Why Do People Go Against Genetic Modification?

Germline enhancement may someday have the ability to alter the trajectory of human evolution. Furthermore, this technology could be available in the near future. For one proponent of genetic engineering, UCLA professor Gregory Stock, the question is not if, but when we will be able to engineer the human germline. However, the discourse surrounding germline engineering is full of controversy. There are strong advocates of furthering the fledgling technology, but many also believe that germline engineering research should be strictly regulated or banned.

Resistance to Genetic Engineering

Why is there a case against genetic engineering? Given that it might cure inherited diseases and enable us to expand our genetic repertoire, why should anyone be against it? The following are arguments that have been used against genetic engineering:

1. "We are playing God." This argument is used whenever a new technology is invented or proposed. It was used against Benjamin Franklin's lightning rod (which took away God's prerogative to strike down those the Deity thought evil) and it was used against smallpox vaccination. This is kin to the emotional argument that says we should not interfere with nature. Medical technologies do not see nature as benign, and they are by their very existence interfering with nature.

2. It is unsafe. In recent years, there have been several deaths due to genetic engineering. The viral vectors that are used to bring the DNA into the cell may cause lethal immune responses or even tumours. While this argument may be valid today, it is probably a technical problem that will eventually be circumvented. Another safety argument is that when transgenes become inserted into the genome, they may disrupt functional genes and cause mutations. This has been seen in mice.

3. We do not know what such genetic technology will be used for. Curing lethal diseases is a good idea, and certainly there are very few people who would be against curing lethal genetic diseases such as Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome or Huntington's chorea. However, these are diseases that can be screened for by pre-implantation genetics. Germline genetic engineering is seen as a very high-tech solution for a problem that can have a relatively low-tech cure. So what might the technology be used for? One possibility is that it could be used for phenotype enhancement. Is baldness or short-stature a disease? Probably not by most standards, although insurance companies differ on that question. So perhaps genetic manipulation will be used to increase height or muscle mass or make people thin. If genes involving intelligence were found, those who could afford this procedure might acquire them, while others would not. Jeremy Rifkin voices his concern that "those families who can afford to program 'superior' genetic traits into their fetuses at conception could assure their offspring an even greater biological advantage, and thus, a social and economic advantage as well." Lee Silver envisions a world where the genetic haves and the genetic have-nots are far apart in their abilities. Genetic engineering would thus convert economic differences into inherited biological differences.

4. Do we know which traits to enhance or get rid of? Genetic engineering assumes that we know which traits are good and which are bad. However, what is good in one environment might be deleterious in another. The genes for sickle cell anemia may be deleterious when homozygous, but advantageous when heterozygous. A gene for a lymphocyte adhesion molecule may usually be a good thing; but a mutation of this gene might protect one against HIV. 

5. Do we even know the functions of the genes that might be changed? It is one thing to look at genes that are the end-products of developmentohemoglobin or insulin. They probably have a single function. But those proteins acting during development often have many functions. This is called pleiotropy. BMP4 can induce bone growth in one set of tissues and apoptosis in the same tissues at a later period. In another set of tissues, BMP4 can induce epidermal differentiation. We are constantly finding that genes are not "for" a particular function; rather they are "used in" a particular function. If we alter a gene thinking it will only affect one function, we may find that it also disrupts another function.

6. Do we have the right to make decisions about our children's genotypes? Kant was adamant that parents not rule over the destiny of their children. What if the genes of the children were paid for by the parents? First, the parents would directly be controlling the qualities of their offspring. Currently, there is a great deal of chance involved in which traits will be inherited. If inheritance of certain traits were a certainty, the individuality of the child could be affected. What if the curly red hair that played such a role in your identity were the product of your parents wanting a child with such a trait and an ability to pay the money to have those genes placed into your embryo? If your parents gave you genes for height and body musculature, would they be disappointed if you were not a varsity athlete? The entire notion of individual personhood is called into question.

7. The ability to modify the genome could make children into a commodity. A range of critics believe that germline genetic engineering could convert a child from being a precious miracle to being a commercial product with expected parameters of normalcy and function. People who fall short of some technically achievable ideal would be seen as "damaged goods," while the standards for what is genetically desirable will be those of the society's economically and politically dominant groups. This would increase prejudices and discrimination in a society where too many prejudices already exist. One might also get "fads" in children of one generation preferring a certain hair color, height, or organ endowment in its children. Disability rights advocates are critical of germline engineering technology because they fear that a social objective of establishing the "perfect" human might lessen society's value on care and respect. In addition, an appreciation of diversity, the loss of care and respect for the less fortunate would leave disabled people as pitied mistakes. In a similar vein, many environmental groups fear that genetic engineering will be another technology in a string of technologies that technical innovation have over the preservation of nature resources. As the center for Genetics and Society states that it is difficult to see how a world that accepts the production of children by cloning or with redesigned genes will long be able to maintain, much less deepen, any sense of respect for the rest of the natural world.

8. Genetic engineering may lead to eugenics. Indeed, eugenic means "well born" and the eugenic program to breed better humans like breeding better crops and livestock) was a major part of genetic science until the World War II. Eugenics attempted to make the human race more uniform and healthy. While it was based on unsound biological principles at the turn of the last century, it might now be accomplished scientifically through biotechnology. But such engineering of the genome might have consequences in reducing biological diversity. Thus, some civil rights advocates have found reasons to organize against genetic engineering. Communities of color have historically suffered from the racist social applications of genetic theories, and they are concerned that germline engineering offers another opportunity for racism to manifest, veiled as science. While most scientists involved in germline engineering have no explicit racist agenda, the civil rights advocates have found it disconcerting that David Duke, former National Director of the Klu Klux Klan, heartily supports inheritable genetic modification development. The case for genetic engineering hasn't been helped by scientists claiming that it will cure homosexuality, criminality, and homelessness.

9. Some women's health advocates worry that germline engineering could create new pressures for the child-bearer. Genetic enhancement could be subtly or coercively suggested by a partner, but also by third party groups with financial incentives such as insurance companies, a doctor, a social circle, current fashions, biotech marketers or mass media advertisers. It is not implausible that women could lose the ability to make genetic decisions about their own progeny if the medical establishment or national government decided to regulate genetic engineering in some way.

From this, I know the point of view of some professionals as to why the public disagree/ strongly against this idea. Now the main issue is will the public accept the facts or will they be persistent in sticking to their point of view?

Adapted from: http://9e.devbio.com/article.php?id=172