll take a closer look at the genetic engineering pros and cons, to help you evaluate if it is truly a good thing.

What is genetic engineering?

The National Human Genome Institute defines genetic engineering as a process that uses laboratory-based technologies to change or manipulate the packaged DNA (genes) of an organism. Genetic engineering uses invasive techniques to change the genetic makeup of cells.

By moving genes within and across species boundaries, scientists can obtain their desired observable traits in the host organism’s phenotype. This video from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)  explains the basics:

Scientists manipulate and modify sequences of DNA by removing them from organisms. They can also artificially synthesize RNA and complementary DNA strands using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Organisms can also be genetically modified (GM) through the removal of specific gene sequences, carried out using DNA-cutting enzymes known as restriction endonucleases.

Novel gene sequences can then be inserted or spliced into the DNA of a host organism. This is called recombinant technology. These genes encode instructions for the production of particular protein products. The host organism transcribes and translates the gene, leading to the production of the gene products with novel effects on the modified organism (gene expression).

What is a genetically modified organism?

A genetically modified organism or GMO is an organism that has undergone genetic engineering and is permanently different from the original wild-type or natural organism. This is because the genetic sequences added or removed change gene expression and protein production in the GMO organism leading to:

• An altered physical appearance
• The production of a specific substance, that may have positive or negative effects
• Increased resistance to a specific disease
• The eradication of specific genetic conditions in the organism or its offspring

A brief history of genetic engineering

The geneticists Stanley N. Cohen and Herbert W. Boyer were the first scientists to cut up DNA into fragments and insert gene sequences into an organism. In 1973 they successfully added new genes to the plasmid of E. Coli bacteria. A year later, Rudolf Jaenisch inserted foreign DNA into the genome of a mouse, creating the first GM animal.

By the end of the 1970s, the recombinant technology used by these scientists had already become commercialized with the production of human insulin by GM bacteria in 1982. Genetic engineering expanded to food crops and livestock, with GM food introduced to consumers in the 1990s. The Flavr Savr, a GM tomato introduced in 1994 was developed to have a longer shelf-life and by the early 21st century almost all the corn produced in the US was GM, with strained developed to be more resistant to drought and pests.

Genetic engineering technologies and techniques

Genetic engineering now uses several techniques to change the genes of living organisms. The methods vary in sophistication, cost, and application and certain jurisdictions may restrict their use. Here are some leading genetic engineering technologies:

• Recombination technology : This is the original form of genetic engineering that uses restriction enzymes that can cut sequences of DNA that are then inserted into the host organism’s genome.
• Zinc finger nucleases : This gene editing technology uses a special nuclease enzyme fused with a three base pair DNA-binding domains for more precise DNA binding site recognition when editing genes.
• CRISPR-Cas9 : Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats or CRISPR- based genome editing is one of the most advanced forms of genetic engineering. It adapts a technique used by bacteria to evade genetic damage from viruses. CRISPR has become widespread because of its accessibility, low cost, and precision. It is thought to have been used in some extremely controversial experiments including gain-of-function virology research, and the gene editing of embryos.
• Base editing : This simpler gene editing technique makes single base substitutions without inducing risky double-stranded breaks in the genome. Double-strand breaks are a serious form of DNA damage that can lead to the deletion of genes, cell death, or the development of cancer. Base editing offers the promise of curing genetic diseases caused by errors in a single base in the DNA (single nucleotide polymorphisms).
• Prime editing: This contemporary form of gene editing uses an enzyme that can create single-strand breaks in DNA (Cas9 nickase) along with a complex (pegRNA) that acts as a template for the reverse transaction attachment of the desired bases to the site where the DNA has been broken. This avoids double-strand breaks and is considered safer for human therapeutic uses.

Genetic engineering applications

Because all living things have DNA the applications and implications of genetic engineering are understandably vast. The rapid standardization and commercialization of genetic engineering techniques have enabled companies to develop applications in diverse sectors spanning agriculture, healthcare, environmental conservation, and industry, without any public consultation or consent.

Key applications of genetic engineering include:

• The study of gene expression and function using experiments to add or delete gene sequences and portions.
• The development of pharmaceutical products like antibiotics, hormones, and antibodies using GMOs.
• The creation of disease, pest, and drought-hardy crops.
• The production of potent enzymes for industrial detergents, cheese production, and fermentation.

Pros of genetic engineering

Genetic engineering is a key driver of the biotechnology sector which advocates that altering the expression of genes can be targeted, controlled, and beneficial to life on Earth. Here are some benefits of genetic engineering:

1. A greater understanding of how DNA and genes work

Genetic engineering evolved from the study of DNA, and experiments were undertaken to understand how genes work. Once eminent scientists like Watson and Crick and Rosalind Franklin had established the molecular structure of DNA in the 1950s, work began in earnest to understand its function.

The Discovery of the four key classes of enzymes that acted on DNA, helicase, primase, DNA polymerase, and ligase, equipped scientists with tools to work with DNA, cutting and splicing it in specific places. This experimentation with DNA and its effects on gene expression underpin genetic engineering and has continued to expand the field of genetics.

2. The production of medicines

Biotechnology is already an integral part of healthcare and genetic engineering is used to produce medicines for many common conditions. Medicines that are produced by genetic engineering are either:

• Biological medicines that a GMO has produced.
• GMOs that are used as medicinal agents.

Essential medicines that are derived from GMOs or are GM products include:

• Immunoglobulins
• Monoclonal antibodies
• Hormones including insulin and growth hormone
• Pancreatic enzymes

Genetic engineering has made it possible to produce these humanized biological agents at scale so that patients can access them when needed. For example, recombinant insulin is now the main type of insulin used by Type I diabetics rather than the animal-derived insulins that were originally used to treat this condition.

3. A promise of cures for genetic diseases

The manipulation and editing of gene sequences using genetic engineering technologies offer an as-yet-unrealized promise of curing genetic diseases. Point mutation diseases such as sickle cell disease and hemophilia A and B, caused by errors in a single or a limited number of nucleotides in a gene sequence could be frankly cured by having the genetic error corrected.

This type of genetic engineering is gene therapy. Though gene therapy has captured the public imagination, offering hope for cures for devastating genetic diseases, this area of science is not adequately advanced to treat patients in a consistent, reliable, or safe manner.

4. Development of more productive and resilient crops

Genetic engineering is considered a key area of innovation in agriculture. After millennia of painstaking cross-pollination and plant breeding, genetic engineering can achieve dramatic changes in the characteristics and performance of crops almost instantly.

Genetic engineering has been used to develop crops with novel gene insertions that confer protection against pests and diseases or raise the crop’s tolerance to pesticide use. GM crops achieve their enhanced resilience by producing protein products that have these beneficial effects, like plants that express proteins known to inhibit pests.

New breeding techniques (NBT) routinely use genetic engineering alongside conventional breeding to produce crops that are more resilient and productive. Examples of genetically engineered crops include non-browning potatoes, mushrooms, and apples, soybeans with an improved oil profile, and flavor-enhanced fruit and vegetables.

5. Enhanced livestock breeds

Genetic engineering has also extended to livestock, with modern techniques like CRISPR used on pre-implantation embryos to alter specific traits and characteristics. Scientists implant the gene-edited embryos in the womb of a surrogate animal to gestate, producing a generation of transgenic animals with an altered genetic profile.

The gene editing of animals is understandably controversial and governments restrict the use of these animals as food in many parts of the world. Advocates for transgenic livestock point to the enhancements that can be achieved, which can improve livestock health, fertility, resilience, and the nutritional content of meat.

6. The creation of new commercial sectors

Genetic engineering has been integral to developing biotechnology as an industry worth over $1 trillion globally. Genetic engineering has gained significant commercial traction because various industries can apply it to increase their productivity and generate revenue.

Even industries where genetic engineering may not seem relevant may demand the complex biological substances that genetic engineering can produce. For example, genetic engineering is being used to develop enzymes and microbiological organisms that can digest oil spills .

The commercial sector is a key driver of innovation in genetic engineering technologies, but governments are also funding and investing in genetic engineering technologies that can provide solutions to health problems, food security, and environmental challenges.

7. Reduced resource consumption

Genetic engineering may develop crops and livestock breeds that demand less water, fertilizer, and feed. Healthier livestock requires less medicine and adding hardiness traits may mean that farmers can rear them in challenging environments that would normally be more resource and labor-intensive.

Enhancing crop yields and animal productivity also means that the resources used for cultivation go further, leading to cost savings for farmers. Consumers benefit from lower prices and foods that may have a longer shelf-life.

8. Eradicating diseases

Genetic engineering is currently being used to develop solutions for eradicating serious parasite-borne diseases like malaria . In sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America, malaria is a significant health and economic burden, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths annually.

Genetic engineering that targets mosquitos and the plasmodium parasite that causes malaria could lead to the eradication of this devastating disease. Oxitec, a British company, has already released male GM mosquitoes that carry an inserted gene that encodes a protein which is fatal to their female offspring.

Cons of genetic engineering

Genetic engineering shows a lot of promise, but at what cost should humanity seek to realize its potential? Interference with genes has implications for every living thing on Earth, yet the knowledge and control of these technologies are in the hands of a tiny number of people.

Here are the important downsides of genetic engineering that everyone should know about:

1. The science of genetics is not settled

Genetics is an incredibly expansive area of biology, but it’s important to know that scientists do not fully understand how genes work. Geneticists are continually working in disparate niche areas of this field to contribute to the body of knowledge in this area and regularly publish discoveries that challenge the mainstream understanding of genetics.

Consider this; until recently scientists believed that 99 percent of DNA, which did not code for proteins, was junk. They focused most of the field of genetic engineering on just 1 percent of the total amount of DNA in a cell.

But errors in non-coding DNA have now been implicated in the development of cancers like leukemia and the emerging field of epigenetics has also challenged conventional thinking on the nature and purpose of DNA. 

2. Some claims of genetic engineering may be overstated

The promise of genetics as a solution to food shortages and diseases has captured the public imagination. However, the realization of these promises may take many years to achieve, and in some cases, may not be fulfilled at all.

Genetic engineering is still extremely experimental, and for every success reported, there are thousands of failed experiments in the lab. Geneticists work with cells, tissues, enzymes, and proteins that may not always behave as predicted. This means that it can take decades to develop genetic engineering techniques that produce consistent and reliable results.

3. The long-term effects of genetic engineering are unknown

Because genetics is an evolving field, it is impossible to know the long-term effects of gene editing on species, individuals, populations, and the wider environment. This is particularly important for GM crops which may produce harmful protein products that harm wildlife and even accumulate in human tissues causing health problems.

The introduction of GM species into ecosystems may also add novel selection pressure to the environment. GM crop species have out-competed their wild-type equivalents , or transferred their genes to them via hybridization, leading to a loss of biodiversity.

4. Genetic engineering is expensive

Genetic engineering is extremely expensive because of its experimental nature. Gene editing uses some of the world’s most expensive laboratory equipment , reagents, and technical expertise. Genetic engineering routinely takes years of investment before scientists develop commercially viable and safe applications. 

This is one of the key limitations of even the most promising gene therapies. Even when a technique is found to work on patients, the costs are so high that few people can access them. Running clinical trials is also very expensive meaning many gene therapies do not obtain the funding to be developed properly. 

5. Genetic engineering can lead to unregulated gene expression

Genetic engineering has mastered the technique of inserting a transgene into a host species’ genome, but regulation of the expression of the gene is much more sophisticated. This means that the transgenic organism may over or under-produce the protein product of the inserted gene.

