The Pros and Cons ofGenetic EngineeringYin Ren What if, by simply taking a pill containing new hormones, you could possess advanced athletic powers and runlike an Olympic athlete? What if, by injecting yourself with stem cells and altering your genetic makeup, youcould have the baby of your dreams? Would you do it? If you and others did, what would our society become?Is this science fiction? Think again. During the last few decades, research in genetic engineering has been advancing at lightningspeeds. Recent breakthroughs have presented us with unforeseen promises, yet at the same time with complex predicaments.The promises of genetically modifying humans to improve their well being and to treat debilitating illnesses are becominga reality. However, our newfound knowledge in genetics may also enable us to engineer our own genetic blueprints—toenhance our muscles, height, and intelligence, to choose the sex, haircolor, and even personality of our children, and to create super humansthat seem perfect. The ethical predicaments surrounding genetic engineeringare vast, complex, and profound.Despite the enormous amount of progress in the field, our moralunderstanding and awareness is still limited in scope. Our ethical vocabularydoes not provide us with adequate tools to address the problemsposed by advances in genetics. As science outpaces moral understanding,scientists and ethicists do not communicate sufficiently and struggle toarticulate their concerns. Proponents argue that genetic engineering cancure more diseases, from cystic fibrosis to spina bifida, than other methodsof therapy. Screening embryos for predispositions and risks in geneticdiseases is also possible. Advocates of genetic engineering argue that thiswould enable parents to avoid the emotional hardships and economicburdens that accompany the birth of a child with an incurable disease. Asthe new technology becomes more widely available, new and better geneswill be passed onto others. The social gap between the naturally endowedand everyone else, between those who can afford the technology andthose who cannot, will ultimately narrow and disappear—creating a newage of human beings who are happier, smarter, and healthier.However, some critics and ethicists disagree. They mention thetremendous human safety risks, and argue that one cannot prevent themisuse of the technology for non-medical purposes, such as enhancingone’s athletic performance. Altering a baby’s genetic traits and manipulatingour own nature, in this view, demeans the uniqueness of each individualand thus undermines our humanity. Ethicists contend that genetic engineering devalues the meaning of parenthood,

where children become merely consumer goods and properties of their parents. Moreover, opponents argue that advances ingenetics are not fuelled by justifiable societal needs, but by novel biomedical opportunities. Those who can pay for the new technologywill make themselves “better than well,” widening the existing social gap between them and those who cannot afford it.No one knows for sure what the social consequences are if we play our own “God.”28 MURJ Volume 12, Spring 2005 FeaturesFigure 1. ANDi. The first genetically engineered monkey.Should we allow humans the choice of being geneticallymodified? Should parents have the right to design and altertheir children at will? Should current research in humangenomics be banned completely? What other options are available?Ultimately, who finally decides on these matters? Thispaper will examine several key issues surrounding “designerbabies” and genetic engineering technologies.BackgroundIn 1976, the first successful genetic manipulation tookplace on mice, in efforts to produce more accurate diseasemodels and test subjects. These mice were modified at thegermline stage: that is, permanent genetic changes wereinduced by transplanting new genes into the mouse’s embryo.The real breakthrough happened twenty five years later—onJanuary 11, 2001, when scientists in Oregon unveiled ANDi, ababy rhesus monkey carrying a new jellyfish gene in hisgenome.1 The birth of a genetically modified primate, one of theclosest relatives to mankind, heralded the arrival of a new erain human genetic research. One month later, scientistsannounced in Nature the completion of sequencing, or mapping,of over 97% of the entire human genome, roughly fiveyears ahead of schedule.2 This represented a crucial step in ourmarch toward fully understanding human disease. Equippedwith the new “dictionary” of the human genome, all we have todo is to learn how to use and modify it at our will.In early 2003, New Jersey fertility doctor Jacques Cohenreported the first modification in the human genome.According to Cohen, his pioneering infertility treatments producedtwo babies with DNA from two different mothers, which“represented the first case of human germline genetic modificationresulting in normally healthy children.”3 Although suchchanges in the genetic makeup were miniscule, their implicationswere symbolically profound. Arthur Caplan, director ofthe Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania,called it “an ethically momentous shift.”4

