The Pros And Cons Of Human Genetic Engineering

Human Genetic Engineering: Is it justifiable? Frankenfoods, GMO, eugenics, designer babies; to some, these labels sound like the jargon of a dystopian science-fiction novel. However, these are all terms surrounding the burgeoning field of medical genetics. Few techniques have been met with such acclaim, and criticism, as the genetic modification of living organisms. Cancer fighting tomatoes, spider web-producing goats, and cloned replicants of extinct animals are all examples of real headlines that have emerged. As if the atmosphere surrounding plant and animal genetics was not harsh enough, the topic of human genetic engineering (HGE) is even more polarized. Opponents of HGE argue that it is unethical and immoral to pursue this medical innovation,

Dr. Adrienne Lerner, Professor of Law and Jurisprudence at the University of Florida, argues that halting further research would in itself be unethical (2012). With the opportunity to prevent children from being born with debilitating diseases, why should we not pursue this opportunity? Scientists can sometimes view ethics as inhibiting when it comes to scientific progress, but Carolyn Neuhaus and Arthur Caplan, of the NYU School of Medicine, argue that ethics may indeed be helpful, even necessary, for the furtherance of medical innovation (2017). They argue that bioethics allows the representation of multiple perspectives and opinions, and by doing so, advances discussion and may lead to a conclusion. An example of this was the 2017 International Summit on Human Gene Editing, which was a committee made up of over twenty countries. This committee, composed of scientists, ethicists, lawyers, politicians, and other prominent figures, had the goal of coming up with a recommendation for the field of HGE. The suggestion the committee agreed upon was that HGE is such a powerful tool that not pursuing further research would be contrary to the idea of public health (Mellilo, 2017). Dr. Christopher Gyngell, philosophy professor at the University of Oxford, argues that HGE could bridge the gap between induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS cells) and embryonic

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, was a central figure in the development of modern philosophy (Rohlf, 2010). Kant’s central dogma was that a person has a series of “duties” or moral obligations to fulfil, two of which being the perfection of one’s body and mind, and the promotion of happiness in others. Kantian ethics, according to Martin Gunderson, Professor of Philosophy at Macalester College, directly applies to HGE. Because of our duty to help both ourselves and others, philosophers find that Kantian philosophy supports the furtherance of HGE research (Gunderson, 2007; Akozer & Akozer, 2015). Kant also detailed limits that directly applies to the HGE field: 1) that HGE couldn’t be used to create superiority, or a competitive advantage, and 2) because of the risks involved, this tool must only be used to “attain health or further one's ability to act in accord with morally justified ends” (Gunderson, 2007). Because of this Another closely related philosophical justification is the idea of consequentialism. Consequentialism is a philosophical school of thought in which the consequences, or ends, justifies the means (Cummingsky, 1996). While Kant has more of a deontological perspective when it comes to a scientific question such as that posed by HGE, a consequentialist approach works well in tandem with Kantian ethics to justify the use of genetic modification. Kantian