Genetic engineering has made significant strides in the treatment of different diseases. Technologies that are employed in genetics have been growing in efficacy in the recent years, and they hold promise in the treatment of diseases proved difficult to treat in the past few decades (Bess 56). In addition, these technologies have opened new avenues in which people can make advancements to their bodies and minds. However, in the wake of genetic engineering, there are a number of problems that are cropping up. One of the most significant challenges is perfection. Because of the great promise that genetic engineering holds, some have thought that it will help them make anything they wish about their bodies and looks perfect. Different people have been caught in the perfection dream, and this is a worrying trend. This paper evaluates the benefits of genetic engineering, as well as the setbacks associated with it, particularly the perfection menace.
In the second shift, this challenge was addressed as scientists discovered how nature was affected by nurture (Bess 57). In other words, the effect of the environment on genetic makeup and who people are was explored, and an association was struck between the two. Researchers have been able to highlight that genes and the environment are working in tandem; they are constantly affecting each other, and this association has an effect bot at the genetic and phenotypic levels.
The third and final shift, which is perhaps the most significant, is the shift from genetics to genomics. In this era, the genes of different things can be computed and analyzed, and manipulated in order to trigger a desired effect (Bess 58). This is where the challenge of perception is stemming from. The third shift from genetics to genomics is the root cause of the perfection menace. People tend to think that since the genes of almost every attribute are known, and effort can be made to alter them to suit a particular need. In as much as this is a representation of genetic engineering, there is a shift from treatment to perfection, and this shift seems to be forgetting the original goal of genetic engineering.
Initially, when scientists finally cracked the code of identifying the genes that are responsible for certain diseases, there was optimism in the air because troublesome diseases could now be treated. There are numerous genetic solutions that have been realized because of genetic engineering. Decent and effective therapies and vaccines have been developed and thus has made the treatment of different diseases a lot easier than before. In this endeavor, there are many genetic studies that are being conducted with the aim of casting more light on the biochemistry of genetic disorders. In the past for instance, Down syndrome was nit treatable, but thanks to genetic engineering, kids born with this syndrome can now lead normal lives (Keiper 1). Such research will see the elimination of single-gene disorders, provide better treatment for heart disease and cancer, provide solutions to aging, and boost physical abnormalities.
However, there is a shift in the air that is not concerned with the treatment of disease but rather perfecting the attributes of a person. These efforts are now being directed towards altering the social and cognitive functioning of people. What is being observed nowadays is a gradual shift from therapeutic advancement to a rubric of enhancements.
As people grow up, they come realize their innate talents, strengths, and weaknesses. At this level, the control one has on these phenomena is narrow. For example, now one ever chooses to be made a mentally deficient or less competent manner, but the ability to be smart or not smart, intelligent or not intelligent is at times shaped by society, and it is beyond the control of us humans. These efforts are causing five major concerns.
Firstly, the challenge of access is cropping up. If genetic technologies that induce perfection can be engineered, who will regulate them? There are fears that they could face the challenges of inequality that other healthcare systems are facing (Bess 62). The vice of haves and have not is likely to take center stage where those who are in need of those technologies cannot access them because they have no economic power to do so. Secondly, the challenge of prejudice is likely to occur. People whose traits are highly sought will start to look down upon those seeking their traits thus causing chaos in the society. The fight for superiority and fame is likely to dominate should we reach such a stage. Thirdly, trends towards conformity are likely to occur. In other words, the regulation of those technologies at the national and individual levels will be problematic. To what extent will the government or individual have with respect to the ownership or sharing of those genetically engineered traits. Fourthly, the commodification challenge is likely to crop up. According to Bess, there are fears that people’s traits could be commodified, and this will undermine the humanity (65). The final challenge that Bess highlights is the unsettling of bio-social relationships. Here a scenario whereby two spouses sit down to draft the traits that they want their offspring to have. This is a ridiculous scenario because it is affecting the biological and social norms that have been established by nature.
In this discussion, is evident that genetical engineering is useful in a number of ways, particularly in the advancement of treatment of different genetic diseases. It has opened up new avenues and alternatives in medicine and science, which have added value to the management of patients at large. In light of this, genetic engineering is a significant scientific invention but must, however, be used in an informed manner. Those who are scrambling for perception at the expense of genetic engineering must put on their logical reasoning caps. Bless has highlighted a number of challenges that are likely to emerge should people continue to pursue the perfection dreams. In this case, this paper is supporting the use of genetic engineering to champion treatment goals only and not perfections. It is evident that should the perception dreams continue to be pursued, there ethical, moral, and legal challenges that champions of perfectionism will face in the future, and it would be easier and better to avoid them as early as possible. The downside of perfection through genetic engineering has been discussed by other scholars who oppose the pursuit of perfectionism.
