Monday, September 5, 2011

Genetic Engineering


Rudigerr Gamm’s brain functions like a calculator. He can, almost instantaneously, create an algorithm in his head to solve any mathematical problem that he is presented with. Wim Hof has the ability to submerge himself in near freezing water for nearly 25 minutes without his core temperature dropping below the optimal 36.5°C. He does this by simply turning on the internal thermostat in his brain to warm himself up. Esref Armagen was born without eyes. However, “he can see better with his fingers than most sighted people can see.” Elizabeth Sulser is truly unique. She can see colors in sound and taste music. The documentary, The Real Superhumans, follows the stories of these four people as they put their abilities under the scrutiny of science for the betterment of mankind. The root to all these abilities is genetic mutation. Although genetic mutations cause unwanted problems, they can also result in enhanced abilities. Geneticist, Dr. Bruce Lahn, says that it is inescapable fact that humans will ultimately manipulate genomes and transcend Darwinian Evolution. Science will give us the power to genetically alter our children and to grant them superhuman abilities. These superhumans have abilities such as greater memory, like Elizabeth Sulser, or the ability to make your body produce more heat at will, like Wim Hof. Isolating these genes and learning how to alter them will benefit all of mankind. Dr. Bruce Lahn believes that this will make the gap between rich and poor farther than it already is. The “Have’s” can afford to create children who are genetically superior and blessed whereas the “Have-nots” will birth children who are constrained by their genetic defects. This problem that is being suggested by the documentary, the further splitting of the human race into two sub-categories, genetic modified and natural, brings up the question about whether or not genetic engineering of humans should be banned.
Genetic engineering is used today in several industrial processes such as the production of penicillin. It is also used to insert genes of interests into bacterial plasmids. Chimera’s of two different species have been created; however, the technology is still a long way from altering the human genome accurately.
The areas of knowing for this topic include history and ethics. We have to consider the past when people have been labeled as being inferior to others. When African Americans were labeled as being inferior to Caucasians and women labeled as being inferior, there has always rebellion for equality. In this case, however, the “Have’s” are truly genetically closer to perfection than the “Have not’s” and the inevitable rebellion for equality will hold no real basis. The ethical dilemmas are numerous; is it alright to play god and make our children look the way we want them to? Perhaps our children would not like how we wanted them to look. It would, however, help get rid of certain features that we may find unsightly. Another dilemma we face as a consequence of genetic engineering of humans has is addressed by a movie from 1997, Gattaca. If all of us were engineered to be perfect, then who is perfect? We would all simply be robots created in the image of parents that our parents envisioned. This also puts a limit on human ability because if you are as close as perfect as you are ever going to get, and you try as hard as you are ever going to try, and yet, end up being second best; it could emotionally scar even the hardiest of people.
In my opinion, it is necessary for us to allow genetic engineering to continue. Many Christians may call it blasphemous to play the role of God but this research is necessary to eliminate genetic diseases such as cancer or Huntington’s disease. Although it is possible to fight cancer, it is only possible when it is found in early stages. Getting rid of unsightly features, a big deal to some people, it is possible to get plastic surgery. In my personal opinion, a commission could perhaps be set up to monitor the genetic modification of human’s when the science has advanced enough. Showing sufficient reason, such as a history of heart disease in the family, should be presented in order to give birth to a child that is genetically engineered. This will help prevent the scenario of a schism between the genetically engineered and natural born.
The idea of genetic engineering is one that is similar to stem cells. Stem cells can be used to grow organs so that they can replace people who have lost them. It is unethical research but sometimes it is the only way for some people to live a proper life. Therefore it is necessary for us to pursue such research and learn to use it responsibly.
Part 1 of the documentary can be found at the following link:

3 comments:

  1. Anything that tampers with genetics and life is a big ethical issue. No matter what, we are tampering with another person's life without their consent, which is something that people are very careful about nowadays. Genetic research can have benefits of course, what with improving our survivability and eliminating unwanted characteristics - but is this really good for our society in the long run? Are we then advocating a perfect standard for human beings? Are we just weeding out the unwanted, like in horrific records of genocide and racial profiling?
    In the end, of course it would be ideal if we could pursue genetic research for good causes and the advancement of society. But we must evaluate human nature, and whether it is possible for this 'power' to be controlled correctly and used for the right purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "In this case, however, the “Have’s” are truly genetically closer to perfection than the “Have not’s”". You bring up the issue of perfection here. Even with genetic engineering at our disposal can perfection ever be achieved? Like language, perfection is culturally implicated, and its meaning varies in different times and places.

    Another issue you brought up is the natural order of things. You say that genetic engineering can "eliminate genetic diseases such as cancer or Huntington’s disease". This might intuitively sound unethical, but as we develop these cures for diseases, aside from tinkering with life and death, we are also dissolving opportunities for charity and kindness. However, as technology advances, this will probably be probably inevitable.

    You also brought up the issue of choice, which Sonnia briefly expanded on. "Perhaps our children would not like how we wanted them to look. It would, however, help get rid of certain features that we may find unsightly." I agree with Sonnia in that it is unethical to be "tampering with a person's life without their consent". I do not that that getting rid of "certain features that we may find unsightly" is a good enough reason to sacrifice individual expression for a societal value. However, to deviate a bit, is there really such a thing as choice? Aren't we always "tampering with a person's life without their consent"? Our every interaction with other people does shape their mind to a certain degree. Any illusion of choice we seem to have is derived from the experiences we have been exposed to.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Are we then advocating a perfect standard for human beings? Are we just weeding out the unwanted, like in horrific records of genocide and racial profiling?" I believe that society has already created an ever changing standard for the what is the perfect standard. This can be seen in literature such as Camus's 'Stranger' . Meursault is ostracized from society because he felt no remorse for his mother's death. Here Camus is exploring how society treats those who do not adhere by its standards. It is arguable that we have already created our perception of what is a "perfect" human being. I argue that in today's age, the college selection process for competitive colleges has a pre-defined "perfect standard". The college is looking for certain aspects of personality which would make a student successful at their institution. Isn't this a form of a "perfect standard"?

    ReplyDelete