Under-expression of an inserted gene may mean that scientists don’t achieve the desired effect of genetic modification, while over-expression may be harmful to the GMO and animals or people that consume it. In transgenic swine , overexpression of an inserted growth hormone gene resulted in an enlargement of the heart, arthritis, abnormal skeletal growth, and renal disease.

6. Genetic engineering can introduce insertional mutations

By breaking and annealing the ends of DNA with new gene frequencies, geneticists can introduce errors and mutations in DNA that produce disease in the host organism. Insertional mutations may affect the genes that control essential biological processes producing metabolic diseases and cancers.

Worse still, these mutations may be transmissible to subsequent generations, creating new diseases that could be introduced to wild-type organisms through hybridization or mating.

7. Transgene mosaicism or sex linkage may mean that not all offspring carry an inserted gene

Some gene-editing processes are failures, because the GMO does not transmit the inserted gene to all of its offspring.

This is usually because of mosaicism, where only some cells of the organism carry the inserted gene, making its expression inconsistent. Alternatively, in animals or humans, the inserted gene may become sex-chromosome linked (Y-chromosome) so that only males carry the transgene.

8. Genetic engineering requires time and resource-consuming planning to be successful

Genetic engineering projects have to be carefully designed and constructed to achieve the successful insertion of a genetic sequence into a host organism. The high failure rate of these experiments is often because of errors in the inserted gene or its integration site.

Scientists therefore repeatedly model and test the transgene and its insertion site, which can use significant resources and may risk the health and welfare of host organisms.

9. Rogue agents could use genetic engineering for biological warfare or terrorism

Genetic engineering is already being used for controversial ‘gain-of-function’ research, where the genomes of bacteria and viruses are edited to increase their transmissibility or virulence. This research has been taking place in academic settings with the purported objective of investigating pathogens to prevent them from starting pandemics.

Genetic engineering is largely unregulated, with restrictions on access to this technology varying widely between countries. It is not inconceivable that rogue states or nefarious organizations could procure the equipment and expertise to develop bacteria, viruses, or parasites that could infect targeted populations.

10. Genetic engineering could be used for eugenics

Eugenics is an ideology that believes that human reproduction can be controlled to produce populations with pre-determined desirable traits and eliminate individuals with undesirable characteristics. It is a form of scientific racism and has been associated with atrocities and genocides throughout history.

Many advocates of genetic engineering of human beings, point to its potential to ‘improve’ the human race by eradicating genetic abnormalities and introducing desirable traits. Unfortunately, small but powerful groups with little accountability to the wider population may decide what desirable or undesirable hereditable traits are, irrespective of the implications of this course of action.

In the wrong hands, genetic engineering could pursue a eugenics agenda, focused on specific racial groups or populations of people.

11. Genetic engineering enables genes and organisms to be copyrighted

Genetic engineering is a new and fast-evolving area of science and the ethical and legal frameworks that surround it are relatively immature. A key example of this is‌ the patenting of genes and organisms developed through genetic engineering, with companies enforcing ownership of seeds and animal breeds they have developed.

In many jurisdictions, alteration of the genome of an organism makes it a patented product and subject to copyright law. In India, this has been a hotly contested issue, with Monsanto recently winning a Supreme Court case regarding the patents of its GMO cotton seeds.

12. Significant ethical, cultural, and religious concerns surround the use of genetic engineering

Despite its advances and benefits, genetic engineering continues to face deep public antipathy. Many people believe that interfering with genes that are passed from generation to generation is taboo. Even with comprehension of the science and its benefits, they believe that altering living things at a genetic level will harm them.

Religious groups who believe that God created the Earth, perceive generic engineering as a defilement of the Creator’s intelligent design.

With few consistent legal or regulatory boundaries for genetic engineering, ethicists join them in the concern that most people have no say over introducing GMOs into the environment and the genetic engineering of human beings.

In conclusion

As you can see the pros and cons of genetic engineering are a weighty matter, certainly worthy of further investigation. This issue is not only about science but touches on human, animal, and environmental health and welfare ongoing. This means that the evaluation of the societal benefit of genetic engineering should be rigorous with high ethical standards and stringent regulation.

Articles you might also like

Depletion of Natural Resources: 11 Natural Resources That Show the Scale of the Problem

Waste Incineration Pros and Cons: is It a Good Idea?

Ocean Acidification: Solutions for the Most Serious Problem in Our Seas

The Most Effective Natural Bee Repellent

Carbon Cycle Steps: What is the Carbon Cycle and How Does It Work

What Are the Causes and Effects of Land Pollution and How Can We Prevent It?

The Top Environmental Issues in Japan and What They’re Doing to Address Them

5 of the Critical Water Scarcity Solutions Addressing the Water Crisis

35 Ways to Reduce Air Pollution and Boost Air Quality for All

What is Groundwater Pollution, and How Can it be Prevented?

Causes and Effects of Soil Degradation, Plus How to Protect Our Precious Earth

Genetic Engineering Advantages & Disadvantages

Genetic engineering has pros and cons.

Table of Contents

Through genetic engineering, scientists are able to move desirable genes from one plant or animal to another or from a plant to an animal or vice versa. (Ref. 1) By desirable , it means it can produce an outcome that is regarded as generally “beneficial” or “useful”. The organism that has undergone such genetic modification is referred to as “ genetically modified organism ” or GMO. In essence, genetic engineering is a technology wherein a specific gene can be selected and implanted into the recipient organism. The cell that received such an implant can, therefore, begin producing substances with the desired functions. Genetic engineering uses recombinant DNA, molecular cloning, and transformation.

Genetic engineering has become a mainstream part of our lives because of the many advantages involved. Here are some of them:

• Genetic engineering made it possible to create crop varieties regarded as “ more beneficial ”. Unlike selective breeding, modern genetic engineering is more gene-specific. One of the downsides of selective breeding is the possibility of generating traits that are less desirable. This is averted by modern genetic engineering that introduces specific genes. (Ref. 1) Since the process is rather straightforward, it is relatively faster than selective breeding (see previous tutorial ) in terms of coming up with crops with the desired traits. Examples of genetically-engineered plants with more desirable traits are drought-resistant plants, disease-resistant crops, plants that grow faster, and plants (e.g. legumes) fortified with more nutrients. (Ref.1, 2) The latter may be achieved by introducing genes that code for (1) trace-element-binding proteins, (2) overexpression of storage proteins already present, and/or (3) increased expression of proteins that are responsible for trace element uptake into plants. (Ref. 2)
• Organisms can be ‘ tailor-made ’ to show desirable characteristics. Genes can also be manipulated in trees, for example, to absorb more CO 2 and reduce the threat of global warming. Through genetic engineering, genetic disorders may also be fixed by replacing the faulty gene with a functional gene. Disease-carrying insects, such as mosquitoes, may be engineered into becoming sterile insects. This will help in curbing the spread of certain diseases, e.g. malaria and dengue fever.
• Genetic Engineering could increase genetic diversity and produce more variant alleles that could also be crossed over and implanted into other species. It is possible to alter the genetics of wheat plants to grow insulin as an example.Nevertheless, there are two sides to a coin. While genetic engineering is beneficial in ways mentioned above it is also implicated in certain eventualities deemed as “unpleasant” or disadvantageous.
• There are concerns over the inadvertent effects, such as the creation of food that can cause an allergic reaction, GMO that can cause harmful genetic effects, and genes moving from one species to another that is not genetically engineered. (Ref. 1) It has been shown that GMO crop plants can pass the beneficial gene along to a wild population. An example is the sunflowers genetically-engineered to fend off certain insects. They were observed to have transferred the gene to their weedy relatives. (Ref. 3) Nature is an extremely complex interrelated chain. Some scientists believe that introducing genetically-modified genes may have an irreversible effect with consequences yet unknown.
• Genetic engineering borderlines on many moral and ethical issues. One of the major questions raised is if humans have the right to manipulate the laws and course of nature.

Genetic engineering may be one of the greatest breakthroughs in recent history alongside the discovery of the atom and space flight. However, there are plausible risks involved. Thus, governments have produced legislation to control what sort of experiments are done involving genetic engineering.

Despite the strict regulation, genetic engineering progressed. It has led to many experimental breakthroughs over the years.

• At the Roslin Institute in Scotland, scientists successfully cloned an exact copy of a sheep, named ‘Dolly’, in July 1996. This was the first successful artificial cloning of a mammal. (Ref. 4)
• Scientists successfully manipulated the genetic sequence of a rat to grow a human ear on its back.

These procedures are essentially a form of “therapeutic cloning”. Embryonic cells can now be cloned. They are grown for health purposes, such as to obtain biological organs for transplantation. Cells are also cloned in the laboratory for research purposes. (Ref. 1)  How about humans? Can a human individual be cloned? At this point in time, cloning a human individual is not possible. What can be cloned is the genotype but not the phenotype. (Ref. 4)

Genetic engineering has been made possible with the discovery of the complex and microscopic nature of DNA and its component nucleotides . For us to understand chromosomes and DNA more clearly, they can be mapped for future reference. More simplistic organisms such as fruit fly ( Drosophila ) have been chromosome-mapped due to their simplistic nature. They will require fewer genes to operate.

The process of genetic engineering involves splicing an area of a chromosome, a gene, that controls a certain characteristic of the body. The enzyme endonuclease is used to split a DNA sequence as well as split the gene from the rest of the chromosome. For example, this gene may be programmed to produce an antiviral protein. This gene is removed and can be placed into another organism. For example, it can be placed into a bacterial cell where it can be sealed into the DNA chain using ligase. When the chromosome is once again sealed the bacterial cell is now effectively re-programmed to replicate this new antiviral protein. The bacterium can continue to live a healthy life while genetic engineering by human intervention has manipulated it to produce the protein.

Select Advantage if it generally depicts the advantage of genetic engineering or Disadvantage if a disadvantage.

Send Your Results (Optional)

References:

• Genetically engineered foods: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia. (2020). Medlineplus.Gov. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002432.htm
• Lönnerdal, B. (May 2003). Genetically Modified Plants for Improved Trace Element Nutrition. J. Nutr. 133:1490S-1493S.https://www.biologyonline.com/articles/genetically-modified-plants-improved
• Ohio State University. (2002). Genetically Modified Crops May Pass Helpful Traits To Weeds, Study Finds – Biology Online Archive Article. Biology Articles, Tutorials & Dictionary Online. https://www.biologyonline.com/articles/genetically-modified-crops-may
• Ayala, F. J. (2015). Cloning humans? Biological, ethical, and social considerations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ,  112 (29), 8879–8886. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1501798112

Further Reading:

• Biomanufacturing . Biotech-Careers.Org. https://biotech-careers.org/job-areas/biomanufacturing

You will also like...

Still Water Community Plants

This tutorial looks at the adaptations of freshwater plants for them to thrive in still water habitats. Familiarize your..

Control of Growth & Development

Control of Growth & Development tutorials look at how the genetic makeup determines the biological processes on a da..

The Central Nervous System

Myelin sheath is essential for a faster conductivity of signals. Know more about this feature of some neurons in the Cen..

Plant Tissues

Plant organs are comprised of tissues working together for a common function. The different types of plant tissues are m..

Evolution of Life – Ancient Earth

Autotrophs flourished, absorbing carbon and light. Soon after, primitive life forms that could assimilate oxygen thrived..

Population Growth and Survivorship

This lesson looks at population attributes, regulation, and growth. It also covers population genetics, particularly gen..

