Playing God: An Ethical Examination of Genetic Engineering

"I make friends. They're toys. My friends are toys, I make them. I'm a genetic designer. Do you know what that is?" - William Sanderson in Blade Runner

One of the more controversial issues to arise in the wake of the new millenium and the culmination of its many advancing technologies is genetic engineering. Genetic engineering may be defined as "the alteration of an organism's genetic, or hereditary, material to eliminate undesirable characteristics or to produce desirable new ones." (Encarta, 1998) As one can readily imagine, doomsayers and armchair philosophers the world around have been very vocal regarding the dangers of tampering with the human (or plant or animal) genome for any reason, well intended or otherwise.

Genetic engineering can be separated into several groups or techniques which range from rudimentary selective breeding, to hybridization, to the intricate use of recombinant DNA in gene splicing. From a technical standpoint, this science has existed in one form or another for nearly 100 centuries.

Over 8000 years ago, cattle and swine were first domesticated, breeding them selectively for increased size and decreased aggression. 7000 years ago, mankind first began selectively breeding corn for increased kernel size, higher kernel yield and better nutritional content.

Plant genes have been combined to produce vegetables that are more resistant to disease and more suited to traveling to market in a process called hybridization.

Medical science has genetically altered bacteria and viruses by splicing DNA sequences from other species, producing "transgenic" species capable of manufacturing proteins and hormones used in treatment of dozens of ailments. This is known simply as gene splicing.

Today, thousands of food products and medicines are produced in whole or in part by genetic engineering and advances are being made daily in many industrial applications. This science has made instrumental contributions to other schools of science, such as cloning and stem cell research.

Hormones are produced which, injected into dairy cattle, can increase milk production by as much as forty percent. Swine based insulin, once the only option for treatment of diabetes (and hard to come by), has been completely phased out and replaced with a virtually limitless supply of human insulin, which is produced by bacteria. Specially engineered bacteria have been produced which can speed the decomposition of many types of garbage. Others are being used to metabolize industrial wastes and break down petroleum products.

However, many would argue the price humanity pays for these advancements.

What price, Progress?

"I know nothing of God or the devil. I have never seen a vision nor learned a secret that would damn or save my soul." - Antonio Banderas in Interview with the Vampire

Ethical opinion varies widely on the hazard or benefit of genetic engineering and, strangely enough, strong conviction can be found on both sides of the moral fence. Many scientific sources extol the virtues of this controversial science while, as one might expect, environmental and religious groups worldwide fear its effects on nature and the human soul. Surprisingly, no group stands exclusively in the corner of "for" or "against".

Environmental and animal rights activists such as Greenpeace and PETA feel that hormone use on domestic animals, genetic research and genetically engineering animals specifically for research usurp the inherent rights of animals and pose an environmental threat through "genetic pollution" as they call it (Greenpeace.org).

PETA's outspoken stance on the moral wrongs of veal production brought them into the limelight in 1992. They have since taken positions on virtually all issues involving animal rights from animal product testing to genetic research on animals.

Greenpeace's anti-pollution demonstrations and eco-battles have moved from the open sea, inland to the labs producing genetically altered animals, plants, bacteria and viruses, loudly debating the hazards of using genetically engineered products in uncontrolled environments. The ecological impact of genetically engineered viruses - loose in the wild, so to speak - is unknown and thus potentially dangerous. Citing hundreds of possibilities including the speculation that a genetically engineered virus could be capable of decimating entire species selectively, Greenpeace has been a major influence in various legislation concerning genetics.

Still other factors are constantly added to the controversy. The majority of Western religions are up in arms about the moral implications of "playing God." Toying with God's creations, so to speak, is too wrong to merit any possible good that may result. According to Christian fundamentalists, we are inviting the wrath of God.

Genetic engineering has become a moral and ethical battlefield, offering powerful arguments both for and against. The advantages are virtually countless and range in benefit from food production to medicine. New research is making progress with cancer and other treatments aimed at congenital and hereditary illnesses such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis.

