GENEthics and GENEconomics: Finding a Balance between the Good and Bad of Genetic Engineering Genetic Engineering: The

science or activity of changing the genetic structure of an animal, plant or other organism in order to make it stronger or more suitable for a particular purpose. -Collins COBUILD English Dictionary (1995 edn.) In the 1860s Gregor Mendel had made the groundbreaking discovery of genetic inheritance through his study of pea plants. By 1952, DNA was proved to be the carrier of genetic information of an organism (Hartl and Jones, 2006). In 1973, the first genetic modification and splicing procedure was a success (Wallman, 2008). Since then, the science of genetics and genetic engineering [GE] technology has rapidly advanced. Yet, from the 1970s to today, it is still a controversial field of science. On one hand GE can contradict moral and ethical values. Yet on the other hand, it can improve the lives of people and society. Here is a review of both sides to GE: The Good and the Bad 1. One of the most commonly known applications of GE is cloning. Richter (2003) believed that it is socially acceptable to utilise cloning to produce organs and tissues, which can be used to replace damaged ones in patients. He had also indirectly mentioned the potential of whole-organism cloning to produce workers for labour. However, Richter (2003) understands that using clones for labour is so blatantly unacceptable that no one would dare commit to do so. Hyry (2003) stated that whole-organism cloning is also dangerous, pointing to a study that shows the rapid expiration of mammal clone cells. He has also stated human clones will technically have little to rights, on the grounds they arent considered proper humans. Society opposes this, as implied by Richter. 2. Tucker (2008) mentioned of germ-line gene modification, where GE technology can be used on embryos to protect them against various hereditary diseases and disorders, like sickle cell anaemia. He has also stated that germ-line gene modification could be used to genetically enhance certain physical traits. Genetic enhancement to gain a superior edge is not only contradicting to the ethical idea of equality, but without proper consideration the process may back-fire (Tucker, 2008). Davis (1993) explained that genes that are not compatible enough can meet each other during genetic recombination and modification, creating far worse results. 3. GE can be used to increase plant resistance to herbicides, reducing maintenance time and labour. In the economical sense, this may also increase profits for herbicide companies. GE can also be utilised to make crops resistant to pests and diseases, but are not dangerous to humans. Both ways can increase yield. Besides this, plants can be genetically modified to be more robust or suit dietary or economic needs. Plants can be modified to live in harsher environments. Also, crops can be modified to be more nutritious, or have a higher produce yield to increase profits (Walgate, 1990). Walgate (1990) warned that herbicide resistance may cause a rise in herbicide use, of which, as stated by Wallman (2008), can result in land and water pollution. Also, there is a risk of gene transfer through crosspollination with weeds and other plants, potentially producing herbicide-resistant strains of weeds (Hughes, 2003). The same can be said with targeted pests when using pest-resistant crops: they can adapt and evolve to the resistance (Walgate). Both pest- and herbicide-resistant crops can also cause a disturbance in the areas biodiversity, affecting other organisms which may be of use to the crop or crop-grower (Hughes). Uzogara (as cited by Wallman, 2008, p. 67) states that plant modification could accidently cause an increase in plant toxin production, so crops used for consumption may become inedible. 4. GE can be used to create new vaccines. Walgate (1990) mentioned that the Vaccinia virus, the vaccine against smallpox, has been already engineered to work against several diseases in animals.

Yet, genetic modification of viruses and bacteria can be used to produce bio-weapons. Orent (2004) recalls an experiment run by the Soviet Union during the 1980s. The Vaccinia virus had been recombined with mammalian DNA. The infected host produced toxins that can lower an immune systems defence. Finding the Balance In the end, the debate on GE focuses on two things: ethics and economic gain. Hence, not only must we find a balance between its benefits and dangers, but it must balance with respect to these two aspects.

Certain genes that come together can produce poor (Hyry, 2003) or dangerous (Uzogara, as cited by Wallman, 2008, p. 67) results. This should not only apply for human germ-line gene modification, but for all genetic modification-related projects. Thus, great care must be always taken. Cloning organs should be unchanged, as society has not made any protest against it (Richter, 2003). Due to the ambiguity of the rights of human clones, it is best not to do whole-organism cloning for humans. Tucker (2008) suggests that for human genetic modification, it should only be done to reduce severe disadvantages in the person, such that those disadvantages may limit the life of the person. GE should not be used to gain physical superiority. GE of plants should be allowed to make sustainable crops that are beneficial for both society (in terms of nutrition and quality), and for companies (in terms of profit). Also, we should focus more on trying to increase crop quality without having to resort to herbicide- and pesticide- resistance. Here also must strict control be done to prevent cross-pollination, changes in the areas ecosystem and biodiversity, and the like. Strict regulation and control should be made when dealing with dangerous genes. Also, GE should only be for constructive, instead of destructive, purposes.

REFERENCE LIST Davis, B. (1993). Genetic engineering: The making of monsters?. Public Interest, Winter 1993(110), 63-76. Retrieved March 16, 2009, from World History Collection database. Hartl, D.L., &Jones, E.W. (2006). Essential genetics: a genomic perspective (4th edn.). Sadbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Hyry, M. (2003). Deeply felt disgust a Devlinian objection to cloning humans. . In B. Almond & M. Parker (Eds.) Ethical issues in the new genetics: Are genes us? (pp. 55-68). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company. Hughes, J. (2003). Genetically modified crops and the precautionary principle: Is there a case for a moratorium? In B. Almond & M. Parker (Eds.) Ethical issues in the new genetics: Are genes us? (pp. 143-152). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Orent, W. (2004). A most dangerous game. Natural History, 113(6), 38-43. Retrieved March 16, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database. Richter, D. (2003). The fear of playing God. In B. Almond & M. Parker (Eds.) Ethical issues in the new genetics: Are genes us? (pp. 47-54). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company. Tucker, P. (2008). Genetic ethics and superbabies. Futurist, 42(1), 18-19. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database. Walgate, R. (1990). Miracle or menace? Biotechnology and the Third World. London: Panos Publications Ltd. Wallman, E. (2008). Genetically modified foods and the pitfalls of the scientific method. Confluence: The Journal of Graduate Liberal Studies, 13(2), 64-73. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from Humanities International Complete database.