The colorful and attractive promises of genetic engineering as a method of organism perfection, as commonly fronted by pro-perfectionists do not overshadow the disadvantages of the practice. Some disadvantages have the potential of creating problems to the whole world. Cloning of organisms is one aspect that provides an insight into the negative effect of exploiting genetic engineering to perfect the characteristics of organisms. The ethical concerns linked to cloning provide the main challenge. Maureen Junker-Kelly argues that, the biggest source of opposition to the use of cloning that bases on ethics is the religious movement. Christianity, she says, is one of the oldest perfectionist religious groups that is staunch in opposing cloning. From her perspective, this is hypocritical, keeping in mind that the religion has vouched for the perfection of the human. This perfection is geared towards a faultless relationship with the maker. This can be achieved by adhering to the values, virtues and rules put in place. However, the same religion that has found perfection as the only path for adherents to take, vehemently opposes perfection, especially when it comes in other forms from different quarters, notably, the biosciences (Sandel 1). However, Maureen ignores the fact that while perfection from religious and society’s ethical perspective is behavioral and social, genetic engineering seek to alter the basic physical structure of the organism as opposed to nature. This exposes society and the world at large to physical risks, some of which are known, others unknown. This is due to the nature of the practice, which is still constantly under research.
The current level of familiarity with research and knowledge that is available on cloning renders it highly precarious. The uncertainties that are concomitant with the current stage of the technology of cloning are a problem to everyone. The possibility of unexpected biological damages and mutations cannot be ruled out. A perfect example is where cloned animals are born with weak or underdeveloped lungs or other organs, which ultimately leads to organ failure. Dolly the cloned sheep, for instance, died prematurely as compared to the parent used in the cloning procedure. This can be ascribed to the process by which dolly came to exist. A number of abnormalities and mutations have resulted in a number of cloned animals dying. The stage of cloning as a unit of genetic engineering is not advanced enough to conduct perfection of species. It may instead result in detrimental results, putting the other organisms at risk that were not cloned at risks, besides rendering the cloned ones problematic.
Perfection through the design of people will reduce or eliminate diversity and individuality as a natural feature that defines organisms in society. This brings us back to the issue of money. Considering the ever-increasing difference between the haves and have-nots, the technology will only be affordable to the rich. This means that only the rich will be able to exploit the advantages that accompany the technology. The social distinction between the rich and poor will be increased. This will ultimately lead to more severe discrimination of the poor. With genetic engineering, those who can afford the procedures could be able to access physical attractiveness, intelligence and perfected health. Those who cannot afford could be pushed to being the least attractive, least intelligent and least healthy in society. This tilts the fairness in society and renders a larger section susceptible to discrimination and unhappiness. This in turn is a recipe for a broken society.
Another area that the pro-perfectionists have identified a potential beneficiary of Genetic engineering is agriculture. The quantity and quality of agricultural outputs, supported by genetic engineering has been fronted to be of potentially better. However, a careful scrutiny of how genetic engineering interfaces with the agricultural sector has to be done. This is to ensure that the main source of animal and human food is not subjected to an unclear future. We, therefore, look at the disadvantages of the use of genetic engineering in agriculture. This entails transgenic animal and plants. The application of genetic engineering in agriculture has to be monitored carefully because it is a catalyst for irreversible and negative impacts on the environment. This is because, for the use of the technology to succeed, major alterations to the variables that constitute plant or organism life have to be made. These alterations affect virtually all aspects of plant life, which directly upsets the natural balance of environmental settings to suit genetically modified organisms. The release of mutant organisms to the general environment is also another hazard that accompanies the technology. The utilization of this technology also eliminates the right of choice on how the plant is to be grown and produced by the farm owner, which directly affects the consumer and producer (farmer) rights. This technology also exposes human health to unknown and unacceptable threats (Sandel 5).
Genetically altered plants can produce unexpected allergens and toxins. Gene transfer between bacteria and transgenic plants may result in irreversible ecological problems in case it occurs. The probability of the occurrence is high. This is mainly because the DNA that is emitted from dead and living dead cells stays in the environment for a while. They are then transferred to organisms through animal droppings or through offspring. In addition, it has been found that the nutrients that are injected into cows to elevate the growth factor have a high propensity of increasing the chances of getting breast cancer. Once plants have been harvested, their remains are supposed to decay and mix in the soil. Certain gene insertions in plants for growth and productivity enhancement messes with this natural process and toxins resulting from the mixture of plant tissues and the inserted genes persist in the soil. This renders the future practice of agriculture on the land susceptible to imminent failure. The accrued toxins can poison organisms and insects that are required for soil fertilization. The crop nutritive value would therefore be adversely affected.