The dangers, albeit mostly speculative, range from malignant to benign as well. Opponents warn of tampering with forces we do not fully understand, as well as threaten the possibility of divine intervention. From an ethical standpoint, this issue is, to say the least, a challenging study.

Genetic Ethics

"Kill a few people, they call you a murderer. Kill a few thousand, they call you a conqueror. Go figure." - John Lithgow in Cliffhanger

In an attempt to analyze the ethical possibilities of genetic engineering, let's begin with a look at general consensus. Genetically altered strains of Escherichia coli have been producing human insulin since its FDA approval in 1982. This same bacteria has been used to clone bovine somatotropin (BST), a growth hormone that increases milk production in dairy cattle.

At the very mention of E.coli, most Americans shudder. The largely undereducated public know only of the virulent strains of this bacterium, known for several foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States (ServSafe Essentials, 2003).

Since 1982, the FDA has also approved an enzyme that dissolves blood clots in heart attack victims and a hormone that stimulates red blood cell production in patients with anemia (Encarta, 1998).

American scientists stand on solid ground in their support of genetically engineered products. Top pharmaceutical companies have joined the fight in support as well. The United Kingdom, however, still holds a conservative line in the use and marketing of Genetically Modified (G.M.) products. British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke out to concerned crowds outside Downing Street in 2000, reassuring British citizens that, regarding G.M. foods, "there is cause for legitimate concern."(PA News, 2000).

A genetically altered species of mouse has been produced with a predisposition to certain types of cancer, allowing research scientists to study the effects of possible carcinogens as well as various treatments. As could be expected, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) speaks out loudest on this venue. Concerns vary widely within PETA's ranks, some speaking out against the inhumane treatment of the lab animals; others fearing that mice predisposed to cancer could intermingle with feral specimens in the wild and pass on the trait. The next stage would potentially wipe out an entire species, wreaking havoc on the ecosystem.

1980 saw the first industrial application of genetically altered organisms when a patent was issued for the first "oil-eating" bacteria. The process, in which bacteria decompose and/or metabolize petroleum products is called bioremediation. Environmental groups and other critics voice concern over this practice because it makes the transgenic organisms the property of particular companies. Greenpeace has been noticeably silent regarding these issues.

The use of bovine somatotropin to increase milk production has been lauded by science and agriculture, while various environmental groups continue to speak out against the practice. Researchers have produced transgenic squash that are immune to certain debilitating viruses, potatoes and strawberries that are frost resistant, and tomatoes that ripen - and thus spoil - much more slowly.

Opponents cry out against transgenic plants as well, warning that transgenic species might well wipe out existing species. Concerns have also been voiced regarding the transfer of food allergens among species. A nutritious protein in Brazil nuts was experimentally introduced into a soybean which, unfortunately produced an allergic reaction in subjects with a sensitivity to Brazil nuts. The project was cancelled.

Various conservatives feel it necessary to remind us of the Nazi war machine and Hitler's attempts to create an ubermensch or superman by selective breeding - an early discipline of genetic engineering. This premise has fueled debate regarding the use of transgenic viruses and bacteria in biological warfare. Unfortunately, the majority of mankind is under-informed and susceptible to this type of propaganda.

Religious groups by far speak the loudest in the debate over genetic engineering. Christian fundamentalists claim that science will undoubtedly lead to the apocalypse, incurring the wrath of God by toying with his creations. The Catholic Church has adopted a very conservative position in reference to cloning, stem cell research and other products and practices related to genetic engineering. Rome has not, however, been as outspoken on these subjects as American Protestants have.

Clergy and politicians alike find places on both sides of this issue, taking their places next to scientists, farmers, pharmaceutical companies and environmental groups. For the last ten years, the overall climate of this battle has been one of utter chaos.

