Kristopher L.

Charles
Mrs. Foster
Composition II
April 7, 2016
Should Germline Genetic Modification Be Legal?
Genetic engineering (GE) is the modification of an organisms genetic
composition by artificial means, often involving the transfer of specific traits,
or genes, from one organism into a plant or animal of an entirely different
species. (Food Program 2016). DNA is known as Deoxyribonucleic acid and it
is found in the nucleus of a cell. DNA is comprised of nucleotides and other
chemicals that hold the structure together. (DNA 2005). The nucleotides form
the basic structure of DNA and are comprised of information, or blueprints if
you would, that we know as genes. (Nucleotide 2002). Keep in mind that
genes are what determines our general characteristics and physical and
mental composition. (Gene 2016). When talking about our genes as a whole
we would refer to them as our genetics. (Genetics 2016). An engineer is
someone who designs, builds, or modifies something. (Engineer 2016). So,
Genetic Engineering would be the modification of an individuals genetics.
(Genetic Engineering 2005). The term germline modification is a type of
genetic engineering that has been recently founded. Germline is defined as a
sequence of cells which develop into eggs and sperm. (Germline 2016).
Simply put germline modification is to change the genetics of the egg of a

female Homo sapien or the sperm of a male Homo sapien. (Germline

Modification 2016). This in turn would alter the genetic composition of the
human that was formed from these two sex cells. Thus, this organism would
have gone through germline modification which is a type of genetic
engineering.
I believe that human germline genetic modifications should be legal,
because the more we, as a species, learn and know about a subject the more
positive results we can get from it. This method should be legal because
genetic engineering has the potential to rid children and further bloodlines of
hereditary diseases, and with that said intentional germline modification
could very well break evolutions chains.
Genetic modification in humans should be legal because the more we,
as a species, learn and know about a subject the more positive results we
can get from it. For example, Nikola Tesla was trying to prove his theory on
Alternating Current via his alternating current induction motor. At the time
the cities were running off of Thomas Edisons direct current system. Edison
thought, Teslas alternating current system simply would not do. Tesla was
constantly trying to prove his system was more efficient. Edison took to the
streets to conduct public demonstrations in order to show how dangerous the
alternating current induction motor was. These demonstrations normally
involved the alternating current killing an animal to prove that it was a threat
to a humans life. To cut a long story short, look where we are today. We are,
in fact, using Teslas alternating current induction motor to power our cities.

The system was very controversial at the time, even though it was the most
efficient means to get what we needed and move forward with our evolution
as a species. (David 2013). This is a fine example of how a controversial
methods of advancement through science can be the right way to go.
Genetic Engineering is viewed with the same skepticism as alternating
current was back in the 19th Century. All of these views were conjured before
any real research could take place. The skepticism is born out of fear of what
might happen. This field is still very young and has a lot left to offer in the
aspect of learning and growth. Just because something is controversial
doesnt mean it is wrong and unworthy of our attention and advancement. If
anything it should be explored more so that we will know more about it and
what exactly the field of genetic engineering can do for Homo sapiens
species. Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the
premise of progress, in every society, in every family. (Annan 2016).
(For reference, UGM: Unintentional germline modification, IGM:
Intentional germline modification). Intentional germline modification could
break evolutions chains. (1) UGM operates under constraints that severely
limit its ability to realize what human beings rightly value, including their
own survival and improvement. Because IGM is not subject to these
constraints, it is potentially more reliable, versatile, and efficient than UGM,
and consequently it may be better at promoting human well-being and (2)
IGM is potentially morally preferable to UGM, since the latter is wantonly
destructive of life, often involves suffering on a massive scale, and is utterly

insensitive to the requirement that the costs of improvement ought to be

fairly distributed. (Powell and Buchanan 8). This quote points out the fact
that when depending on UGM (unintentional genetic modification) or natural
selection, which is what humans rely on now, we are not in control and are
usually led towards disasters, pandemics, and mutations among our species.
These occurrences are exactly what Intentional genetic modification intend
to fix. This would be the next step in the evolution of the Homo sapiens
species. We are at a point now where we have made a technology that is
capable of editing the human germline (citation covering the development of
CRISPR). The hereditary diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Tay Sachs disease,
Breast and Colon Cancer, and Sickle Cell Disease could become terms that
the future generations learn about in history books. Rather than having to
learn about them first hand through the pain, misery, and suffering that they
cause. (Cargill, 2011).
Here it was: a technical proposal to alter human heredity. Germ line
is biologists jargon for the egg and sperm, which combine to form an
embryo. By editing the DNA of these cells or the embryo itself, it could
be possible to correct disease genes and pass those genetic fixes on to
future generations. Such a technology could be used to rid families of
scourges like cystic fibrosis. It might also be possible to install genes
that offer lifelong protection against infection, Alzheimers, and, Yang
told me, maybe the effects of aging. Such history-making medical

advances could be as important to this century as vaccines were to the

last. (Regalado, 2012)
Medical and Scientific advances in genetic engineering could bring about an
age where we do not have hereditary diseases at all. Every parent would be
assured that their child would be born a healthy and capable human being.
A new report estimates that eight million children each year are born
with serious disorders caused at least partly by their genes. That is about six
percent of all births worldwide. (Ember 2006). Six percent about the world
does not sound like a lot, but six percent of 7.125 billion is still 427.5 million
people. With that being said hereditary diseases are a huge problem.
Germline modification has the potential to save millions of lives and to
change the face of medicine. This method would not treat their diseases but
would eradicate it from their entire bloodline. Every generation going forward
would no longer have to worry about that disease popping up a couple
generations later.
There are many sides of the Earths human population that opposes
genetic engineering in the species, Homo sapiens. Among these opposing
points of view the most prominent are that we shouldnt change the genetic
codes of any species on Earth. Some even say that genetic engineering is
playing god and that life is too precious to do so. Jeremy Rifkin, who is very
outspoken on this matter claims, That it violates the inherent "dignity" of
humans and other life-forms to alter their DNA under any circumstances.
(David 2009). All of these arguments sound like they are well based, but they