As the face of science is being permanently altered by suchchanges, so is our moral understanding and awareness. Whenthe words “gene therapy” first entered our daily vocabulary,most Americans applauded its novelty, ingenuity, and potentialfor medical research. However, as one realizes the deep socialand ethical consequences, the concept of “super humans” scarethem. The possibility of creating a new breed of humans with“better genes” is not something that the public has prepared for.Hundreds of citizens rallied across the country, hailing for ahalt in human cloning research. A Time/CNN poll found thatover ninety percent of Americans were against creating “geneticallysuperior human beings.”5Muscle EnhancementOn a more moderate level, gene therapy has been used therapeuticallyin many aspects of human medicine. Over the lastdecade, the world has seen tremendous progress in the field ofmuscle repair and improvement using gene therapy. Aside frompatients with muscular dystrophy due to malfunctions in theimmune system, muscle cells deteriorate as a result of old age,lack of daily physical activities, or chronic illnesses that limitone’s movements. Traditional methods, such as rigorous physicaltherapy, are not feasible for people of all ages. Most currentdrugs contain large doses of steroids to stimulate cell growth,but these drugs are not specific to muscle cells and excess hormonelevels can lead to undesired side effects such as heartdisease. A gene therapy to alleviate muscular dystrophy, oreven reverse the inevitable and debilitating muscle loss due toold age, would be welcomed. Professor H. Lee Sweeney of theUniversity of Pennsylvania developed a synthetic gene that,when injected into the muscles of mice, prevents and reversesthe natural deterioration of muscle cells.6 More recently inAugust 2004, scientists in California announced the birth of“Marathon Mice,” a new breed of genetically-modified mice thatgained muscles and endurance without any exercise, and neverbecame obese.7 Although the therapy is not yet approved forhuman use, the vision of curing muscular dystrophy is not toofar away.However, such therapy does not come without ethical implications.Based on scientific reports on the current status ofFeatures Yin Ren Volume 12, Spring 2005 MURJ 29Figure 2. Marathon Mice. Researchers in San Francisco unveiled a type of genetically engineeredmice that can run farther and longer, bringing the “genetic doping” of elite athletes a small step closer

to reality.Featuresgenetic enhancement of muscles, there are tremendous humansafety risks. The track record for mammalian experimentsshowed that the medical risks are formidable and even dire insome cases. Most test subjects did not survive due to immuneresponses to the injected foreign gene. The therapy fails tomeet the rigors of human safety, efficacy, and protection.Suppose, for the sake of argument, that these health riskscan be eliminated after improving the procedure. But what ifwe use the medical technology for non-medical ends, such as toimprove athletic performance? The widespread use of steroidsin the doping scandals during the Olympics suggests that manyathletes are eager to try out genetic muscle enhancement.Imagine runners sprinting through a mile in less than threeminutes without breaking a sweat. What is really disturbinghere? It is one thing to achieve athletic perfection throughyears of training, but it is quite another to perform such a featbecause of newly enhanced super muscles. Genetic engineeringprovides those with an unfair competitive advantage overthe un-enhanced—it diminishes the essential values of fairnessand competition. Our admiration of pure athleticism—theculmination of talent, discipline, and effort, shifts from the athletesthemselves to the lab scientists and doctors who wrotetheir prescriptions.Designer BabiesOne of the predicted central uses of genetic engineering isto customize our babies according to our will. One method,known as Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), givesprospective parents the ability to screen and select for specificgenetic traits in their children.8 Due to technical limitations onthe number of tests that could be performed on an embryo andthe complexity of the relationship between single genes andphysical characteristics, the number of traits that could betested is severely limited. Nevertheless, several applications ofthis technology have been especially effective in screening forsevere medical conditions. One can detect potential geneticpredispositions for Down syndrome and Huntington’s diseaseby analyzing cells containing the embryo’s genetic information,even before pregnancy begins. This prevents women from havingto decide whether to abort an abnormal fetus, and eliminatesthe deep grief and economic difficulties that many familiesare forced to cope with.In the future, the new technologies may offer parents the