An Author's Insight

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." - Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black

From the swirling clouds of controversy and political flare-ups that have surrounded genetic engineering since its first step into the modern age over 25 years ago, only one rational voice has spoken clearly through the maelstrom. More than 100 years ago, Friedrich Neitzsche said, "Out of chaos comes order."

In reference to the ethical chaos of genetic engineering, both sides have valid points. But, in this writer's opinion, Neitzsche was right. Regardless of the potential consequences, humanity will continue to progress. Chaos, so to speak, will always yield to order as humanity advances into the new millenium.

I personally feel that, from an ethical perspective, genetic engineering is a situation where the ends easily justify the means, effectively canceling out the arguments of religious groups. Environmental impacts are negligible in light of the benefits to mankind from engineered products that help heal the Earth and have shown no threat to existing species, negating the points raised by ecological rabble rousers.

Even the Christian battle lines blur when faced with the inherent truth of Genesis 1:28 where God commanded Adam. "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." By their own arguments, God gave the earth to man to control, but take care of; to command it, but respect it.

We have learned in life that with privilege comes responsibility. For humanity to continue its advancement through science and research, we must practice discipline and prudence. But in my humble opinion, the good far outweighs the as yet unsubstantiated bad.

During the 20th century, we repeatedly crossed the moral barrier in the name of progress. Women's suffrage at the turn of the 20th century, the advent of the Nuclear Age in the 1940's, introduction of oral contraceptives in the 1960's and the use of baboon organs in transplant recipients in the 1990's, have all become an accepted part of everyday life.

Advances in genetic engineering have improved the quality of life for countless people with diabetes, assisted in repairing the ecological damage of oil spills, enhanced the nutritional content of our foods and led to medical breakthroughs in fields as varied as AIDS treatment, cancer research and treatment of anemia. Transgenic species have offered up enzymes used in the treatment of emphysema and bacterial infections, and are producing vaccines to be used against hepatitis, influenza and even herpes simplex viruses.

While some philosophers would argue that the ends never justify the means in a moral debate, others would suggest that the good intention of the act, regardless of its outcome, is morally right (Solomon, Martin, 2004). While the greatest thinkers of our time find newer and better ways to use this newfound knowledge, doomsayers and skeptics wail. But ten years from now, Progress will have won. Newer, more controversial sciences and technologies will be breaking new ground, consequently raising more complicated moral and ethical questions. But the final word is a simple turn of phrase: There is no stopping progress.

No one knows specifically what tomorrow will bring, but one thing is certain. The alleged moral and ethical wrongs of genetic engineering will never silence the voice of advancement. Reason is the final deciding factor. When humanity takes a rational look at the facts and successfully ignores the anti-genetics propaganda, controversy will fall by the wayside and science will continue to advance.

"And crawling on the planet's face/Some insect, called the human race/Lost in time and lost in space/And meaning." - Charles Gray in The Rocky Horror Picture Show

Sources:

Microsoft Encarta 1998, Genetic Engineering, contributed by Louis Levine, copyright Microsoft, 1998.

PETA.org "PETA Protests Cruel Experiments on Our Nonhuman Relatives," Jay Kelly, 2001 www.peta.org/biotech.

PA News (newswire archive), "Blair: GM Foods are Potentially Harmful," John Dean, February 27th, 2000, www.netlink.de/2000.

Greenpeace.org, "Genetic Engineering," no author or date, www.greenpeace.org.

ServSafe Essentials, Second Edition, National Restaurant Association Educational Foundation, 2003, page 2-10.

Morality and the Good Life, Fourth Edition, Robert C. Solomon and Clancy W. Martin, 2004, pp. 260, 261.

Movie Credits:

Blade Runner, copyright 1986, Embassy Home Entertainment.

Interview with the Vampire, copyright 1994, Geffen Pictures.

Cliffhanger, copyright 1997, Paramount Pictures.

Men in Black, copyright 1997, Columbia Pictures/Amblin Entertainment.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show, copyright 1975, Twentieth Century Fox.