• Search Menu
• Volume 12, Issue 1, 2024 (In Progress)
• Volume 11, Issue 1, 2023
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Virtual Issues
• Clinical Briefs
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Calls for Papers
• Why submit?
• About Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health
• About the International Society for Evolution, Medicine and Public Health
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• For Reviewers
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, human enhancement, genetic engineering, conclusions.

• < Previous

Human enhancement: Genetic engineering and evolution

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Mara Almeida, Rui Diogo, Human enhancement: Genetic engineering and evolution, Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health , Volume 2019, Issue 1, 2019, Pages 183–189, https://doi.org/10.1093/emph/eoz026

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Genetic engineering opens new possibilities for biomedical enhancement requiring ethical, societal and practical considerations to evaluate its implications for human biology, human evolution and our natural environment. In this Commentary, we consider human enhancement, and in particular, we explore genetic enhancement in an evolutionary context. In summarizing key open questions, we highlight the importance of acknowledging multiple effects (pleiotropy) and complex epigenetic interactions among genotype, phenotype and ecology, and the need to consider the unit of impact not only to the human body but also to human populations and their natural environment (systems biology). We also propose that a practicable distinction between ‘therapy’ and ‘enhancement’ may need to be drawn and effectively implemented in future regulations. Overall, we suggest that it is essential for ethical, philosophical and policy discussions on human enhancement to consider the empirical evidence provided by evolutionary biology, developmental biology and other disciplines.

Lay Summary: This Commentary explores genetic enhancement in an evolutionary context. We highlight the multiple effects associated with germline heritable genetic intervention, the need to consider the unit of impact to human populations and their natural environment, and propose that a practicable distinction between ‘therapy’ and ‘enhancement’ is needed.

There are countless examples where technology has contributed to ameliorate the lives of people by improving their inherent or acquired capabilities. For example, over time, there have been biomedical interventions attempting to restore functions that are deficient, such as vision, hearing or mobility. If we consider human vision, substantial advances started from the time spectacles were developed (possibly in the 13th century), continuing in the last few years, with researchers implanting artificial retinas to give blind patients partial sight [ 1–3 ]. Recently, scientists have also successfully linked the brain of a paralysed man to a computer chip, which helped restore partial movement of limbs previously non-responsive [ 4 , 5 ]. In addition, synthetic blood substitutes have been created, which could be used in human patients in the future [ 6–8 ].

The progress being made by technology in a restorative and therapeutic context could in theory be applied in other contexts to treat non-pathological conditions. Many of the technologies and pharmaceutical products developed in a medical context to treat patients are already being used by humans to ‘enhance’ some aspect of their bodies, for example drugs to boost brain power, nutritional supplements, brain stimulating technologies to control mood or growth hormones for children of short stature. Assistive technology for disabled people, reproductive medicine and pharmacology, beside their therapeutic and restorative use, have a greater potential for human ‘enhancement’ than currently thought. There are also dual outcomes as some therapies can have effects that amount to an enhancement as for example, the artificial legs used by the South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius providing him with a competitive advantage.

This commentary will provide general ethical considerations on human enhancement, and within the several forms of so-called human biomedical enhancement, it will focus on genetic engineering, particularly on germline (heritable) genetic interventions and on the insights evolutionary biology can provide in rationalizing its likely impact. These insights are a subject often limited in discussions on genetic engineering and human enhancement in general, and its links to ethical, philosophical and policy discussions, in particular [ 9 ]. The rapid advances in genetic technology make this debate very topical. Moreover, genes are thought to play a very substantial role in biological evolution and development of the human species, thus making this a topic requiring due consideration. With this commentary, we explore how concepts based in evolutionary biology could contribute to better assess the implications of human germline modifications, assuming they were widely employed. We conclude our brief analysis by summarizing key issues requiring resolution and potential approaches to progress them. Overall, the aim is to contribute to the debate on human genetic enhancement by looking not only at the future, as it is so often done, but also at our evolutionary past.

The noun ‘enhancement’ comes from the verb ‘enhance’, meaning ‘to increase or improve’. The verb enhance can be traced back to the vulgar Latin inaltiare and late Latin inaltare (‘raise, exalt’), from ‘ altare ’ (‘make high’) and altus (‘high’), literally ‘grown tall’. For centuries human enhancement has populated our imagination outlined by stories ranging from the myths of supernormal strengths and eternal life to the superpowers illustrated by the 20th century comic books superheroes. The desire of overcoming normal human capacities and the transformation to an almost ‘perfect’ form has been part of the history of civilization, extending from arts and religion to philosophy. The goal of improving the human condition and health has always been a driver for innovation and biomedical developments.

In the broadest sense, the process of human enhancement can be considered as an improvement of the ‘limitations’ of a ‘natural version’ of the human species with respect to a specific reference in time, and to different environments, which can vary depending on factors such as, for example, climate change. The limitations of the human condition can be physical and/or mental/cognitive (e.g. vision, strength or memory). This poses relevant questions of what a real or perceived human limitation is in the environment and times in which we are living and how it can be shifted over time considering social norms and cultural values of modern societies. Besides, the impact that overcoming these limitations will have on us humans, and the environment, should also be considered. For example, if we boost the immune system of specific people, this may contribute to the development/evolution of more resistant viruses and bacteria or/and lead to new viruses and bacteria to emerge. In environmental terms, enhancing the longevity of humans could contribute to a massive increase in global population, creating additional pressures on ecosystems already under human pressure.

Two decades ago, the practices of human enhancement have been described as ‘biomedical interventions that are used to improve human form or functioning beyond what is necessary to restore or sustain health’ [ 10 ]. The range of these practices has now increased with technological development, and they are ‘any kind of genetic, biomedical, or pharmaceutical intervention aimed at improving human dispositions, capacities, or well-being, even if there is no pathology to be treated’ [ 11 ]. Practices of human enhancement could be visualized as upgrading a ‘system’, where interventions take place for a better performance of the original system. This is far from being a hypothetical situation. The rapid progress within the fields of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science has brought back discussions about the evolutionary trajectory of the human species by the promise of new applications which could provide abilities beyond current ones [ 12 , 13 ]. If such a possibility was consciously embraced and actively pursued, technology could be expected to have a revolutionary interference with human life, not just helping humans in achieving general health and capabilities commensurate with our current ones but helping to overcome human limitations far beyond of what is currently possible for human beings. The emergence of new technologies has provided a broader range of potential human interventions and the possibility of transitioning from external changes to our bodies (e.g. external prosthesis) to internal ones, especially when considering genetic manipulation, whose changes can be permanent and transmissible.

The advocates of a far-reaching human enhancement have been referred to as ‘transhumanists’. In their vision, so far, humans have largely worked to control and shape their exterior environments (niche construction) but with new technologies (e.g. biotechnology, information technology and nanotechnology) they will soon be able to control and fundamentally change their own bodies. Supporters of these technologies agree with the possibility of a more radical interference in human life by using technology to overcome human limitations [ 14–16 ], that could allow us to live longer, healthier and even happier lives [ 17 ]. On the other side, and against this position, are the so-called ‘bioconservatives’, arguing for the conservation and protection of some kind of ‘human essence’, with the argument that it exists something intrinsically valuable in human life that should be preserved [ 18 , 19 ].

There is an ongoing debate between transhumanists [ 20–22 ] and bioconservatives [ 18 , 19 , 23 ] on the ethical issues regarding the use of technologies in humans. The focus of this commentary is not centred on this debate, particularly because the discussion of these extreme, divergent positions is already very prominent in the public debate. In fact, it is interesting to notice that the ‘moderate’ discourses around this topic are much less known. In a more moderate view, perhaps one of the crucial questions to consider, independently of the moral views on human enhancement, is whether human enhancement (especially if considering germline heritable genetic interventions) is a necessary development, and represents an appropriate use of time, funding and resources compared to other pressing societal issues. It is crucial to build space for these more moderate, and perhaps less polarized voices, allowing the consideration of other positions and visions beyond those being more strongly projected so far.

Ethical and societal discussions on what constitutes human enhancement will be fundamental to support the development of policy frameworks and regulations on new technological developments. When considering the ethical implications of human enhancement that technology will be available to offer now and in the future, it could be useful to group the different kinds of human enhancements in the phenotypic and genetic categories: (i) strictly phenotypic intervention (e.g. ranging from infrared vision spectacles to exoskeletons and bionic limbs); (ii) somatic, non-heritable genetic intervention (e.g. editing of muscle cells for stronger muscles) and (iii) germline, heritable genetic intervention (e.g. editing of the C–C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) gene in the Chinese baby twins, discussed later on). These categories of enhancement raise different considerations and concerns and currently present different levels of acceptance by our society. The degree of ethical, societal and environmental impacts is likely to be more limited for phenotypic interventions (i) but higher for genetic interventions (ii and iii), especially for the ones which are transmissible to future generations (iii).

The rapid advances in technology seen in the last decades, have raised the possibility of ‘radical enhancement’, defined by Nicholas Agar, ‘as the improvement of human attributes and abilities to levels that greatly exceed what is currently possible for human beings’ [ 24 ]. Genetic engineering offers the possibility of such an enhancement by providing humans a profound control over their own biology. Among other technologies, genetic engineering comprises genome editing (also called gene editing), a group of technologies with the ability to directly modify an organism’s DNA through a targeted intervention in the genome (e.g. insertion, deletion or replacement of specific genetic material) [ 25 ]. Genome editing is considered to achieve much greater precision than pre-existing forms of genetic engineering. It has been argued to be a revolutionary tool due to its efficiency, reducing cost and time. This technology is considered to have many applications for human health, in both preventing and tackling disease. Much of the ethical debate associated with this technology concerns the possible application of genome editing in the human germline, i.e. the genome that can be transmitted to following generations, be it from gametes, a fertilized egg or from first embryo divisions [ 26–28 ]. There has been concern as well as enthusiasm on the potential of the technology to modify human germline genome to provide us with traits considered positive or useful (e.g. muscle strength, memory and intelligence) in the current and future environments.

Genetic engineering: therapy or enhancement and predictability of outcomes

To explore some of the possible implications of heritable interventions we will take as an example the editing (more specifically ‘deletion’ using CRISPR genome editing technology) of several base pairs of the CCR5 gene. Such intervention was practised in 2018 in two non-identical twin girls born in China. Loss of function mutations of the CCR5 had been previously shown to provide resistance to HIV. Therefore, the gene deletion would be expected to protect the twin baby girls from risk of transmission of HIV which could have occurred from their father (HIV-positive). However, the father had the infection kept under control and the titre of HIV virus was undetectable, which means that risk of transmission of HIV infection to the babies was negligible [ 29 ].

From an ethical ground, based on current acceptable practices, this case has been widely criticized by the scientific community beside being considered by many a case of human enhancement intervention rather than therapy [ 29 , 30 ]. One of the questions this example helps illustrate is that the ethical boundary between a therapy that ‘corrects’ a disorder by restoring performance to a ‘normal’ scope, and an intervention that ‘enhances’ human ability outside the accepted ‘normal’ scope, is not always easy to draw. For the sake of argument, it could be assumed that therapy involves attempts to restore a certain condition of health, normality or sanity of the ‘natural’ condition of a specific individual. If we take this approach, the question is how health, normality and sanity, as well as natural per se, are defined, as the meaning of these concepts shift over time to accommodate social norms and cultural values of modern societies. It could be said that the difficulty of developing a conceptual distinction between therapy and enhancement has always been present. However, the potential significance of such distinction is only now, with the acceleration and impact of technological developments, becoming more evident.

