Genetic Engineering Should Have Boundaries - Free Essay Example

Genetic engineering has been around for the past 50 years and in the past has been a complicated and expensive process. With the introduction of Crispr eight years ago, things have changed dramatically. Genetic engineering has a huge array of applications from agriculture to medicine, surgery, and animal husbandry. Through genetic engineering, many crops have developed immunity to most lethal diseases while also increasing crop yield. Crisper has become a cheap, precise, and easy to use tool in the field of genetic engineering. This has opened the door to a whole new realm of possibilities from eradicating a genetically inherited disease to mosquitoes that are resistant to the malaria parasite. Genetic engineering has been the topic for debate between medical and scientific advancements and ethics. Is it right for scientists to essentially play God, to manipulate the essential building blocks of life and how far is too far when it comes to those manipulations? Because modern genetic engineering techniques have allowed us to manipulate almost anything with DNA, should there be boundaries put on the use of genetic engineering. In 2015 China started the first trials to treat humans with cancer using the crisper gene editing tool. Since 2015 China has done nine trials involving human testing on terminally ill cancer patients. In an article in the Wall Street Journal they talk about the differences between the US and China on their policies regarding human testing. A regulation of Chinas health ministry, which is responsible for medical affairs, authorizes a hospitals ethics committee to approve research on humans (Rana A.1). In 2016 Penn State filed to start their trials on human testing with the NIH and the FDA. They hope to get the final go-ahead to start trials sometime this year. Western scientist the Journal interviewed didnt suggest Americas stringent requirements should be weakened. Instead, many advocate and international consensus on ethical issues around a science that makes fundamental changes to human DNA yet still isnt completely understood (Rana A.1). The difference in policies between the two countries is a cause for concern. The long-term effects of genetic editing have yet to be fully explored and might not show up until later generations. Many scientists worry that the speed with which China has started their trials could lead to irreparable damage to the field down the road. Crisper needs to be treated like a double-edged sword, on the one side, the potential benefit to humans could be huge but on the other the damage could be irreversible. Work needs to be done to get countries on the same page ethically to keep from making mistakes that could cost everyone. Genetically modified organisms in agriculture have been around since the 1980s. Monsanto introduced their Roundup resistant crops which sparked the debate of the safety of GMO products. The first GMO products spliced in DNA from different species into plants to create something new. The main reason for genetically modifying plants was to aid in the resistance to diseases that were wiping the plants out. By modifying plants genetically, they could fortify the immune system of the plant. On average, GM technology has increased crop yields by 21%. These yield increases are not due to higher genetic yield potential, but to more effective pest control and thus lower crop damage. At the same time, GM crops have reduced pesticide quantity by 37% and pesticide cost by 39% (Klumper). Statistically, GMOs have a longer lifespan than other foods. This means they can be transported farther, without fear of them going bad, to destinations that lack nutritious food. With the invention of Crispr new genetically edited foods no longer use DNA from different species but now can be used to turn on and off different genes in the DNA of a plant to get the desired trait. This is similar to what farmers do with plant breeding, only instead of using mother nature the plants DNA is physically manipulated by scientists. Right now, the FDA, USDA, and EPA do very little to regulate genetically edited crops. There is a lack of unbiased scientific research creating questions about the long-term effects on the environment and human beings. The ability to create a tailor-made baby may be a long way off, but it is in our future and something that we need to discuss now. Scientists have been working hard to eradicate genetically inherited diseases. Genetic engineering with Crispr may be one of the best tools that scientists can use to help them achieve that goal. In pursuit of that goal, who knows what they might find along the way, a gene that could increase muscle mass or a gene that changes the color of the eyes. The technology is advancing more rapidly than societies discussion about human genetic engineering, the specter of eugenics and even the seemingly mundane topics of who will own the patents on customized genes and who will have access to gene editing once it is approved (GMO Humans A12). When GMOs were first introduced they were heavily regulated by the USDA and EPA. Over time regulation on these genetically edited products has mostly been lifted. Due to the lack of regulation it is difficult to determine the long-term effects that GE products might produce. Due to the cost-effectiveness of crisper it has given rise to a new form of citizen scientists called biohackers. The community shared projects and ease of obtaining gene fragments now make it easier for DIY genetic engineering. Already a research team at the University of Alberta has recreated from scratch an extinct relative of smallpox, horsepox, by stitching together fragments of mail-order DNA in just six months for about $100,000 † without a glance from law enforcement officials (Baumgaertner). In the United States laws that pertain to biotechnology have not been significantly updated in decades. Regulations to govern new technologies have to rely on outdated frameworks. Currently, any research done that seeks government funding undergoes strict scrutiny, yet over half of the nations scientific research and development is paid for by private sources. This means that over half of the nation scientific research and development is self-regulated. This allows scientists greater flexibility for the pursuit of scientific discovery and innovation but may create experiments that cross the line ethically.