AdamLangley

ProfessorFlower
LifeUnlimited?

As we look towards the future of our generation and for generations to come, it is impossible to
ignore the enormous effect that technology will have on us, and our surroundings. In the past 10 years
alone we have seen such drastic changes in our everyday lives due to the transformation of technology.
We have seen smartphones laptops woven into the fabrics of our everyday lives. We continue to see huge
strides in science, whether it be synthetic biology or the advancements of renewable energy. In one area
specifically, genetic engineering, we havent been able to agree upon how we should go about this
relatively new area of exploration. Genetic engineering has been practiced on plants, food, and bacteria. It
involves taking a trait of one organism and installing it directly in to the genes of another organism.
There are many people who are completely opposed to anybody playing God, and some people who
believe there should be no regulation so there will be no interruption of the progress being made. This
difference is what is going to make it challenging for our generation to come up with any sort of
regulations on genetic engineering. Whether you want it or not it is already here and needs to be
addressed sooner rather than later. In the rest of this paper we will explore how to go about this complex
issue of creating regulations and guidelines to one of the more important questions facing us in our
technological advancement.
The reason that this should be a more urgent matter to take care of, is because of how fast we are
learning and developing in this field. With these improvements come great new discoveries, but potential
dangers are there as well. We are seeing some purposed solutions to problems we face, amazing ideas like
a cars that run on sunlight and grown in a lab that is being developed by Mercedes1. We have seen the

Ramirez,M.Insightsintoecodesignpracticesamongsttheworldslargestcarmakers.

development of ideas like golden rice, which is created with enhanced vitamin A for the millions facing
vitamin A deficiency which leads to blindness and even death2. Unfortunately we have also seen big
corporations that look to patent these ideas and even the DNA of new seeds and plants in order to
generate profit. These companies have shown that they care little about communities by suing farmers
who use their products without paying for new seeds each year. It is companies like these that give GMOs
a negative connotation. Certainly we as people should focus energy and time to make sure that as
technology advances we are making sure that everyone can benefit and we can use these things to fix
problems in our country and around the whole world. Not so some corporation such as Monsanto3 can
make a profit. This is why we need regulations and rules now before more corporations take advantage
and use these possibly amazing inventions for their own greedy agendas.
There have been some talk on what to do about this regulation problem already. People in the
science community want minimal regulation as to not impede any progress. In GMO crops they argue are
already the most regulated crop in the history of agriculture. In an excerpt from Managing the
Unimaginable: regulatory responses to the challenges posed by synthetic biology and synthetic
genomics4 the authors claim Many scientists also believe that science should be politically autonomous
and that self-governance is essential to the nature and progress of science. They do not deny the need for
some sort of regulation process, only that self-regulation is the best way and most effective way. There
are some people however that do not believe that the scientist should have so much freedom or trust. They
argue the only way to make sure that no new disease is developed or something harmful to the people is
tight regulation and rules. Then there are the people in the middle. The people who want some
government regulation but not over regulating to the point of hindering future progress. They also claim
already set regulation have gone too far and hurt experimenters financially as well. In a paper title Give

Paine,J.A.,Shipton,C.A.,Chaggar,S.,Howells,R.M.,Kennedy,M.J.,Vernon,G.,...&Drake,R.(2005).Improvingthenutritionalvalueof
GoldenRicethroughincreasedprovitaminAcontent.Naturebiotechnology,23(4),482487.
3
Barlett,D.L.,&Steele,J.B.(2008).Monsantosharvestoffear.VanityFair,4,19.
4

Samuel, G. N., Selgelid, M. J., & Kerridge, I. (2009). Managing the unimaginable. EMBO reports, 10(1), 7-11.

Genetic Engineering Some Breathing Room5 Henry Miller and Drew Kershen state that These
requirements make genetically engineered plants extraordinarily expensive to develop and test. The cost
of discovery, development, and regulatory authorization of a new trait introduced between 2008 and 2012
averaged $136 million.
Now we know what the scientist say lets see what those who oppose self-governance say. In
another quote from Managing the Unimaginable, the authors state,
Critics of self-governance dismiss such proposals as inadequate. They argue that the risks of
synthetic life science are profound and have an impact on both society and the environment, and
that research and researchers should be tightly regulated. They believe that it would be
inappropriate for scientists and engineers, who might benefit from the investigation and
application of synthetic life science, to regulate themselves. Instead, they support governmental
controltop-down governance of research and publication practices.
Those that oppose self-governance argue that the safety of the people and the environment is more
important than future development in genetic engineering. While many people would likely agree with
this statement, we still need to ask to what extent? Do we impose tough regulations that become even
more expensive so only the rich can continue to do the work? If the government steps in should they offer
subsidies to make the process affordable to a wider range of people? Is there a reasonable solution that
takes the best of both sides?
The question of combing both sides stances and coming to a compromise seems like the most
appealing to me. After all, I think everyone involved can agree that something should be put in place to
ensure that there are no disasters created. Since we have found something to agree on we should start
from there. Those in the field want an easier, more affordable, regulation that allows processes to
continue uninterrupted. We should be able to make some of this happen. The government can offer

Kershen, D. L., & Miller, H. I. (2015). Give Genetic Engineering Some Breathing Room. Issues in Science and Technology, 31(2),
63-73.

financial aid to help further these studies and further our own technology. It would keep our country at the
forefront of a field that can change and shape the way we live our lives. Making it more affordable also
ensures a more diverse amount of inquiry done, as well as make it harder on companies on Monsanto to
develop any kind of monopolies. The legislation can be written in ways that allow studies to be taken
place without lengthy, time consuming, and expensive hurdles.
Accomplishing these things does not have to only cater to those for self-regulation. With the
governments financial help, people who are practicing this science will be held responsible to present the
experiments to the government. This will ensure safety procedures are maintained and not bypassed,
limiting chances of any potential dangers to humans and the environment. Also keeping records of these
studies will allow everyone to follow the development and keep companies from patenting DNA or
whatever else they can in order to exploit the opportunity in order to earn profits. This is a field after all,
that can change so much for the better. We have a responsibility to be sure that the changes are for good
and that everybody can benefit from.
I cannot state enough the importance that this field of technology will play in our lives and the
lives of every following generation. The time to act on this is now, not later. We should be working to set
up careful regulations that allows the U.S to be at the forefront of this still new field of science. If we can
do this, we can be sure that synthetic biology, genetic engineering, and anything else that comes along
will be for the people. It will be for the benefit of society as a whole, and not just for a few. All this while
maintaining efforts to keep any exposure to potential risks and dangers that could result from a lack of
regulations. We can act now and make sure that we put into place legislation that serves everybody. If we
wait, we may not be able to control the outcomes. We may see more and more companies like Monsanto
stepping in and taking over. There is no time to wait, no time for partisan politics. This is a field of
science that is much too important for that. We need comprehensive regulation and we need it now.