are not verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure

logic.
Granted, there are those who would claim that genetic engineering
constitutes a misuse of our free will. Of course, determining what
constitutes a misuse of our free will in defiance of divine directives
depends on interpretation of those supposed divine directives. This is a
problem with all moral theories premised on God's commands: what
anyone believes to be commanded always depends on some human's
interpretation of those commands. "Defying God's will" always means
defying some person's interpretation of God's will. The difficulty of
discerning a deity's wishes in the context of genetic engineering is
compounded by the fact that none of the major religions' sacred
writings speak to this issue. The Bible, for example, is silent on
recombinant DNA. Furthermore, those who suggest that genetic
engineering violates God's will must also view selective breeding of
agricultural products, both plants and animals, as similarly contrary to
God's will. If they do not view selective breeding as violating life's
sacredness, then they must explain how it is qualitatively different
from genetic engineering, which is in many ways only a quantitative or
methodologically distinct process. The speed and predictability of the
changes brought about by genetic engineering do surpass the speed
and predictability of changes accomplished by selective breeding
techniques, but that seems a poor argument for saying the former is

contrary to God's will, while the latter is acceptable. Is it God's will that
modifying nature is acceptable, but only provided we proceed slowly
and haphazardly? (David 2009).
The exert above depicts a very real and factual flaw to the argument that it
is against their creators will to change any species DNA via genetic
engineering. Selective breeding is defined as The process by which humans
use animal breeding and plantbreeding to selectively develop particular
phenotypic traits (characteristics) by choosing which typically animal or plant
males and females will sexually reproduce and have offspring together.
(Definition of Selective Breeding 2016). While genetic engineering is defined
as The deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by
manipulating its genetic material. (Definition of Genetic Engineering (2005).
These are both scientifically proven ways to change or get the characteristics
to one that benefits humanity as a whole. These methods are both aimed
toward the same goal, thus fall under the same category. To say one way is
wrong but the other is right is the same as saying one plus one equals two is
correct; while zero plus two equals two is wrong. It simply does not equate.
The argument that they are trying to prove is no longer whether or not
genetic engineering is wrong or right, it has now become a debate on
whether there is any substantial or factual difference between selective
breeding and genetic engineering. The argument has become flawed and is
not factually backed by proven experiments, experience, physics, or even
reason for that matter. Even without taking the previous statement into

account when an individual states that something in the genetic engineering

field is defying Gods will, the individual(s) is (or are) saying that it is
defying their interpretation of Gods will. This is an unstable statement
based off of an individuals perception rather than facts that have been
backed and proven time and time again by a community of different people
from various cultural backgrounds with higher levels of education directed
towards the matter that they are proving or disproving.
All in all, the main arguments opposing genetic engineering are not
backed by factually sound information. Germline modification is a method of
genetic engineering that holds real promise in the medical and scientific
field. The possibilities and accomplishments that have been stumbled upon
are just the beginning of a field of study that could bring about an era of
human life that does not know disease or sickness.

Works Cited

Antonio Regalado, 2012, Engineering The Perfect Baby retrieved from:

http://tinyurl.com/hkg53dj on April 13, 2016
L. A. Cargill, 2011 ,Top Ten Worst Genetic Diseases retrieved from:
http://tinyurl.com/gu9v76q on April 13, 2016
Russel Powel and Allen Buchanan, 2011, Breaking Evolutions Chains: The
Prospect of Deliberate Genetic Modification in Humans retrieved from:
http://tinyurl.com/hu6w79o on April 13, 2016
Food Program, Genetic Engineering retrieved from:
http://tinyurl.com/kkqveru on April 15, 2016
Steve Ember, 2006, Report Says Six Percent of Babies Are Born with Genetic
Disorders retrieved from http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/a23-2006-02-05-voa2-83128007/125493.html on April 14, 2016
Food Program, (2016) Genetic Engineering retrieved from
http://www.sustainabletable.org/264/genetic-engineering on April 14,
2016
Definition of Germline (2016) retrieved from:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13539 on
April 14, 2016
Definition of Gene (2016) retrieved from:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gene on April 14, 2016
Definition of Engineer (2016) retrieved from:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chromeinstant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%20engineer on April 14,
2016
Definition of Nucleotide (2002) retrieved from
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nucleotide on April 15, 2016
Definition of Genetic Engineering (2005) retrieved from:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/genetic-engineering on April 15,
2016
Definition of Germline Modification (2016) retrieved from:
http://ieet.org/index.php/tpwiki/germline_genetic_modification on April
15, 2016

Definition of DNA (2005) retrieved from:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dna on April 15, 2016
Kent, David J. Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity - Sterling Publishing, 2013.
Annan, Kofi (2016) Retrieved from:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/k/kofiannan389917.html?
src=t_knowledge_is_power on April 15, 2016
Definition of Selective Breeding (2016), retrieved from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding on April 21, 2016
Koepsell, David (2009), Genetic Engineering is Not Unethical retrieved from:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetail
sWindow?
displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=2&catId=&docu
mentId=GALE
%7CEJ3010138271&userGroupName=jchs_ca&jsid=0670ecbf10986d0
198ff6f8c201a2f0a on April 21, 2016