Genetic manipulation: customized humans or natural humans?

The movie “Gattaca” discusses the ethical issues of genetic manipulation and the efficiency of customized humans, and explains the advancement of gene therapy technology and the social and ethical controversies it has caused.

 

The movie “Kataka” depicts a world in the future where technological advances have divided people into two groups: those born naturally (in-valid) and those born genetically engineered (valid). In that world, in-genetically engineered humans are valued by society for being healthier and more capable, while natural humans are discriminated against for having health problems or weaker physical capabilities. The ethical question of “creating” customized humans through genetic manipulation, as in this movie, is a hotly debated issue, and there is a lot of discussion about which is more desirable: a customized human or a natural human. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the advancement of genetic technology. In a future where genetic manipulation is commonplace, genetic manipulation that results in healthy babies is preferable to natural conception.
A gene (DNA) is a type of nucleic acid that plays a large role in the inheritance of traits in living things, including humans. Diseases and hereditary problems caused by genes can be solved by modifying the composition of the gene. There are two main types of gene manipulation: somatic gene therapy and germ-line gene therapy. Somatic gene therapy is the less objectionable form of genetic manipulation because it doesn’t affect offspring or the entire gene pool. The ethical issues of this treatment are usually similar to those that need to be considered when conducting research and clinical treatments to advance medicine. Germline gene therapy, on the other hand, involves modifying genes in reproductive cells, which has effects not only on the individual but also on their descendants. This makes it very effective in treating genetic diseases. However, germline gene therapy is highly controversial, with some people arguing that it has ethical, social, and political issues. A customized human being is a human being born by manipulating the genome of an embryo through germline gene therapy to remove unfavorable factors.
From an efficiency standpoint, I’m in favor of personalized humans. Germline gene therapy can essentially prevent genetic diseases such as cancer and Down’s Syndrome. Leroy Walters, in his 1986 article “The Ethics of Human Therapy,” argues that germline gene therapy is ethically defensible from an efficiency perspective. Even if somatic cell gene therapy can successfully treat a single-gene disorder, such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease, the cured person is still a carrier of the disease and can pass it on to their children. If the spouse of a carrier has one normal and one abnormal copy of the gene, there is a 50% chance that the couple’s children will develop the disease. In other cases, the children of two carriers of the same genetic disorder will all have the disorder. Although somatic gene therapy is available, germline gene therapy is much more efficient in the long run. This is because it essentially cuts the chain of inherited diseases in the family.
In addition, diseases like Down syndrome, for example, can cause irreversible brain damage to the fetus in the first three months of pregnancy in a natural pregnancy. Furthermore, current medical technology does not allow for genetic modification of a fetus in the womb. In these cases, the only options are to abort the child or to give birth to the child and have the child struggle with the genetic disorder for the rest of his or her life. Both of these options are heartbreaking decisions for parents. In December 2008, the first Cancer-Free Designer Baby was born in the UK, whose aunt, grandmother, and great-grandmother were all breast cancer patients. This dreaded hereditary disease had plagued the family for a long time, and now the baby’s parents wanted to end the chain of suffering. The baby’s mother said in an interview “I think this is something I have to do. If my daughter were to be born with this gene and get breast cancer, I wouldn’t have the face to look at her and say, ‘I didn’t do it.'” This quote clearly shows how much a mother wants to give her child a healthy body. Germline gene therapy is her hope to avoid that difficult situation.
In the same journal, Walters argues for the need for germline gene therapy because some diseases can only be treated with germline gene therapy. For example, genetic diseases of the central nervous system are not amenable to somatic gene therapy. In this sense, germline gene therapy, or the creation of customized humans, is inevitable, and this is the case of the British cancer-free designer baby we talked about earlier. To be more specific, the embryos that carry the breast cancer gene have a defective BRCA1 gene. First, 11 embryos are obtained through in vitro fertilization. The embryos are then tested and six of them are discarded because they carry the BRCA1 gene, and three of the remaining five are discarded because of other abnormalities. Two of the healthy embryos are implanted in the mother’s uterus, and eventually only one is successful. This case raises the question: if germline gene therapy can guarantee the health of my child, why wouldn’t I be willing to do it?
One of the reasons germline gene therapy is viewed critically is the concern that it could encourage eugenic selection, limiting genetic diversity and eventually leading to the emergence of a genetic supermarket. However, all of these concerns are not caused by germline gene therapy, but by human greed. We cannot give up this highly beneficial technology because of someone’s greed. The technology itself is value-neutral, so there is no good or bad, but the greed of the people who use it is the problem. Just as we find a solution to a problem, we should also find a solution to our own greed. For example, the development of the Internet has brought countless benefits to people, but some people use the Internet to satisfy their own interests or greed to the detriment of others. Nevertheless, we have not abandoned the Internet, but have made up for its flaws with laws and regulations such as the Cyber Information Protection Act. The same is true for germline gene therapy. I think it’s much better to find solutions than to passively oppose germline gene therapy. In my opinion, we can democratize this technology and legally prevent the gene superpowers that people worry about. For example, by issuing licenses to do this treatment and putting a limit on the number of licenses that can be issued. So that only hospitals that have these licenses can help people who need it. Also, since all genetic modifications are recorded, a watchdog organization could review these records and prohibit individuals from altering their appearance, intelligence, etc. for their own greed. However, we should always keep in mind that the development and application of gene therapy technology is about preventing and treating genetic diseases more efficiently, not racial modification.
Some people reject the idea of germline gene therapy because they argue that creating customized humans will lead to discrimination and disadvantages for natural people in the workplace or insurance. The fear is that people will have to take genetic tests to get a job and provide genetic information to buy insurance, just like in the movie Gattaca. However, I believe this is unlikely to happen. The movie came out in 1997, and it’s understandable that people were worried back then, but in 2002, something happened in the U.S. about genetic testing that attracted a lot of attention and changed the situation. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued a large railroad company called BNSF. It alleged that BNSF violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by using an employee’s genetic information to make hiring decisions. As a result of the complaint, BNSF stopped the practice. This case shows that discrimination in the hiring process has happened in the past, and it has nothing to do with whether or not personalized humans exist. It also shows that such discrimination can actually be stopped legally. In the United States, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act 2008 has been in effect since 2009. It makes it illegal for health insurance providers to use genetic information to determine a person’s eligibility for insurance, and it prohibits employers from using a person’s genetic information to make hiring, promotion, or other decisions. These laws exist because it’s not as easy to obtain a person’s genetic information as it is in the movies, so the issue of discrimination is not as serious as it might seem.
In the future, when germline gene therapy is already available, is a customized human being or a natural human being more desirable? In my opinion, it is good to utilize technology for the health of a new child. Humans have a duty to do good. I think we should do our best to avoid passing on genetic diseases and suffering to future generations. Of course, this gene therapy technology cannot satisfy all aspects, but I believe that it can fill in the gaps in many ways. Nothing is perfect in this world. I think it is much better to actively address the ethical issues than to passively abandon the technology.