Beyond ethical questions, a major problem of this intervention is that we do not (yet?) know exactly the totality of the effects that the artificial mutation of the CCR5 may have, at both the genetic and phenotypic levels. This is because we now know that, contrary to the idea of ‘one gene-one trait’ accepted some decades ago, a gene—or its absence—can affect numerous traits, many of them being apparently unrelated (a phenomenon also known as pleiotropy). That is, due to constrained developmental interactions, mechanisms and genetic networks, a change in a single gene can result in a cascade of multiple effects [ 31 ]. In the case of CCR5, we currently know that the mutation offers protection against HIV infection, and also seems to increase the risk of severe or fatal reactions to some infectious diseases, such as the influenza virus [ 32 ]. It has also been observed that among people with multiple sclerosis, the ones with CCR5 mutation are twice as likely to die early than are people without the mutation [ 33 ]. Some studies have also shown that defective CCR5 can have a positive effect in cognition to enhance learning and memory in mice [ 34 ]. However, it’s not clear if this effect would be translated into humans. The example serves to illustrate that, even if human enhancement with gene editing methods was considered ethically sound, assessing the totality of its implications on solid grounds may be difficult to achieve.

Genetic engineering and human evolution: large-scale impacts

Beyond providing the opportunity of enhancing human capabilities in specific individuals, intervening in the germline is likely to have an impact on the evolutionary processes of the human species raising questions on the scale and type of impacts. In fact, the use of large-scale genetic engineering might exponentially increase the force of ‘niche construction’ in human evolution, and therefore raise ethical and practical questions never faced by our species before. It has been argued that natural selection is a mechanism of lesser importance in the case of current human evolution, as compared to other organisms, because of advances in medicine and healthcare [ 35 ]. According to such a view, among many others advances, natural selection has been conditioned by our ‘niche-construction’ ability to improve healthcare and access to clean water and food, thus changing the landscape of pressures that humans have been facing for survival. An underlying assumption or position of the current debate is that, within our human species, the force of natural selection became minimized and that we are somehow at the ‘end-point’ of our evolution [ 36 ]. If this premise holds true, one could argue that evolution is no longer a force in human history and hence that any human enhancement would not be substituting itself to human evolution as a key driver for future changes.

However, it is useful to remember that, as defined by Darwin in his book ‘On the Origin of the Species’, natural selection is a process in which organisms that happen to be ‘better’ adapted to a certain environment tend to have higher survival and/or reproductive rates than other organisms [ 37 ]. When comparing human evolution to human genetic enhancement, an acceptable position could be to consider ethically sound those interventions that could be replicated naturally by evolution, as in the case of the CCR5 gene. Even if this approach was taken, however, it is important to bear in mind that human evolution acts on human traits sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing our biological fitness, in a constant evolutionary trade-off and in a contingent and/or neutral—in the sense of not ‘progressive’—process. In other worlds, differently from genetic human enhancement, natural selection does not ‘ aim ’ at improving human traits [ 38 ]. Human evolution and the so-called genetic human enhancement would seem therefore to involve different underlying processes, raising several questions regarding the implications and risks of the latter.

But using genetic engineering to treat humans has been proposed far beyond the therapeutic case or to introduce genetic modifications known to already occur in nature. In particular, when looking into the views expressed on the balance between human evolution and genetic engineering, some argue that it may be appropriate to use genetic interventions to go beyond what natural selection has contributed to our species when it comes to eradicate vulnerabilities [ 17 ]. Furthermore, when considering the environmental, ecological and social issues of contemporary times, some suggest that genetic technologies could be crucial tools to contribute to human survival and well-being [ 20–22 ]. The possible need to ‘engineer’ human traits to ensure our survival could include the ability to allow our species to adapt rapidly to the rate of environmental change caused by human activity, for which Darwinian evolution may be too slow [ 39 ]. Or, for instance, to support long-distance space travel by engineering resistance to radiation and osteoporosis, along with other conditions which would be highly advantageous in space [ 40 ].

When considering the ethical and societal merits of these propositions, it is useful to consider how proto-forms of enhancement has been approached by past human societies. In particular, it can be argued that humans have already employed—as part of our domestication/‘selective breeding’ of other animals—techniques of indirect manipulation of genomes on a relatively large scale over many millennia, albeit not on humans. The large-scale selective breeding of plants and animals over prehistoric and historic periods could be claimed to have already shaped some of our natural environment. Selective breeding has been used to obtain specific characteristics considered useful at a given time in plants and animals. Therefore, their evolutionary processes have been altered with the aim to produce lineages with advantageous traits, which contributed to the evolution of different domesticated species. However, differently from genetic engineering, domestication possesses inherent limitations in its ability to produce major transformations in the created lineages, in contrast with the many open possibilities provided by genetic engineering.

When considering the impact of genetic engineering on human evolution, one of questions to be considered concerns the effects, if any, that genetic technology could have on the genetic pool of the human population and any implication on its resilience to unforeseen circumstances. This underlines a relevant question associated with the difference between ‘health’ and biological fitness. For example, a certain group of animals can be more ‘healthy’—as domesticated dogs—but be less biologically ‘fit’ according to Darwin’s definition. Specifically, if such group of animals are less genetically diverse than their ancestors, they could be less ‘adaptable’ to environmental changes. Assuming that, the human germline modification is undertaken at a global scale, this could be expected to have an effect, on the distribution of genetically heritable traits on the human population over time. Considering that gene and trait distributions have been changing under the processes of evolution for billions of years, the impact on evolution will need to be assessed by analysing which genetic alterations have been eventually associated with specific changes within the recent evolutionary history of humans. On this front, a key study has analysed the implications of genetic engineering on the evolutionary biology of human populations, including the possibility of reducing human genetic diversity, for instance creating a ‘biological monoculture’ [ 41 ]. The study argued that genetic engineering will have an insignificant impact on human diversity, while it would likely safeguard the capacity of human populations to deal with disease and new environmental challenges and therefore, ensure the health and longevity of our species [ 41 ]. If the findings of this study were considered consistent with other knowledge and encompassing, the impact of human genetic enhancements on the human genetic pool and associated impacts could be considered secondary aspects. However, data available from studies on domestication strongly suggests that domestication of both animals and plans might lead to not only decreased genetic diversity per se, but even affect patterns of variation in gene expression throughout the genome and generally decreased gene expression diversity across species [ 42–44 ]. Given that, according to recent studies within the field of biological anthropology recent human evolution has been in fact a process of ‘self-domestication’ [ 45 ], one could argue that studies on domestication could contribute to understanding the impacts of genetic engineering.

Beyond such considerations, it is useful to reflect on the fact that human genetic enhancement could occur on different geographical scales, regardless of the specific environment and geological periods in which humans are living and much more rapidly than in the case of evolution, in which changes are very slow. If this was to occur routinely and on a large scale, the implications of the resulting radical and abrupt changes may be difficult to predict and its impacts difficult to manage. This is currently highlighted by results of epigenetics studies, and also of the microbiome and of the effects of pollutants in the environment and their cumulative effect on the development of human and non-human organisms alike. Increasingly new evidence indicates a greater interdependence between humans and their environments (including other microorganisms), indicating that modifying the environment can have direct and unpredictable consequences on humans as well. This highlight the need of a ‘systems level’ approach. An approach in which the ‘bounded body’ of the individual human as a basic unit of biological or social action would need to be questioned in favour of a more encompassing and holistic unit. In fact, within biology, there is a new field, Systems Biology, which stresses the need to understand the role that pleiotropy, and thus networks at multiple levels—e.g. genetic, cellular, among individuals and among different taxa—play within biological systems and their evolution [ 46 ]. Currently, much still needs to be understood about gene function, its role in human biological systems and the interaction between genes and external factors such as environment, diet and so on. In the future if we do choose to genetically enhance human traits to levels unlikely to be achieved by human evolution, it would be crucial to consider if and how our understanding of human evolution enable us to better understand the implications of genetic interventions.

New forms of human enhancement are increasingly coming to play due to technological development. If phenotypic and somatic interventions for human enhancement pose already significant ethical and societal challenges, germline heritable genetic intervention, require much broader and complex considerations at the level of the individual, society and human species as a whole. Germline interventions associated with modern technologies are capable of much more rapid, large-scale impacts and seem capable of radically altering the balance of humans with the environment. We know now that beside the role genes play on biological evolution and development, genetic interventions can induce multiple effects (pleiotropy) and complex epigenetics interactions among genotype, phenotype and ecology of a certain environment. As a result of the rapidity and scale with which such impact could be realized, it is essential for ethical and societal debates, as well as underlying scientific studies, to consider the unit of impact not only to the human body but also to human populations and their natural environment (systems biology). An important practicable distinction between ‘therapy’ and ‘enhancement’ may need to be drawn and effectively implemented in future regulations, although a distinct line between the two may be difficult to draw.

In the future if we do choose to genetically enhance human traits to levels unlikely to be achieved by human evolution, it would be crucial to consider if and how our understanding of humans and other organisms, including domesticated ones, enable us to better understand the implications of genetic interventions. In particular, effective regulation of genetic engineering may need to be based on a deep knowledge of the exact links between phenotype and genotype, as well the interaction of the human species with the environment and vice versa .

For a broader and consistent debate, it will be essential for technological, philosophical, ethical and policy discussions on human enhancement to consider the empirical evidence provided by evolutionary biology, developmental biology and other disciplines.

This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) of Portugal [CFCUL/FIL/00678/2019 to M.A.].

Conflict of interest : None declared.

Pham P , Roux S , Matonti F et al.  Post-implantation impedance spectroscopy of subretinal micro-electrode arrays, OCT imaging and numerical simulation: towards a more precise neuroprosthesis monitoring tool . J Neural Eng 2013 ; 10 : 046002 .

Google Scholar

Maghami MH , Sodagar AM , Lashay A et al.  Visual prostheses: the enabling technology to give sight to the blind . J Ophthal Vis Res 2014 ; 9 : 494 – 505 .

Weitz AC , Nanduri D , Behrend MR et al.  Improving the spatial resolution of epiretinal implants by increasing stimulus pulse duration . Sci Transl Med 2015 ; 7 : 318ra203.

Bouton CE , Shaikhouni A , Annetta NV et al.  Restoring cortical control of functional movement in a human with quadriplegia . Nature 2016 ; 533 : 247 – 50 .

Geddes L. First paralysed person to be ‘reanimated’ offers neuroscience insights. Technique moves man’s arm by decoding his thoughts and electrically stimulating his own muscles . Nat News 2016 ; 533 .

Squires JE. Artificial blood . Science 2002 ; 295 : 1002 – 5 .

Lowe KC. Blood substitutes: from chemistry to clinic . J Mater Chem 2006 ; 16 : 4189 – 96 .

Moradi S , Jahanian-Najafabadi A , Roudkenar MH. Artificial blood substitutes: first steps on the long route to clinical utility . Clin Med Insights Blood Disord 2016 ; 9 : 33 – 41 .

Powell R , Kahane G , Savulescu J. Evolution, genetic engineering, and human enhancement . Philos Technol 2012 ; 25 : 439 – 58 .

Parens E (ed.). Enhancing Human Traits: Ethical and Social Implications . Washington, DC : Georgetown University Press , 1998 .

Google Preview

Giubilini A , Sanyal S. Challenging human enhancement. In: Clarke S , Savulescu J , Coady T et al.  (eds). The Ethics of Human Enhancement: Understanding the Debate . Oxford : Oxford University Press , 2016 .

Elliott C. Better Than Well: American Medicine Meets the American Dream . New York, NY : WWW Norton & Company, Inc ., 2003 .

Kramer P. Listening to Prozac . London : Fourth Estate , 1994 .

Moravec H. Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence . Cambridge : Harvard University Press , 1990 .