The amalgamation of virus genes into plants that are transgenic and animals that are mammals can merge with other viruses. This may result in new ailments or diseases. It will magnify the spread of genes that are resistant to antibiotics and drugs. A research by the Rowett Research Institute of the United Kingdom showed that rats that were fed genetically engineered potatoes exhibited abnormal development of organs and a gradual immune system weakening (Smith 182). All these factors indicate that while some advantages may be gained from genetic engineering, it is important to note that, a perfection of organisms is not the best way to utilize this technology (Smith 182).
Considerations have to be made about the unknown long-term effects of genetic engineering. This is due to the fact that current research only documents in detail the short term effects. Research, education and understanding the consequences of genetic engineering has to be sought before a step as bold as perfection with the aid of the technology is made. While the prospective constructive and economic values of practicing this technology in various domain of life are evident, a top priority should be made of the ethical and moral issues that regard to perfection of organisms using genetic engineering. Different regions of the world are at different infrastructural, scientific, research and general developmental levels. This technology will affect the whole world however. Therefore, care should be taken to avoid releasing an uncontrollable phenomenon that could get out of the control of the implementers.
In summary, this paper has examined treatment vs. perfection on the account of genetic engineering. Technologies that are employed in genetics have been growing in efficacy in the recent years, and they hold promise in the treatment of diseases proved difficult to treat in the past few decades. On top of that, these technologies have opened new avenues in which people can make advancements to their bodies and minds. In as much as there are positive outcomes of genetic engineering, there are a number of problems that are cropping up such as the desire for perfection. Because of the great promise that genetic engineering holds, some have thought that it will help them make anything they wish about their bodies and looks perfect. Different people have been caught in the perfection dream, and this is a worrying trend.
In essence, I support the notion that genetic engineering should only be used for advancement of treatment and not perfection. There are a number of challenges that are likely to emerge should people continue to pursue the perfection dreams. In essence, social and ethical issues will crop up and bring instability in the society. Firstly, legal issues will arise over the ownership of the rights of traits. Secondly, discrimination will rise because those whose traits are sought will look down upon the other people. Thirdly, the perfectionism efforts are likely to distort nature. It is unnatural for parents to sit down and start planning on how to acquire desired traits for their kids. The traits that someone has are dependent partly on nature and genes (nature and nurture). For that matter, this endeavor will appear to distort natural proceedings, and this would prove to be catastrophic. Fourthly, the commodification of the engineered products would bring chaos in the society because only those that have money would can afford those products. In this case, this paper is supporting the use of genetic engineering to champion treatment goals only and not perfections. It is evident that should the perception dreams continue to be pursued, there ethical, moral, and legal challenges that champions of perfectionism will face in the future, and it would be easier and better to avoid them as early as possible.
People should realize that science is good and can be used to make life better, but it cannot change nature. If the natural order of things is distorted, the repercussions are normally severe and irreparable. For instance, genetic engineering should not interfere with mate selection. Naturally, people meet under different circumstances, and become friends and later sexual partners. With perception, some will want science to make them more appealing so that they are the preferred candidates. Some of these practices have proved to be unhealthy and some have backfired causing serious health consequences. For that matter, this paper makes a strong argument that genetic engineering is good only when it is used to advance treatment. It must not be used to perfect organism because things are naturally controlled, and are not within the reach of science. When such a control is distorted in the name of perfection, the consequences are not only severe, but also irreparable.
It is paramount to make considerations about the unknown long-term effects of genetic engineering. At the moment, research only details the short term effects. For that matter, research, education and understanding the consequences of genetic engineering has to be sought prior to fully venturing into perfectionism. In as much as the endeavor is economically sound, a top priority should be made of the ethical and moral issues that regard to perfection of organisms using genetic engineering. Proponents of this idea must realize that not all parts of the world are at the same infrastructural, scientific, research and general developmental levels. Since, this technology will affect the whole world, care should be taken to avoid releasing an uncontrollable phenomenon that could get out of the control of the implementers.
Works Cited
Bess Michael. Blurring the Boundary Between “Person”and “Product”Human Genetic Technologiesthrough the Year 2060. The Hedgehog Review, pp. 56-68. Print.
Sandel, Michael. The Case Against Perfection What's wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering. Theatlantic.com 2015. Web. 28 April 2015.
Smith Mikey. A Social History of the Minor Tranquilizets: The Quest for small Comfort in an Age of Anxiety. New York: Praeger, 1988. Print.
