How can advances in life sciences benefit humans while remaining ethical and safe?

Advances in life sciences, including viral research, bioremediation, and genetic recombination, hold great potential, but they also raise ethical issues and safety concerns. Addressing these requires a careful and responsible approach, and transparent information disclosure and ongoing moral debate are essential.

 

A man who lives inside a facility thinking he is a survivor of a massive environmental disaster on Earth, only to discover that he is actually a cloned human being produced for a specific purpose. This is the plot of the movie Island. Biotechnology is probably the most popular technology used in many other movies and novels. Even if the idea of a lab-generated virus wiping out the entire human race is a bit fictionalized and exaggerated, biotechnology has enormous potential to scare us. How do we harness this potential and make it into a technology that is both beneficial and not dangerous? This is the challenge that life sciences must solve. In this article, we will discuss some of the dangers of life sciences technologies that people are afraid of, and how to solve them.
First, let’s start with viruses. According to the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, viruses are the smallest living organisms, infectious microstructures that have either DNA or RNA as their genome, parasitize living cells, and multiply only within the infected cell. Because they are highly contagious, viruses have historically been a major scourge of humanity. The Black Death caused by the bubonic plague in the 14th century claimed more than 20 million lives, and the 1918 Spanish flu killed 25 million people. The pandemic caused by the novel influenza virus, which had many people on edge until a few years ago, is also very mutable, making it difficult to create a vaccine.
But while some viruses are deadly, others are actually helpful to medicine. For example, artificial viruses that target only cancer cells are giving hope to cancer patients. Viruses are a double-edged sword: in the wrong hands, they can be disastrous and cause a pandemic, or they can be the hope for a cure for an incurable disease. Therefore, researching viruses requires a careful and cautious approach. The most important thing is to isolate the lab from the outside world. This can be achieved to some extent by ensuring that each researcher follows strict safety procedures when entering and leaving the lab, and by installing devices that can shut down the lab in the event of an accident. In addition, it is important to ensure transparency in virus research and to make the results of such research available to the public to alleviate excessive anxiety.
The second is bioreplication technology. This technology has been controversial since its inception due to its many conflicts with human ethics. In particular, human cloning is morally problematic because it destroys the dignity of life and can lead to the loss of human self-identity. If human cloning technology is abused, it can lead to major problems such as selectively having babies by cloning genes for desired traits or impersonating other people by cloning their genes. However, stem cells, which are the core of biological cloning technology, can grow into any cell in the body, so they are being studied in many areas such as organ transplantation and treatment of terminal diseases.
The moral boundaries of this cloning technology are quite fuzzy. If we say that human cloning should be completely banned, the big question is what constitutes a human being. The embryo, which is the core of the cloning technology, is the early stage of development when the zygote has begun to divide at least once before it becomes a complete individual. The point at which this happens is not clear. In humans, an embryo is usually referred to as an embryo until the 8th week of pregnancy, and a fetus after that. So, is an embryo a human being or a clump of cells? If an embryo is a human being, then it is morally wrong to save another human being through embryo cloning research, but if we assume that an embryo is a clump of cells, then embryo cloning research is a very good and morally sound life science technology that offers great hope to patients with incurable diseases. The question of embryos becomes a profound issue that ultimately leads us to think about the standard of life. Therefore, until this moral issue is fully resolved, research on cloning technology should be postponed. However, even if the moral debate is completely resolved, it doesn’t mean that we’re free to do embryo cloning research. In this area of life science technology in particular, we should continue to debate whether embryo cloning is morally acceptable as the technology evolves.
The third is genetic recombination technology. According to the Encyclopedia of Food Science and Technology, genetic recombination is the process of combining DNA fragments from any organism into another DNA molecule. With this technology, we can create genetically modified crops, such as GMOs, to improve the efficiency of farming and create products that are convenient for humans. In addition, hormones needed by humans can be transplanted into E. coli through genetic recombination to produce them. This technology is highly controversial, especially when it comes to the safety of GMOs. The goal of using GMOs to increase grain production to feed the poor in the Third World is a good one. However, the effects of GMO foods on the human body are still unknown. The process of recombining genes can alter other genes, making the crops suddenly toxic, and the process of genetically modifying livestock can result in very deformed and hideous animals. In the past, asbestos was used as a miracle building material that didn’t burn, and mercury was used for medicinal purposes. At the time, it was thought that these new substances would make life more convenient and wouldn’t cause any harm to humans, but after many years, humans realized their dangers. The same is true for GMOs. As a newly developed technology, GMOs have not yet been fully tested for safety. This will take many, many years. However, long-term, ongoing research into the effects of GMOs on the human body is inevitable because we cannot consume untested and uncertain foods. Therefore, until the safety of GMOs is properly verified, their use in human food should be prohibited.
GMOs also pose a risk to the environment. Because GMO plants have a different genetic structure than conventional plants and are more fertile, they have the potential to disrupt ecosystems. As the example of the bullfrog, which has reduced the population of native frogs in Korea, shows, it is very easy for a creature with strong reproductive power and vigor to destroy the ecosystem. Therefore, the environmental impact of GMOs must be thoroughly considered during the research and development process, and regulations and policies must be put in place to prevent this.
Biotechnology is the closest to humans because it involves human life, the food we eat, or the environment. It is often in conflict with religion and morality and can pose a great threat to humans, both directly and indirectly. There are technologies that have the potential to cause great harm to humans, such as viruses and genetic recombination, and others that are in great conflict with ethics and morality, such as embryo cloning and gene cloning. But biotechnology’s potential is as great as its risks. Biotechnology has the potential to extend human lifespans, cure the enemies of humanity, such as cancer, AIDS, and genetic diseases, and create a future where everyone can live happily and healthily. With such great advantages and disadvantages, life sciences are truly a double-edged sword.
Therefore, the future of biotechnology should be directed toward reducing the threats to humanity as much as possible and resolving moral and religious issues. In order to achieve this, biotechnology will need to be made transparent so that many people can know about the development of biotechnology, and it will also be necessary for all human beings to have a far-sighted perspective, rather than pursuing only the convenience of the near future, so that the destruction of humanity, which is only seen in novels and movies, will not actually happen. Advances in biotechnology must be accompanied by prudence and responsibility, and ongoing discussions between scientists, policymakers, and the general public must continue to ensure that we move in a safe and ethical direction.