Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Myryka Arviso-Yazza
Erin Rogers
Writing 2010
25 April 2017
When it comes to genetic engineering, one of the most debated topics is whether or
not to genetically modify human babies. This can be done through manipulation of female
or male gametes or genetic modification of an embryo. With all of the potential risks, many
scientists would agree that there is an urgency to establish ethical guidelines when applying
this technology. In 2015, after the first human embryo was genetically modified in China,
precise and time efficient. Genetic modification of the human germline is currently banned
in the United States under the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2016. This ban has come
into place with regards to the long term effects that it could have on generations of people,
due to the manipulation of germ cells which would be passed down to offspring.
Considering the possible associated risks and the lack of acquired knowledge,
concerns are justifiable, however an outright ban is unnecessary and does more harm than
good. Placing a ban on genetic engineering human embryos halts scientific innovations that
could eradicate diseases and allows for the continued suffering of diseased individuals. A
ban would only make gene editing more dangerous as it would prevent accountability to
ethical guidelines. It doesnt take into account the immense benefits germline editing can
Arviso-Yazza 2
have on humanity, which greatly outweigh the associated risks. And while lack of consent
Genetic engineering has vast potential to improve the quality of life for all of
humanity by completely eradicating inherited diseases and to not take advantage of this
would be immoral. One of the ambitions that has always been sought out by the human
race is finding the ultimate cure to disease, and here it is. Although the method is far from
perfect, genetic engineering could be the solution we have been searching for. In the words
Biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University, genome editing is here, and it has tremendous
potential to cure diseases and reduce human suffering (Salzberg). Many others share this
University of Economics and Environment stated: editing can be used to correct both
germline and somatic mutations. Not only the embryo but also the human adult could be
edited somatically to cure a disease (Anton). This technology is incredibly powerful and to
ignore it would be to ignore the answer to one of the biggest problems facing the human
race.
The longer that this technology remains out of reach, more people will continue
suffer. For instance consider mitochondrial diseases, which are caused by genetic mutations
in mitochondrial DNA. According the the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, 1,000
to 4,000 children in the United states are born with a mitochondrial disease each year and
that isnt even including all of the individuals who are misdiagnosed each year (United
bioethics professor Glenn Cohen and Brown University biologist Eli Adashi, this
congressionally legislated ban... affect[s] ongoing efforts of the FDA [Food and Drug
modification (Cohen and Adashi). Gene editing would allow scientists to fix mutations in
mitochondrial DNA and ultimately prevent these mutations from being inherited. The ban
mitochondrial disease and is allowing thousands of people to continue suffering. People are
dying and will continue to die because the technology that could save them is being put out
of reach. To halt advancements in genetic editing is the same as denying these individuals
the cure to their suffering, and this is immoral. It is the obligation of the United States to
ensure the health of its citizens and the way to do this is to allow research on genetic
Legalization of the practice would also allow for accountability to ethical guidelines
exploration is bound to happen even if it goes against restrictions set in place. Scientist such
have expressed their concerns for the developing technology pertaining to genetic
engineering:
CRISPR/Cas9 is known for its ease of use and Lanphier fears that more scientists
will now start to work towards improving on Huang's [the lead scientist responsible
for the first genetically engineered human embryo] paper. The ubiquitous access to
any part of the world to do any kind of experiments they want. (Cyranoski and
Reardon).
Once a technology is invented, no matter how controversial, there will always be someone
trying to exploit it. Even against huge ethical concern, scientist in China still went through
with experimentation on human embryos and there were at least four other groups in
China that began to pursue genetic modification of human embryos, even after the backlash
towards the experiments conducted at Sun Yat-sen University (Cyranoski and Reardon).
Along with this, according to Antonio Regalado, a writer for MIT Technology Review, a
least one U.S. genetics center is also using CRISPR in abnormal embryos rejected by IVF
clinics (Regalado). This experimentation is being done in secrecy, which is quite terrifying
However, if limitations were lifted on gene editing, then at least such research would be
held accountable and be open to public dispute. In an article written for Scientific American
titled Why Embryos Should Not Be Off-Limits, it is states that: in the U.S., we wish basic
work on the germ line could be carried out with federal funding because it would provide
more resources and greater transparency (Why Embryos Should Not Be Off-Limits). With
public funding, scientists could research the technology more and would be able to work
towards the eventual goal of genetically engineering the first baby under the safest
conditions possible. If research in this area was federally funded, then there would be an
opportunity for public discourse and legitimate ethical standards put in place. Prohibition
on scientific advancement will never work, it has only lead to experiments done in secrecy
Arviso-Yazza 5
which is both unethical and dangerous. This research is going to be conducted either way
and legalization of the practice is the only way to ensure that it conducted responsibly.