Bostrom N. Human genetic enhancements: a transhumanist perspective . J Value Inq 2003 ; 37 : 493 – 506 .

Kurzweil R. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology . New York, NY : Viking , 2005 .

Harris J. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press , 2010 .

Fukuyama F. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution . New York, NY : Picador , 2002 .

Sandel M. The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering . Cambridge : The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press , 2007 .

Savulescu J , Persson I. The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity . J Appl Philos 2008 ; 25 : 162 – 77 .

Buchanan A. Beyond Humanity . Oxford : Oxford University Press , 2011 .

Persson I , Savulescu J. Moral enhancement, freedom, and the god machine . Monist 2012 ; 95 : 399 – 421 .

Leon K. Ageless bodies, happy souls: biotechnology and the pursuit of perfection . New Atlantis 2003 ; 1 : 9 – 28 .

Agar N. Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement . Cambridge : MIT Press , 2010 .

Gaj T , Gersbach CA , Barbas CF III ,. ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas based methods for genome engineering . Trends Biotechnol 2013 ; 3 : 397 – 405 .

Baltimore D , Berg P , Botchan M et al.  Biotechnology. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification . Science 2015 ; 348 : 36 – 8 .

Otieno MO. CRISPR/Cas9 human genome editing: challenges, ethical concerns and implications . J Clin Res Bioeth 2015 ; 6 : 253 .

Ishii T. Germline genome-editing research and its socio-ethical implications . Trends Mol Med 2015 ; 21 : 473 – 81 .

Bionews.org.uk. First Genome-edited Babies: A Very Different Perception of Ethics , 2018 . https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_140060 (27 August 2019, date last accessed).

Cyranoski D. CRISPR-baby scientist fails to satisfy his critics . Nat News 2018 ; 564 : 13 – 4 .

Galis F , Metz JA. Evolutionary novelties: the making and breaking of pleiotropic constraints . Integr Comp Biol 2007 ; 47 : 409 – 19 .

Falcon A , Cuevas MT , Rodriguez-Frandsen A et al.  CCR5 deficiency predisposes to fatal outcome in influenza virus infection . J Gen Virol 2015 ; 96 : 2074 – 8 .

Gade-Andavolu R , Comings DE , MacMurray J et al.  Association of CCR5 Δ32 deletion with early death in multiple sclerosis . Genet Med 2004 ; 6 : 126 – 31 .

Zhou M , Greenhill S , Huang S et al.  CCR5 is a suppressor for cortical plasticity and hippocampal learning and memory . eLife 2016 ; 5 : e20985 .

Tibayrenc M , Ayala FJ (eds). On Human Nature: Biology, Psychology, Ethics, Politics, and Religion . London : Academic Press , 2017 .

Baldi P. The Shattered Self: The End of Natural Evolution . Cambridge : MIT Press , 2001 .

Darwin C. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life . London : J. Murray , 1859 .

Gould SJ. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory . Belknap, NY : Harvard University Press , 2002 .

Rees M. Our Final Century: Will the Humans Race Survive the Twenty-first Century? Eastbourne : Gardners Books , 2003 .

Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genome Editing: An Ethical Review . London : Nuffield Council on Bioethics , 2016 .

Powell R. The evolutionary biological implications of human genetic engineering . J Med Philos 2012 ; 37 : 204 – 26 .

Liu W , Chen L , Zhang S et al.  Decrease of gene expression diversity during domestication of animals and plants . BMC Evol Biol 2019 ; 19 : 1 – 11 .

Fages A , Hanghøj K , Khan N et al.  Tracking five millennia of horse management with extensive ancient genome time series . Cell 2019 ; 177 : 1419 – 35 .

Zhang J , Wang X , Yao J et al.  Effect of domestication on the genetic diversity and structure of Saccharina japonica populations in China . Sci Rep 2017 ; 7 : 42158 .

Theofanopoulou C , Gastaldon S , O’Rourke T et al.  Self-domestication in Homo sapiens : insights from comparative genomics . PLoS One 2018 ; 13 : e0196700 .

Capra F , Luisi PL. The Systems View of Life . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2014

• genetic engineering

Email alerts

Citing articles via, affiliations.

• Online ISSN 2050-6201
• Copyright © 2024 International Society for Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering

Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel recently spoke at Stanford on the subject of his new book, The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. He focused on the “ethical problems of using biomedical technologies to determine and choose from the genetic material of human embryos,” an issue that has inspired much debate.

Having followed Sandel’s writings on genetic enhancement for several years, I think that this issue deserves special thought. For many years, the specter of human genetic engineering has haunted conservatives and liberals alike. Generally, their main criticisms run thus:

First, genetic engineering limits children’s autonomy to shape their own destinies. Writer Dinesh D’Souza articulates this position in a 2001 National Review Online article: “If parents are able to remake a child’s genetic makeup, they are in a sense writing the genetic instructions that shape his entire life. If my parents give me blue eyes instead of brown eyes, if they make me tall instead of medium height, if they choose a passive over an aggressive personality, their choices will have a direct, lifelong effect on me.” In other words, genetic enhancement is immoral because it artificially molds people’s lives, often pointing their destinies in directions that they themselves would not freely choose. Therefore, it represents a fundamental violation of their rights as human beings.

Second, some fear that genetic engineering will lead to eugenics. In a 2006 column, writer Charles Colson laments: “British medical researchers recently announced plans to use cutting-edge science to eliminate a condition my family is familiar with: autism. Actually, they are not ‘curing’ autism or even making life better for autistic people. Their plan is to eliminate autism by eliminating autistic people. There is no in utero test for autism as there is for Down syndrome…[Prenatal] testing, combined with abortion-on-demand, has made people with Down syndrome an endangered population…This utilitarian view of life inevitably leads us exactly where the Nazis were creating a master race. Can’t we see it?” The logic behind this argument is that human genetic enhancement perpetuates discrimination against the disabled and the “genetically unfit,” and that this sort of discrimination is similar to the sort that inspired the eugenics of the Third Reich.

A third argument is that genetic engineering will lead to vast social inequalities. This idea is expressed in the 1997 cult film Gattaca, which portrays a society where the rich enjoy genetic enhancements—perfect eyesight, improved height, higher intelligence—that the poor cannot afford. Therefore, the main character Vincent, a man from a poor background who aspires to be an astronaut, finds it difficult to achieve his goal because he is short-sighted and has a “weak heart.” This discrepancy is exacerbated by the fact that his brother, who is genetically-engineered, enjoys perfect health and is better able to achieve his dreams. To many, Gattaca is a dystopia where vast gaps between the haves and have-nots will become intolerable, due to the existence of not just material, but also genetic inequalities.

The critics are right that a world with genetic engineering will contain inequalities. On the other hand, it is arguable that a world without genetic engineering, like this one, is even more unequal. In Gattaca, a genetically “fit” majority of people can aspire to be astronauts, but an unfortunate “unfit” minority cannot. In the real world, the situation is the other way round: the majority of people don’t have the genes to become astronauts, and only a small minority with perfect eyesight and perfect physical fitness—the Neil Armstrong types—would qualify.

The only difference is that in the real world, we try to be polite about the unpleasant realities of life by insisting that the Average Joe has, at least theoretically, a Rocky-esque chance of becoming an astronaut. In that sense, our covert discrimination is much more polite than the overt discrimination of the Gattaca variety. But it seems that our world, where genetic privilege exists naturally among a tiny minority, could conceivably be less equal (and less socially mobile) than a world with genetic engineering, where genetic enhancements would be potentially available to the majority of people, giving them a chance to create better futures for themselves. Supporters of human genetic engineering thus ask the fair question: Are natural genetic inequalities, doled out randomly and sometimes unfairly by nature, more just than engineered ones, which might be earned through good old fashioned American values like hard work, determination, and effort?

“But,” the critics ask, “wouldn’t genetic engineering lead us to eugenics?” The pro-genetic engineering crowd thinks not. They suggest that genetic engineering, if done on a purely decentralized basis by free individuals and couples, will not involve any form of coercion. Unlike the Nazi eugenics program of the 1930s, which involved the forced, widespread killing of “unfit” peoples and disabled babies, the de facto effect of genetic engineering is to cure disabilities, not kill the disabled. This is a key moral difference. As pointed out by biologist Robert Sinsheimer, genetic engineering would “permit in principle the conversion of all the ‘unfit’ to the highest genetic level.” Too often, women choose to abort babies because pre-natal testing shows that they have Down syndrome or some other ailment. If anything, genetic engineering should be welcomed by pro-life groups because by converting otherwise-disabled babies into normal, healthy ones, it would reduce the number of abortions.

In addition, the world of Gattaca, for all its faults, features a world that, far from being defined along Hitler-esque racial lines, has in fact transcended racism. Being blond-haired and blue-eyed loses its racially elitist undertones because such traits are easily available on the genetic supermarket. Hair color, skin color, and eye color become a subjective matter of choice, no more significant than the color of one’s clothes. If anything, genetic engineering will probably encourage, not discourage, racial harmony and diversity.

It is true that genetic engineering may limit children’s autonomy to shape their own destinies. But it is equally true that all people’s destinies are already limited by their natural genetic makeup, a makeup that they are born with and cannot change. A short person, for example, would be unlikely to join the basketball team because his height makes it difficult for him to compete with his tall peers. An ugly person would be unable to achieve her dream of becoming a famous actress because the lead roles are reserved for the beautiful. A myopic kid who wears glasses will find it difficult to become a pilot. A student with an IQ of 75 will be unlikely to get into Harvard however hard he tries. In some way or another, our destinies are limited by the genes we are born with.

In this sense, it is arguable that genetic engineering might help to level the playing field. Genetic engineering could give people greater innate capacity to fulfill their dreams and pursue their own happiness. Rather than allow peoples’ choices to be limited by their genetic makeup, why not give each person the capability of becoming whatever he or she wants to, and let his or her eventual success be determined by effort, willpower, and perseverance? America has long represented the idea that people can shape their own destinies. To paraphrase Dr. King, why not have a society where people are judged not by the genes they inherit, but by the content of their character?

Looking at both sides, the genetic engineering controversy does raise questions that should be answered, not shouted down. Like all major scientific advances, it probably has some negative effects, and steps must be taken to ameliorate these outcomes. For example, measures should also be taken to ensure that genetic engineering’s benefits are, at least to some extent, available to the poor. As ethicists Maxwell Mehlman and Jeffrey Botkin suggest in their book Access to the Genome: The Challenge to Equality, the rich could be taxed on genetic enhancements, and the revenue from these taxes could be used to help pay for the genetic enhancement of the poor. To some extent, this will help to ameliorate the unequal effects of genetic engineering, allowing its benefits to be more equitably distributed. In addition, caution must be taken in other areas, such as ensuring that the sanctity of human life is respected at all times. In this respect, pro-life groups like Focus on the Family can take a leading role in ensuring that scientific advances do not come at the expense of moral ethics.

At the same time, we should not allow our fear of change to prevent our society from exploring this promising new field of science, one that promises so many medical and social benefits. A strategy that defines itself against the core idea of scientific progress cannot succeed. Instead of attempting to bury our heads in the sand, we should seek to harness genetic engineering for its positive benefits, even as we take careful steps to ameliorate its potential downsides.

Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities

Introduction, genetic engineering pros and cons, works cited.

As of today, the practice of genetic engineering continues to remain highly controversial. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that there are a number of the clearly defined ethical undertones to the very idea of inducing ‘beneficial’ genetic mutations to a living organism.

