Advances in genetic engineering, why do we need ethical guidelines?

Addresses the ethical issues raised by advances in genetic engineering. It discusses issues of personal genetic privacy, the ethical limits of gene therapy, and human cloning, emphasizing the need for public discussion and guidelines.

 

In April 1953, biologists James Watson and Francis Crick unraveled the structure of DNA. This was a great discovery that marked the beginning of genetic engineering. Since then, cloning the somatic cells of a mature sheep to create Dolly, a cloned sheep with identical DNA, and the success of the Genome project to decode all the information in human genes, we have reached the point where we can cut and paste the genes we want. We’ve seen the benefits of genetic engineering, such as attaching the insulin gene to E. coli to mass-produce insulin. However, just as the stronger the sunlight, the darker the shadows, so the advances in genetic engineering have brought humanity increasing benefits, but also new contradictions and conflicts. The birth of a cloned sheep in the late 90s was a wake-up call for bioethics, as the process of cloning was not as difficult as it was thought to be, and it sparked many discussions on ethical issues. However, more than a decade later, there are still no clear guidelines on how genetic engineering should be developed, and there are still many issues to be discussed, as people from all walks of life have different views on ethical issues.
Those who argue that we should prioritize funding for research rather than discussing bioethical issues, often on the grounds that genetic engineering technology is not yet at the level we fear, are being irresponsible and insensitive to the benefits of genetic technology and its side effects. However, as technology advances, it is necessary to recognize that there will be side effects as well as benefits, and it is necessary to establish ethical guidelines through sufficient discussion to ensure that the benefits of genetic technology are not offset by side effects. In this article, we will discuss the new ethical issues that arise from the development of genetic engineering in terms of privacy, gene therapy, and human cloning.
First, privacy issues may arise. When genetic engineering is used to treat diseases or disorders, the human genetic map must be analyzed, and since only a small fraction of what is known about the function of individual genes is known, what can be learned from genetic analysis is limited, and current technology cannot identify all genetic factors. Because disease is caused by the interaction of genetic, environmental, and social factors, individuals with the same genes are more or less likely to express the disease trait depending on their environment. Therefore, having a disease-causing genetic factor is not a guarantee that you will develop a disease, but inaccurate genetic information can lead to social discrimination. For example, an employee with an 80% chance of developing a disease could be discriminated against by a company in hiring, promotion, and access to insurance. Therefore, when conducting genetic analyses to predict whether an individual will develop a disease or for related purposes, the protection of personal genetic information learned during genetic testing should be a priority. In the U.S., the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act was introduced in 2008 to prevent companies and insurers from accessing an individual’s genetic information, but in the future, it will be possible to easily analyze the genetic information of anyone with a single hair, so specific measures to protect personal information are needed.
Second, there is the ethical issue of gene therapy. Gene therapy is the interference with the DNA of human cells to alleviate the symptoms or eliminate the cause of a disease caused by genetic factors. Gene therapies are categorized into two types depending on the target and purpose of the treatment. Gene therapy is categorized into somatic cell gene therapy and germline gene therapy, depending on the target, and into gene therapy for the prevention or treatment of disease (passive eugenics) and gene therapy for the enhancement of a trait or quality (active eugenics).
In the case of somatic gene therapy, the effects are limited to the patient, as only the genetic traits of the person being treated are altered. However, germline gene therapy raises ethical issues because it affects not only the patient but also future generations, and the effects are unpredictable. Do parents have the full right to decide on gene therapy on behalf of their future baby? If genetic abnormalities are found in future generations as a side effect of gene therapy, how will they be compensated, and will future babies be okay with having their genes determined by others? Even with complete control over gene manipulation, it is difficult to understand why parents would unilaterally claim the right to genetic modification that determines a person’s traits.
Furthermore, is genetic modification to produce superior traits for therapeutic purposes ethically acceptable? The closer we get to the day when individuals are free to manipulate their own genes, the more likely it is that gene therapy will be used for eugenic purposes. People will want to genetically modify themselves to eliminate recessive traits and express dominant traits, and they will want their children to be genetically superior. This will lead to the “manufacturing” of genetically engineered humans. If the era of genetically engineered human manufacturing comes, ethical issues arise as human beings become objects of commodification and lose their dignity and value. In addition, the development of genetic engineering may raise issues of equity in the distribution of benefits from technological advances. In the movie “Kataka,” the protagonist was born with a natural recessive factor, unlike other children who were genetically engineered. Therefore, the protagonist has been discriminated against and ignored since childhood due to his physical and learning abilities that lag behind others. However, through his own efforts and identity laundering, the protagonist overcomes his genetic limitations and fulfills his dreams. As the movie shows, genetics should not be an absolute criterion for evaluating a person, but the unequal distribution of the benefits of genetic engineering can lead to social discrimination and “genetic caste”.
Finally, let’s look at the most controversial issue of genetic engineering: human cloning. The purpose of human cloning is to treat diseases by creating genetically identical humans to replace damaged organs or abnormal body parts. However, should organs or body parts be transplanted into cloned humans against their will to treat these diseases? In the movie “Ireland,” people in the movie commission a company to create cloned humans that look exactly like them in case of illness or old age, and keep them in an isolated area of Ireland. The clones are indoctrinated with ideas created by people outside of Ireland, and they live in the belief that they will one day be selected and go to heaven. However, when their mother becomes ill or needs an organ transplant, they are slaughtered to provide their mother with the body parts she needs, such as blood or organs. In the movie, the cloned humans are conscious beings who can think, feel, and have emotions, just like their mothers. Can we deprive them of their dignity and status as human beings simply because they are not original? According to Kant’s ethics, in order for human dignity to be respected, a person must be recognized only as an end, not as a means to an end. Therefore, the creation of human clones for the sole purpose of obtaining extra cells is a clear violation of Kant’s principle of human dignity. If the logic of cloning humans were to be established, our values regarding bioethics and morality as we currently recognize them would have to be completely redefined. For example, if a society were to recognize only human beings as individuals based on their birth through natural reproduction, or if the uniqueness of individuals were to be disregarded for the purpose of survival of the species and the reproduction of a stable population through cloning was deemed reasonable, the bioethical problems caused by cloning humans might not arise anymore. However, the current morality and ethics that have been developed by humans living in communities since the Paleolithic era are not wrong. Our current bioethics and morality have evolved over time to be the most humane. Whether it is Lao Tzu’s Taoist thought or the views of various religions, the basic moral ethics are grounded in the dignity of human beings based on their natural occurrence and uniqueness. Therefore, even if a new bioethics is established, I believe that the creation of cloned humans for any reason is not right in terms of bioethics and morality.
In the field of genetic engineering research, the issue of bioethics may seem at first glance to be a shackle that slows down the pace of research. However, if there is not enough societal discussion about bioethics, it can be a double-edged sword, like the nuclear technology that threatens humanity today, and we do not know when we will cross the river of no return. While we should avoid restricting all genetic engineering research because of the ethical issues it raises, we need to have a full public discussion about the ethical issues that will arise from genetic engineering research, such as the protection of personal genetic privacy, the limits of gene therapy, and the ethics of human cloning, and set guidelines for research. If the standards for bioethics are established in a legal device or system based on these discussions, the direction of genetic engineering research will be clearer, and it will be possible to support research more effectively. Therefore, it is time to take two steps forward and one step back.