possibility to “enhance” their children. As more and more genesare discovered to be associated with specific functions, parentscould potentially examine the genetic makeup of their fetuses,and modify them by inducing changes in their embryonic stemcells. This could enhance a child’s mental and physical abilities,from being taller to having the potential to master musicand chess. Most parents simply want their children to be thebest they could be. With new genetics, their dreams may finallybe realized. Lee Silver, a professor of molecular biology andpublic affairs at Princeton called this “no different than givingyour child advantages like piano lessons or private school.”9From a child’s point of view, the genetic enhancementsimposed upon him or her by parents may pose a threat to freedomof action. Whether the child succeeds in life is not whollydetermined by his or her own efforts, but rather from parentaldecisions made prior to birth. The child might no longer acceptresponsibility for the things they do. As a parent, to acknowledgethe unique qualities and the giftedness of life is to accepttheir children as they are. For many, the sense of achievementof being parents lies in the success of their kids, through thecombined effort of a child’s own endeavors and the transforminglove of the parent. However, with life-enhancing procedures,opponents speculate that parents may not look upontheir children as something they are obligated to nurture andcare for, but as mere consumer objects with a particular expec-Figure 3. A genetically engineered mouse runs on a treadmill at the Salk Institute forBiological Studies in San Diego, CA.Figure 4. Marathon Mice running on treadmill (copyright LennyIgnelzi/AP). A mouse runs on a treadmill at the Salk Institute forBiological Studies in San Diego, Calif, after undergoing gene manipulationto boost its endurance and prevent weight gain.30 MURJ Volume 12, Spring 2005 Yin Rentation made even before the child is born. Leon Kass, abioethics professor at the University of Chicago and Chairmanof the President’s Council on Bioethics, commented that “Toreally produce the optimum baby, you’d have to turn procreationinto manufacturing, which would degrade parenthood.”10There are many social ramifications of manipulating achild’s genetic makeup. According to Kass, “It’s naive to thinkthat you can go in there with the traits that deal with higherhuman powers…without [causing] real changes in otherareas.” The ripple effects of adding a new gene are unknown.What would our society become if the next generation can liveup to 120 years? There would be a population crisis, the

impacts of which would be felt everywhere, but especiallyseverely in developing countries where food and housing arescarce. As science outpaces social development, the complicationsof elderly care also arise. Improvements in medical technologiesdemand higher costs, and as people live longer, heathcare costs would skyrocket.A New SocietyThe ultimate consequence, as proponents of gene therapypredict, is the narrowing of divisions currently in place in oursociety: from social, to ethical, to economical. Many socialdivides exist simply because some of us are genetically betterendowed than others, and are doing jobs with better compensation.Some children are born with better athletic prowess,quicker mathematical minds, and more acute visual sensesthan others. As a result, those lacking the genes will be at a disadvantage.One reason for the division between professionalathletes and everyone else is their natural talents in sports: anaverage adult who trains and works harder than MichaelJordan will not receive greater acclaim or a larger contract.With the new technology, however, the boundaries betweendifferent classes—be they social, economical, or personal—will blur as time progresses. Proponents of genetic engineeringargue that the technologies may be expensive initially, but justlike all other important technologies such as telephones andcomputers, they will not be out of reach for long. As the techniquesbecome widely available, enhanced genes will becomemore ubiquitous through new therapy and traditional means,and genetic gaps will close as a result.But critics adopt the opposite view: genetic engineering,they say, would not only deepen existing class divisions, butalso create new ones. Unlike other ubiquitous technologiessuch as refrigerators and televisions, the benefits of gene therapywill be out of reach for most. Many people will refuse toaccept gene therapy even if the enhancements are made free,due to religious and other personal reasons. Others cautionthat it may take longer than usual before the technologybecomes widely available, due to high cost and lack of efficacy.Therefore, the economic gap between those who can afford thistechnology and those who cannot will only deepen in themeantime.Looking into the future, our new society may start to resemblethose dreaded worlds from the science fiction novels. Aworld fully divided between the ruling alphas and drone-likegammas, just like what Aldous Huxley described in his haunting

1932 novel Brave New World. Genetic engineering may lead