After all, this idea presupposes the eventual possibility for people to realize themselves being the masters of their own biological destiny, in the evolutionary sense of this word.

Nevertheless, even though the practice in question indeed appears utterly debatable, the very objective laws of history/evolution leave only a few doubts that, as time goes on, more and more people will perceive it as being thoroughly appropriate. This paper will explore the validity of the above-stated at length.

In general, genetic engineering can be defined as: “An artificial modification of the genetic code of an organism. It changes the physical nature of the being in question radically, often in ways that would never occur in nature” (Cyriac 65).

Thus, it is most properly discussed as an umbrella term for the biotech practices that aim to alter the molecular basis of the DNA strand for a variety of different purposes, mostly concerned with allowing people to be able to enhance their lives.

As of now, we can identify three major directions, in which the ongoing progress in the field of the genetic engineering technologies (GET) has attained an exponential momentum: a) Deciphering the structure of the human genome, b) Transferring genes from the representatives of one species to another, c) Cloning. Even though GET became available since not long ago, these technologies proved thoroughly capable of benefiting humanity in a variety of different ways.

Among the most notable of them can be well mentioned:

a) Making possible the production of genetically modified foods. As Coker noted: “In the United States and elsewhere, more than 90% of soybeans, cotton, corn, and certain other crops are already genetically engineered” (24). The reason behind the growing popularity of this type of food is quite apparent – the application of getting increases the efficiency of agriculture rather drastically, which in turn contributes to solving the problem of ‘world’s hunger.’

b) Establishing the objective preconditions for the creation of drugs that could be used for treating diseases that are now being assumed incurable, such as AIDS and cancer. This, of course, presupposes that, as a result of GET being increasingly used by pharmacologists, the lifespan of an average individual should be substantially extended. The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated, in regards to the effects of such a widely used genetically modified drug as insulin, prescribed to those who suffer from diabetes.

c) Providing people with the opportunity to have their children (or pets) being ‘genetically tailored,’ in accordance with what happened to be the concerned individual’s personal wishes, in this respect. What it means is that, due to the rise of getting, the concept of eugenics became thoroughly sound once again: “Besides ensuring that our children are born without genetic defects, we will soon be able to give them genetic enhancements: they will become taller, stronger, smarter” (Anderson 23). Consequently, this will allow the biological betterment of human societies.

Nevertheless, even though there are many reasons to consider genetic engineering utterly beneficial to the well-being of humanity, some people cannot help deeming it utterly ‘wicked’ – this especially appears to be the case among religious citizens.

The reason for this is quite apparent – one’s ability to meddle with the structure of DNA, which in turn results in the emergence of the ‘tailored’ life-forms, implies that the individual in question is nothing short of God.

In the eyes of a religious individual, however, this idea appears clearly sacrilegious: “Humans must show respect for God’s dominion through attentive obedience to the immanent laws of creation” (Clague 140). There are also a number of secular (non-religious) objections to genetic engineering.

The most commonly heard one is concerned with the fact that the effects of the consumption of genetically modified foods on humans have not been thoroughly researched. This, of course, establishes a hypothetical possibility for those individuals who consume these foods to end up suffering from a number of yet unexplored side effects.

It is also often mentioned that, because GET provides married couples with the hypothetical possibility to conceive and to give birth to ‘ideal’ babies, it may eventually result in the emergence of the previously unheard forms of social discrimination against people, whose genome happened to be unmodified.

Moreover, there is a growing concern about the fact that being artificially created, the genetically altered forms of life may bring much disbalance to the surrounding natural environment, which is supposed to evolve in accordance with the Darwinian laws of natural selection.

Out of these objections, however, only the second one can be defined as being more or less plausible. After all, the availability of getting is indeed a comparatively recent phenomenon, which in turn implies that there may be some unforeseen aspects to it.

The rest of them, however, do not appear to hold much water – this especially happened to be the case with the religious one. The reason for this is that the process of just about any organism coming to life, which religion refers to as the ‘miracle of creation,’ biologists have long ago learned to perceive as nothing but the consequence of the essentially ‘blind’ flow of molecular reactions in the concerned DNA.

As Chapman pointed out: “What causes the differentiation in the genetic code? The mechanism for this – the genetic software, if you will – comes through the epigenetic markers that surround the genome” (170). In other words, the ‘miracle of creation’ is ultimately about the chain of self-inducing genetic mutations, which presupposes that there is nothing intelligent or consciously purposeful to it in the first place.

Genetic engineering, on the other hand, makes possible the thoroughly rational manipulation with the structure of DNA – hence, allowing biologists to not only remain in full control of the process of a particular genetic mutation taking place but also to define its course.

It is understood, of course, that the practice in question does undermine the epistemological integrity of the world’s monotheistic religions, but this state of affairs has been predetermined by the laws of history and not by the practice’s ‘wickedness.’

Apparently, the fact that many people continue to refer to genetic engineering with suspicion, reflected by their irrational fear of genetically modified foods, once again proves the validity of the specifically evolutionary paradigm of life.

The reason for this is that, as we are well aware of, throughout the course of history, the implementation of technological innovations always been met with much resistance. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that due to being ‘hairless apes’, people are naturally predisposed to cling to specifically those behavioral patterns, on their part, which proved ‘luck-inducing’ in the past.

Nevertheless, as time goes on, their ‘fear of the new’ grows progressively weakened – the direct consequence of people’s endowment with intellect. We can speculate that before deciding to become ‘stock herders,’ ‘hunter-gatherers’ used to experience a great deal of emotional discomfort, as well – yet, there was simply no way to avoid the mentioned transformation, on their part.

The reason for this is that it was dialectically predetermined. In the mentioned earlier article, Coker states: “Eventually, humans took more control of animals and plants through agriculture, and then civilization took off. Today, we can hardly imagine how harsh the pre-agricultural existence must have been” (27).

The same line of reasoning will apply when it comes to assessing what would be people’s attitudes towards genetic engineering in the future. In all probability, our descendants will look down on us in the same manner that we look down on the members of some primeval indigenous tribe, who were never able to evolve beyond the Stone Age. After all, in the future, leaving the formation of one’s genome up to a chance will be considered barbaric.

Nevertheless, it is not only the laws of historical progress that presuppose the full legitimation of genetic engineering but the evolutionary ones, as well – something the exposes the sheer erroneousness of the claim that the concerned practice is ‘unnatural.’

In this respect, one may well mention the most important principle of evolution – the likelihood for a particular quantitative process to attain a new qualitative subtlety, positively relates to how long it remained active.

This principle, of course, suggests that for as long as the representatives of a particular species continue to expand the boundaries of their environmental niche (as it happened to be the case with humans), they will be experiencing the so-called ‘evolutionary jumps.’

The emergence of getting suggests that we, as humans, are about to experience such a ‘jump’ – after having undergone the GET-induced transformation, we will instantly attain the status of ‘trans-humans’ (or ‘demi-gods’). As Bostrom pointed out: “Human nature is a work-in-progress…

Current humanity need not be the endpoint of evolution… (through) Technology and other rational means we shall eventually manage to become posthuman beings with vastly greater capacities than present human beings have” (493).

Thus, even though the practice of genetic engineering continues to spark controversies, it is highly unlikely that this will also be ceased in 10-20 years from now – those proven much too slow, taking full advantage of genetic engineering, will simply be no longer around to debate its usefulness.

The earlier provided line of argumentation, in defense of the idea that genetic engineering indeed represents the way of the future, appears fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. Thus, it will be fully appropriate to conclude this paper by reinstating that the sooner people grow thoroughly comfortable with getting, the better.

In this respect, it will prove rather helpful for them to become aware that the emergence of genetic engineering is yet another indication that humanity remains on the pass of progress, and there is indeed nothing ‘unnatural’ about the practice in question. This paper is expected to come as an asset within the context of just about anyone gaining such awareness.

Anderson, Clifton. “Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities.” The  Futurist 34.2 (2000): 20-22. Print.

Bostrom, Nick. “Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective.”  Journal of Value Inquiry 37.4 (2003): 493-506. Print.

Chapman, Davd. “Beyond Genetic Determinism.” Ethics & Medicine 29.3 (2013): 167-171. Print.

Clague, Julie. “Some Christian Responses to the Genetic Revolution.” Ethics &  Medicine 19.3 (2003): 135-142. Print.

Coker, Jeffrey. “Crossing the Species Boundary: Genetic Engineering as Conscious Evolution.” Futurist 46.1 (2012): 23-27. Print.

Cyriac, Kar. “Biotech Research: Moral Permissibility vs. Technical Feasibility.”  IIMB Management Review 16.2 (2004): 64-68. Print.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 3). Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities. https://studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/

"Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities." StudyCorgi , 3 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities'. 3 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities." January 3, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities." January 3, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities." January 3, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/.

This paper, “Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: September 18, 2020 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• Testimonials

Genetic Engineering Pros and Cons

• Writing Services
• Essay Types
• Assignment Formatting
• Assignment Topics
• Assignment Help
• Assignment Writing Tips
• Cause and Effect Essay Topics
• College Admission Essay Writing
• Problem Solution Essay Topics
• Making Education Smarter in its Response to Students
• Recognizing Great High Schools By What They Actually Do

• Date: 31 July, 2013
• Category: Assignment Help

The process

Genetic engineering is a complex process whereby scientist separates a gene from a chromosome. This is done by using an enzyme called endonuclease that is used to split the gene that is required from the chromosome. This process can be used for various reasons like giving an animal immunity whereby scientists will find an organism that has an antiviral gene and implant it into an animal and that way their offspring will also carry that new gene.

The pros of genetic engineering are numerous; in animals, it enables hereditary diseases to be treated so as to avoid them passing to the offsprings. Genetic engineering has also enabled scientists to make animals have certain desirable characteristics and also enabled them to remove certain characteristics creating better animals

Disadvantages

The cons of genetic engineering in animals are that they disrupt nature which is not easy to understand. When scientist introduces these new genes to animals they may lead to disastrous consequences since they are never sure what they will form. The society has not fully accepted genetic engineering and most of them see it as an n insult to nature

Natural methods

There is also the natural method of genetic engineering which is not done in the lab. This whereby organism of the same species are taken based on characteristics and they are mate together. This may be done when certain characteristics are wanted in the offsprings like taking an animal that has a tendency to grow larger and another that has an unusual immunity and making them mate so that the offspring can have both characteristics.

Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

Genetic engineering is also used in agriculture with the aim of improving foods. Crops are being created whereby they are resistant to diseases and pests and also need less water to grow. These plants also tend to grow faster.

Advantages of genetic engineering in agriculture

The advantages of agriculture are also numerous as farmers are able to harvest more crops that have nutrients. It has enabled crops to be made to even grow in harsh conditions and therefore farming can be done any part of improving the economy of people. The crops are also engineered in a way that they are resistant to pests and diseases thereby reducing the cost of farming that includes buying pesticides. There is also the advantage of eliminating those characteristics that are undesirable

Disadvantages of genetic engineering in agriculture

There are however also the cons of genetic engineering which in agriculture they are quite many. One is that the despite not buying pesticides more fertilizers will be required and also as the plants grow equipment that is needed to crop these plants have to be modified. Genetic engineering also ignores certain steps in like pollination thereby disrupting the ecosystem. There is also the danger of pollution. Farmers also fear that any gene that is used for herbicide resistance may spread to other crops and create more dangerous weed leading them to use more money in farming.

Benefits and risks of genetic engineering

Applications

Genetic engineering has also been applied in medicine where it has been used to try and cure diseases like cancer. This is done by trying to replace those genes that are faulty with others that are working perfectly.