The biggest argument going against genetic engineering human embryos is all of the
risks that are imposed on the embryo if it is implanted into a uterus to develop into a baby.
While risks are incredibly important to consider, they should not be the main reason people
do not take advantage of technology because risks have been present for every single
medical advancement ever made. For example, look at the development of vaccines which
have been attributed to preventing diseases and saving millions of lives. Before the
invention of modern vaccines, existed the practice of inoculation. Individuals were exposed
to materials taken from a patient who was infected with the smallpox virus and received the
was not without its attendant risks. There were concerns that recipients might develop
syphilis, via the bloodborne route was also of concern (Riedel). The risks associated with
inoculation were huge, but the continued application of the technology, regardless of its
hazares had great benefits. This lead to years of scientific advancements and the
development of vaccines, responsible for the eradication of smallpox and other diseases.
Scientific development is worth the risk, especially if it has the potential to save millions of
lives. Vaccines have been a huge medical success and genetic engineering could be another
It all comes down to a risk-benefit analysis and when comparing the possible risks
and benefits associated with germline editing, genetic modification of human embryos
should be allowed. In Germline Manipulation and our Future World, John Harris, the
Director of the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation at the University of Manchester
argues that the benefits of germline modification outweigh the potential risks:
If the appropriate gold standard test for permissible risk of harm to future
sexual reproduction, that is) would need to demonstrate severe foreseeable dangers
to fail. MRT will prevent serious mitochondrial disease and the suffering it causes for
women with mitochondrial disease, their own children, and countless future
generations. This looks like a reasonable cost benefit strategy to attempt. (Harris).
According to Harris, even just sexual reproduction poses a huge risk on conceived
beings. Regarding associated risks, there really is no difference between natural conception
and genetic modification of humans and thus genetically engineering human embryos
should be permissible. The presence of risks have never stopped the advancement of the
Another contributor to the argument for the ban is that the risks are imposed
without the consent of the individual they are inflicted on. Another valid concern, but still
not a reason that should prevent a future of genetically modified human embryos. A
statement made by Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health,
explaining as to why NHI will not provide funding for genetic engineering human embryos
Arviso-Yazza 7
discusses the serious and unquantifiable safety issues, ethical issues presented by altering
the germline in a way that affects the next generation without their consent (Collins). The
idea that Collins presents suggests that because there is lack of consent from individuals
this just simply doesnt make sense, as stated by Harris : it is irrelevant for the reason
that there are no relevant people in existence capable of either giving or withholding
consent to these sorts of changes in their own germline (Harris). People just arent capable
of giving consent if they do not exist, it is that simple. Future generations may be affect
without them ever having a say, but this is applicable for virtually everything. The future
cannot have a say on itself, it just isnt possible. There is no moral failing when it comes to
giving consent. Instead, consent must come from the parents, and only after public
Genetic modification of human embryos has endless potential that should not be
ignored. A ban on such a technology would prevent advancement toward the cure to
disease and ensures the continued suffering of countless individuals. It would also be
regard to ethical guidelines and public discourse. Germline editing possesses countless
possible benefits that greatly outweigh the risks and should be taken advantage of, not
denied.
Arviso-Yazza 8
Works Cited
Anton, Roman. "On Recent Advances in Human Engineering." Politics & the Life Sciences,
Cohen, Glenn., and Adashi, Eli. "The FDA Is Prohibited from Going Germline." Science, vol.
Cyranoski, David., and Reardon, Sara. Chinese scientists genetically modify human
http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos
https://www.umdf.org/faq-page-1.
Harris, John. "Germline Manipulation and Our Future Worlds." American Journal of
Bioethics, vol. 15, no. 12, Dec. 2015, pp. 30-34. EBSCOhost,
Arviso-Yazza 9
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/536971/chinese-team-reports-gene-editing-huma
n-embryos/.
Riedel, Stefan. Edward Jenner and the history of smallpox and vaccination. NCBI,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC.
Salzberg, Steven. "Ready or Not, Human Bioenhancement Is Coming." Genewatch, vol. 28,
no.
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=116224091&site=ehost-live.
"Why Embryos Should Not Be Off-Limits." Scientific American, vol. 313, no. 1, July 2015, p.
10.
EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=103166938&site=eho
st-live.