Pros of genetic engineering

It has tried to cure certain diseases and has lead to the elimination of faulty genes and replacing them with better ones. It also has been able to cure visual impairment.

Cons of genetic engineering

The gene therapy has a lot of dangers and has not been used widely. It can lead to other dangers in one’s life.

Genetic engineering and society

Most people in the society have been against genetic engineering claiming it is trying to change what is already there. This is because they have not seen the results that had been promised there before but scientists are not giving up because they continue advancing with technology.

Genetic engineering will be accepted if its benefits are more than its risks since nothing can be perfect.

• writing help
• essay writing

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Genetic Engineering — Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering: The Need for Proper Regulation

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering: The Need for Proper Regulation

• Categories: Engineering Genetic Engineering

About this sample

Words: 568 |

Published: Feb 7, 2024

Words: 568 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, pros of genetic engineering, cons of genetic engineering, regulation of genetic engineering.

Cite this Essay

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

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science

+ 120 experts online

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!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1261 words

2 pages / 1081 words

2 pages / 822 words

7 pages / 3177 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Genetic Engineering

As genetic engineering continues to advance, the controversy surrounding its potential benefits and ethical considerations has become increasingly prominent. This essay aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of genetic [...]

In Gattaca's dystopia, the dangers of a society obsessed with genetic perfection are exposed. The film challenges viewers to reflect on the implications of genetic determinism, the erosion of personal identity, and the ethical [...]

Introduction: In the realm of scientific innovation, genetic engineering stands at the forefront, offering unprecedented possibilities for enhancing human capabilities. The ethical implications of manipulating the very essence [...]

Genetic engineering is the process of altering the genetic makeup of an organism by adding, deleting or changing its DNA. The process involves the manipulation of genes and their transfer from one organism to another, thereby [...]

Genetics is the most interesting part of science because it explains how certain traits are passed down by parents to their offspring. Gregor Mendel is considered the pioneer in explaining this theory of the genetics within [...]

Genetic Engineering is a powerful and potentially very dangerous too. To change the sequence of nucleotides of the DNA that code for the structure of a complex living organism, can have extremely ill effects although the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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

Premium Content

Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos?

The most potent use of the new gene editing technique CRISPR is also the most controversial: tweaking the genomes of human embryos to eliminate genes that cause disease. We don’t allow it now. Should we ever?

Pro: Research on Gene Editing in Humans Must Continue

By John Harris

In February of this year, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority in the United Kingdom approved a request by the Francis Crick Institute in London to modify human embryos using the new gene editing technique CRISPR-Cas9. This is the second time human embryos have been employed in such research, and the first time their use has been sanctioned by a national regulatory authority. The scientists at the Institute hope to cast light on early embryo development—work which may eventually lead to safer and more successful fertility treatments.

The embryos, provided by patients undergoing in vitro fertilization, will not be allowed to develop beyond seven days. But in theory—and eventually in practice—CRISPR could be used to modify disease-causing genes in embryos brought to term, removing the faulty script from the genetic code of that person’s future descendants as well. Proponents of such “human germline editing” argue that it could potentially decrease, or even eliminate, the incidence of many serious genetic diseases, reducing human suffering worldwide. Opponents say that modifying human embryos is dangerous and unnatural, and does not take into account the consent of future generations. Who is right?

Let’s start with the objection that embryo modification is unnatural, or amounts to playing God. This argument rests on the premise that natural is inherently good. But diseases are natural, and humans by the millions fall ill and die prematurely—all perfectly naturally. If we protected natural creatures and natural phenomena simply because they are natural, we would not be able to use antibiotics to kill bacteria or otherwise practice medicine, or combat drought, famine, or pestilence. The health care systems maintained by every developed nation can aptly be characterized as a part of what I have previously called “a comprehensive attempt to frustrate the course of nature.” What’s natural is neither good nor bad. Natural substances or natural therapies are only better that unnatural ones if the evidence supports such a conclusion.

The matter of consent has been raised by Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health. “Ethical issues presented by altering the germline in a way that affects the next generation without their consent,” he has said, constitute “strong arguments against engaging in” gene editing.

This makes no sense at all. We have literally no choice but to make decisions for future people without considering their consent. All parents do this all the time, either because the children are too young to consent, or because they do not yet exist. George Bernard Shaw and Isadora Duncan knew this. When, allegedly, she said to him “why don’t we make a baby together … with my looks and your brains it cannot fail” she was proposing a deliberate germline determining decision in the hope of affecting their future child. Shaw’s more sober response—“Yes but what if it has my looks and your brains!”—identifies a different possible, but from the child’s perspective equally non-consensual, outcome. Rightly, neither Shaw nor his possible partner thought their decision needed to wait for the consent of the resulting child.

Needless to say, parents and scientists should think responsibly, based on the best available combination of evidence and argument, about how their decisions will affect future generations. However, their decision-making simply cannot include the consent of the future children.

Finally, there’s the argument that modifying genomes is inherently dangerous because we can’t know all the ways it will affect the individual. But those who fear the risks of gene editing don’t take into account the inherent dangers in the “natural” way we reproduce. Two-thirds of human embryos fail to develop successfully, most of them within the first month of pregnancy. And every year, 7.9 million children—6 percent of total births worldwide—are born with a serious defect of genetic or partially genetic origin. Indeed so risky is unprotected sex that, had it been invented as a reproductive technology rather than found as part of our evolved biology, it is highly doubtful it would ever have been licensed for human use.

Certainly we need to know as much as possible about the risks of gene-editing human embryos before such research can proceed. But when the suffering and death caused by such terrible single-gene disorders as cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease might be averted, the decision to delay such research should not be made lightly. Just as justice delayed is justice denied, so, too, therapy delayed is therapy denied. That denial costs human lives, day after day.

Con: Do Not Open the Door to Editing Genes in Future Humans

By Marcy Darnovsky

The gene editing tool known as CRISPR catapulted into scientific laboratories and headlines a few short years ago. Fast on its heels came the reemergence of a profoundly consequential controversy: Should these new techniques be used to engineer the traits of future children, who would pass their altered genes to all the generations that follow?

This is not an entirely new question. The prospect of creating genetically modified humans was openly debated back in the late 1990s, more than a decade and a half before CRISPR came on the scene and several years before the human genome had been fully mapped.

It wasn’t long before we saw provocative headlines about designer babies. Princeton mouse biologist Lee Silver, writing in Time magazine in 1999, imagined a fertility clinic of the near future that offered “Organic Enhancement” for everyone, including people with “no fertility problems at all.” He even wrote the ad copy: “Keep in mind, you must act before you get pregnant. Don't be sorry after she's born. This really is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for your child-to-be.”

You May Also Like

We still don't know why humans started drinking cow's milk

Not everyone should be taking a multivitamin

How Humans Are Shaping Our Own Evolution

During the same millennial shift, policymakers in dozens of countries came to a very different conclusion about the genetic possibilities on the horizon. They wholeheartedly supported gene therapies that scientists hoped (and are still hoping) can safely, effectively, and affordably target a wide a range of diseases. But they rejected human germline modification—using genetically altered embryos or gametes to produce a child—and in some 40 countries, passed laws against it.

The issue of human germline modification stayed on a slow simmer during the first decade of the 21st century. But it roared to a boil in April 2015, when researchers at Sun Yat-sen University announced they had used CRISPR to edit the genomes of nonviable human embryos. Their experiment was not very successful in technical terms, but it did focus the world’s attention.

In December 2015, controversy about using CRISPR to produce children was a key agenda item at the International Summit on Human Gene Editing organized by the national science academies of the United States, the United Kingdom, and China. Nearly every speaker agreed that at present, making irreversible changes to every cell in the bodies of future children and all their descendants would constitute extraordinarily risky human experimentation. By all accounts, far too much is unknown about issues including off-target mutations (unintentional edits to the genome), persistent editing effects, genetic mechanisms in embryonic and fetal development, and longer-term health and safety consequences.

Conversations about putting new gene editing tools into fertility clinics need to begin with an obvious but often overlooked point: By definition, germline gene editing would not treat any existing person’s medical needs. At best, supporters can say that it might re-weight the genetic lottery in favor of different outcomes for future people—but the unknown mechanisms of both CRISPR and human biology suggest that unforeseeable outcomes are close to inevitable.

Beyond technical issues are profound social and political questions. Would germline gene editing be justifiable, in spite of the risks, for parents who might transmit an inherited disease? It’s certainly not necessary. Parents can have children unaffected by the disease they have or carry by using third-party eggs or sperm, an increasingly common way to form families. Some heterosexual couples may hesitate to use this option because they want a child who is not just spared a deleterious gene in their lineage, but is also genetically related to both of them. They can do that too, with the embryo screening technique called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), a widely available procedure used in conjunction with in vitro fertilization.

PGD itself raises social and ethical concerns about what kind of traits should be selected or de-selected. These questions are particularly important from a disability rights perspective (which means they’re important for all of us). But screening embryos for disease is far safer for resulting children than engineering new traits with germline gene editing would be. Yet this existing alternative is often omitted from accounts of the controversy about gene editing for reproduction.

It is true that a few couples—a very small number—would not be able to produce unaffected embryos, and so could not use PGD to prevent disease inheritance. Should we permit germline gene editing for their sake? If we did, could we limit its use to cases of serious disease risk?

From a policy perspective, how would we draw the distinction between a medical and enhancement purpose for germline modification? In which category would we put short stature, for example? We know that taller people tend to earn more money. So do people with paler skins. Should arranging for children with financially or socially “efficient” varieties of height and complexion be considered medical intervention?

Think back to the hypothetical fertility clinic offering “Organic Enhancement” as a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for your child-to-be.” Think back to the 1997 movie Gattaca, about a society in which the genetically enhanced—merely perceived to be biologically superior—are born into the physical reality of those whom we might now call the one percent. These are fictional accounts, but they are also warnings of a possible human (or not so human) future. The kinds of social changes they foresee, once set in motion, could be as difficult to reverse as the genetic changes we’re talking about.

In opening the door to one kind of germline modification, we are likely opening it to all kinds. Permitting human germline gene editing for any reason would likely lead to its escape from regulatory limits, to its adoption for enhancement purposes, and to the emergence of a market-based eugenics that would exacerbate already existing discrimination, inequality, and conflict. We need not and should not risk these outcomes.

Related Topics

Part Ape, Part Human

See Human Impact in an X-Ray of the Ocean

Is a dog’s mouth really cleaner than a human’s mouth?

The resilience of the human spirit captured in 29 stunning images

Is Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome really so rare—or is it misdiagnosed?

• Environment

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Coronavirus Coverage
• Paid Content
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

The Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering

Within the field of human embryo research lies a controversial science that could redefine prenatal care: genetic engineering. Genetic engineering not only offers the possibility of eliminating birth defects and genetic illness, but also presents the moral ambiguity of eugenics. The acceptabilities of genetic engineering, assuming that it will be available in the foreseeable future, must be explored if society is to fully benefit from it.

The most prominent and perhaps the most acceptable reason given for genetic engineering is its potential use in preventative medicine. A few cells from an embryo could be genetically analyzed to detect harmful mutation or predisposition towards disorder, at which point action could be taken either through somatic cell or germ-line gene modification. In 1993, the gene that causes Huntington’s Disease was located, and scientists are currently trying to determine its normal function (The Benefits of Genetic Engineering).

Assuming researchers succeed in this endeavor, genetic engineering could then be used to eliminate a debilitating and ultimately fatal disease that affects approximately 30000 Americans and that has the potential to affect 150000 more through genetic inheritance (Huntington’s Disease). In 1997, a group of scientists successfully diagnosed familial adenomatous polyposis coli, the dominant cancer predisposition syndrome, in three preimplantation embryos.

This type of cancer predisposition affects 1 in every 10000 people America, Britain, and Japan, making it a relatively common malady (Ao, 140). Schizophrenia has been shown to run in families; even adopted children of schizophrenic parents are ten times more likely to develop schizophrenia, regardless of whether or not their adoptive parents are affected (Bernstein, 518). Lastly, birth defects such as downs syndrome could be eliminated through genetic engineering (Resta).

A more ambiguous reason for genetic engineering is the elimination of common defects that vary in seriousness, such as sensory impairment. Dozens of chromosomes linked to hearing impairment have been located (Ruben, 33). Although treatment for such conditions initially looks promising, as the elimination of complete blindness or deafness would alleviate hardships caused by these disabilities, removing serious sensory conditions and actually raising sensory ability to a level above normal are separated by a fine line.

Due to relatively recent historical events, predominantly the practices of the Nazi party before and during World War 2, eugenics is rightly seen as a major risk to developing genetic engineering technology. Eighteen percent of people interviewed in the United Kingdom said that if they could choose, they would make their child less likely to exhibit aggressive or alcoholic behavior (Henig, 58).

Technically, if the gene for this behavior were isolated, it most likely could be altered, but it should be understood that a genetic predisposition towards a certain behavior neither guarantees that the behavior will manifest nor does it guarantee that the behavior will not be apparent even if the genetic predisposition is not present. Thus, not only is genetically engineering behavior morally and ethically questionable, it is highly unfeasible. Also, whether genetic engineering is undertaken for good or bad, the quality of the outcome must be considered.

In the recent experiments in cloning Dolly, many of the mistrials were largely oversized, causing undue pain to both the lamb and the mother (Wolfson). And finally, thought must be given to the psychological trauma that may result from any genetic choice made; family members of victims of Huntington’s disease sometimes display signs of guilt that they have escaped a positive diagnosis while their loved one must suffer, much like the survivor of a major natural disaster feeling guilty that they lived while many others did not (Ruben, 228).

More Essays

• Essay on The Pros And Cons Of Genetic Engineering
• Pros And Cons Of Genetic Testing Essay
• Genetic Engineering. Right or Wrong?
• Genetic Engineering
• Ethics Of Genetic Engineering
• Pros And Cons Of Gene Therapy Essay
• Human Genome Project Pros And Cons Essay
• Substance Abuse Pros And Cons Essay
• Essay on The Pros And Cons Of GMO Foods
• The Pros And Cons Of Biotechnology Essay

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• What is Genetic Engineering?
• What is DNA?
• The Process of Genetic Engineering
• Genetically Modified Food Example
• Genetically Modified Animals Example
• Edible Vaccines
• Biosimilar Medicine
• TB Resistant Cows
• Video of Pros
• Video of Cons
• Genetic Experimentation on Humans
• Patenting Genetic Material
• Genetic Modification as Aesthetics
• Discrimination of People with Genetic Anomalies
• Executive Summary
• Sources Consulted

Pros and Cons

In the table below you will find some of the important advantages and disadvantages of genetic engineering. You will realize that each benefit has a negative aspect. Basically, by modifying the genes, we can improve a condition at the cost of another. The modification of a specimen and its later introduction to the environment can negatively impact the nature.

Watch the following videos about the pros and cons of genetic engineering:

Genetic Engineering Pros and Cons

Genetic engineering is the process of methodically altering the nature and structure of an organism’s genes using methods like molecular cloning and cell transformation. This process can result in a considerable transformation of an organism’s characteristics due to the manipulation of genetic material (DNA), which determines how every cell functions. While Genetic engineering can result in better traits in organisms, it can also lead to undesirable after-effects. Let us first understand how genetic engineering can benefit individuals.

Pros of genetic engineering:

• Better varieties of crops

Scientists have genetically engineered crops like tomato, potato, rice, and soybean to new varieties with improved nutritional value and better yield. The genetically modified strains can grow on tough terrains, making the area suitable for cultivation. Engineered seeds can survive in harsh climatic conditions and are resistant to pests. Biotechnology, the science of producing genetically engineered foods, can slow down spoilage of perishable foods, resulting in the greater shelf life of fruits and vegetables.

• Create new substances

Genetic engineering can be applied to create totally new substances and food nutrients. The genetic modification can increase medicinal value of foods, thereby turning them into edible vaccines.

• Modification of human genes

Genetic engineering can be used to modify genotypes of humans before birth. This process can manipulate specific traits in a person, such as enhancing positive traits like boosting longevity and suppressing negative traits like genetic disorders. The discovery of genes associated with exceptional qualities in humans has allowed genetic engineers to artificially introduce genotypes to modify the DNA of human beings and desirable functional and structural changes in them.

• Fighting diseases

Some of the deadliest diseases in the world have resisted destruction till date. However, genetic engineering could wipe out these diseases forever from the human race.  Genetic mutations are responsible for some dreaded diseases in humans. The sufferance can end with active intervention and genetically engineering, which can protect the next generation from these problems. Scientists are looking for a permanent cure for terrible diseases with the help of genetic engineering.

• Tackling diseases in unborn children

Advanced medical technology has enabled doctors to detect certain problems in unborn children. Prenatal examinations can detect whether the child will suffer from genetic diseases such as Down’s syndrome or sickle cell anaemia. If these issues are detected, doctors can use genetic engineering to cure diseases in children even before they are born. The infants would be born healthy with no diseases present at birth.

Genetic engineering can help people who are at risk of passing on awfully degenerative illnesses to their offspring. If people suffering from genetic disorders give birth, there are chances that the children will inherit the disease. Genetic engineering can ensure that the children born to these individuals live healthy and long lives and do not carry the disease to next generations.

• Enhanced longevity

Medical science had enhanced the lifespan of human beings but, there are certain illnesses that can appear later in life and kill individuals earlier than their expected lifetime. Genetic engineering can reverse body’s natural deterioration on a cellular level, improving the lifespan as well as the quality of life afterward. In addition, it could help individuals become accustomed to the growing inconvenience, like global warming. Thanks to genetic engineering, people can adapt to live in places that will be a lot colder or hotter in coming time.

Apart from its multiple benefits, genetic engineering has exposed human race to several disadvantages by allowing scientists to tread into territories that were better left untouched. Let us have a look at those disadvantages.

Cons of Genetic Engineering:

• Ethical and religious objections

When genetic engineering was introduced, many religions believed that the genetic engineers were trying to play god and forbade it to be used on their children. There are several ethical arguments that believe that the diseases exist for a reason. If humans fight against them and artificially extend their lifespan, the planet will become overpopulated and result in problems that cannot possibly be predicted.

• Genetic anomalies

It is known that genetic engineering can bring about changes at the cellular level but, what about the safety of these changes and repercussions of the slightest changes. Scientists are yet to fully understand the working of the human body and they cannot predict what would be the result of their actions. What will happen if erasing one disease introduces another brand new and more dangerous disease? If scientists genetically modify unborn babies, it could result in complications like stillbirth, premature birth or miscarriage.

• Genetic diversity hampered

Diversity is an important part of evolution that results in the continuation of fitter and better species. Genetically modifying species can have a negative impact on genetic diversity, just like cloning. Gene therapy is not an affordable process and makes it impossible for the common man to benefit from it. Additionally, some traits responsible for introducing diversity in species may eventually die out because of genetic engineering.

• Long-term use of genetic engineering

An important thing to consider is the scope of genetic engineering. The technique has been in use for years but, the question is how far can it go? While many scientists have been diligently using the process to eliminate worst illnesses, genetic engineering has remained at the centre of controversy for altering the DNA of living organisms. It has worked wonders for many but will it pan out real safe in the long run is something that remains to be seen.

• Hamper dietary value

Genetically engineering foods result from the contamination of genetic makeup of crops. The engineered crops supersede natural weeds but they might prove to be dangerous for natural vegetation. Unwanted genetic modifications can cause allergies in crops and hamper their dietary value while improving their appearance and taste.

• Entry of pathogens

Genetic engineering in crops is performed through horizontal gene transfer. While this process can boost disease-fighting capability of plants, it can produce new pathogens. The disease-resistant genes can get transferred to dangerous pathogens and make them stronger.

This shows that genetic engineering has its own set of benefits and disadvantages. It is up to the scientists using this technique to apply it after weighing it’s the pros and cons.

WriteJoy.com

Terrified by the mere thought of writing your college paper? Feel the joy of submitting an interesting, thoroughly researched essay with our expert academic writing help.

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering entails manipulating an organism’s gene indirectly using techniques such as molecular cloning to alter the nature and structure of genes. It can change an organism’s characteristics through DNA manipulation. Human beings ought to consider the pros and cons of genetic engineering before using it.

Pros of Genetic Engineering

First, it leads to better growth rate, taste and nutrition of crops like tomatoes, potatoes, rice and soybean. Genetically engineering produces new variants with increased yield and improved nutritional qualities. Genetically engineered crops can survive on lands that are currently not suited for cultivation. Genetic manipulation can be carried out to meliorate the nutritional value and increase the rate of growth of crops. The science of genetic engineering, also referred to as foods Biotechnology, nay be utilized to ameliorate the taste of food.

Genetic engineering produces crops which are pest-resistant and have a longer shelf life. Engineered seeds can endure harsh climatic conditions and are resistant to pests. At-DBF2, a plant gene, can be inserted into tobacco and tomato cells to increase their survival in harsh climatic and soil conditions. Biotechnology may be utilized to slow down food spoilage process. This results in a greater shelf life of vegetables and fruits.

Genetic modification can be utilized to produce entirely new foods. In food, genetic engineering is able to produce completely new substances like proteins and other nutrients. Modification of gene in foods can increase their medicinal value. This makes home-produced edible vaccines.

Another advantage is the modification of genetic traits in human beings. Human genetic engineering science modifies human beings genotypes before birth. This process can be utilized to manipulate some traits in people. Genetic engineering can be employed to suppress negative traits while boosting positive ones. Positive genetic engineering is concerned with the enhancement of positive individual traits. This includes increasing human capacity or longevity. Conversely, negative genetic engineering is concerned with the quelling of negative human traits such as some genetic diseases.

Genetic engineering can in the modification of human DNA. If discovered, genes responsible for particular human qualities can be inserted into the genotypes of other humans by artificial means. This brings about desirable functional and structural changes in such individuals.

Cons of Genetic Engineering

Genetic Engineering has some cons as well. One, it may impede nutritional value. Genetic engineering in food contaminates crop genes. Crops that are genetically engineered may take the place of natural weeds and thus harm natural plants. Unwanted genetic mutations may lead to crop allergies.

Another disadvantage of genetic engineering is that it may introduce harmful pathogens. Horizontal gene transfer may bring about new pathogens. While it raises plant’s immunity to diseases, the resistant genes may be transferred to harmful pathogens.

Genetic engineering may result in genetic defects. In humans, gene therapy can have various side effects. In an attempt to treat one defect, the therapy may result in another. Isolating cells associated with a single trait is very difficult since each cell influences numerous characteristics.

Genetic engineering is detrimental to genetic diversity. It can hamper human diversity. Cloning may have negative consequences to individuality. What is more, such procedures may not be within the means of everyone. This makes gene therapy unfeasible for the commoner.

As seen in the discussion, genetic engineering is beneficial but it manipulates the natural. It alters what is natural to produce completely new “creatures”. Human beings ought to consider the pros and cons of genetic engineering before using it.