In discussing the applications of gene therapy, there are two main distinctions: The first is between somatic gene

therapy and germ-line therapy. Somatic therapy is done in cells with 46 chromosomes and effects are not inherited. Germ-line therapy is on pre-embryos, where the effects are inherited, which requires in vitro fertilization. The second distinction is between negative gene therapy, which repairs damage or cures disease, and positive, which aims to improve an organism. The third is a distinction in our argument. We believe in freedom of scientific inquiry. Scientific research in gene therapy is important and we are not arguing that it should be deterred. We are arguing against the application of gene therapy so as to improve the human genome as much as possible. ~ There is already a dichotomy between the acceptance of who you are and the pursuit of perfection. In the quest for perfection, this technology could easily be misused. Even so, it is important to note the difference between concern for the well-being of an individual, and concern for the status of the human gene pool. The latter is eugenics, coming from the Greek meaning well-born. Improving the quality of the human genome as much as possible, or actively directing effort to change the human gene pool, definitely falls under eugenics and unequivocally raises the Nazi specter.. While it would be easy to vilify eugenics on the basis of that association alone, lets examine this more comprehensively. Scientific or governmental authorities should not have the power to pry into private and intimate reproductive decisions. This is especially representative of the ideals of the U.S., where individuality and freedom of choice are so highly valued. Eugenics requires an organized, underlying driving force. Past attempts to create eugenic populations are notorious for the their lack of morality. In Nazi Germany, the purification of the German race resulted in hundreds of thousands sterilized and millions killed. In the 1900s, the U.S. implemented laws to stop the overbreeding of the poor. More recently, the ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Serbia shocked the world. Plainly, with developing gene therapy technology, sterilization and massacre are no longer necessary to produce ideal populations. This does not eliminate the existence of an organized force, or multiple forces, that are driving this process. What are these forces? Beyond health, who gets to decide what is or isnt an improvement? The Nazis believed Aryans were superior. How can we ensure that the driving force of gene therapy isnt similarly misguided? Our primary objection, therefore, is not against somatic gene therapy or even parental selection of an individuals traits. It is against improving the human genome as much as possible in other words, the maximal enhancement of the human genomewhich would erase the possibility of mutation and severely limit variation, if not remove it altogether. Thus one of the requirements for natural selection is erased, replaced by artificial selection, and a mechanism of evolution entirely scrapped. This state of affairs is beginning to eerily resemble Huxleys Brave New World. (The contrast here is not as straightforward, and often depends on convention, context, values, and society.)

The question up for debate asks whether we should improve the human genome as much as possible, which goes beyond negative gene therapy. (Positive somatic gene therapy is similar to plastic surgery. People may seek genetic treatment to lose weight or look younger. With positive germ-line therapy, on the other hand, you could potentially increase your childs athletic ability or intelligence.) (arguments against: Creating an individual, not treating one. No obligation to create healthy people, only to heal existing people Noam Zohar) (Negative somatic gene therapy is almost unanimously accepted and even obligatory from a moral viewpoint. Negative germ line therapy, in the foreseeable future parents will have the option to request in vitro genetic vaccination to prevent cancers, heart attacks, behavioral disorders, etc in their children. If this develops, there will come a point where most responsible, prospective parents in developed countries will make a request for genetic vaccination.) ~ The genetic manipulation of the human body brings about a heated debate from many parties such as physicians, researchers, philosophers and the list goes on. What needs to be considered from these discussions is the protection of the individual, the future implications of gene therapy on the environment and humans, and the freedom of scientific enquiry. These are just a few of the issues that need to be taken into consideration when conducting genetic research to better treat and cure disease. It is relevant to note that gene therapy is still experimental and possible procedures are based on current scientific research in the development of these procedures. Therefore, it is important to weigh the costs and benefits in order to effectively protect humans not only against disease, but also ourselves. When discussing gene therapy it is important to first discriminate between the two forms of gene therapy. Somatic line therapy utilizes non-reproductive cells and introduces either DNA or RNA into these somatic cells or the introduction of genetically modified cells into the patient with the intent on treatment and possible future prevention of a genetic disease (NHMRC, 7). Germ line therapy genetically alters the sperm or egg cell in order to prevent and treat a genetic disease. The DNA is transferred to either the pronuclei of the zygote (an egg that has been fertilized with a sperm), the 4 or 8 cell embryo by a vector (a means to insert DNA through the aid of either a bacterial or viral plasmid), or through manipulation of embryonic stem cells. It is important to note that with somatic line therapy, the disease can still be passed onto future generations whereas, germ line therapy completely eliminates the disease in future generations. After differentiating between the two types of gene therapy, the possible positive and negative outcomes must be discussed. There are many novel and innovative treatments that can arise from the development of gene therapy. Both forms of treatment are first off, used as a

means to alleviating or curing a disease. Physicians take the Hippocratic oath and pledge to act within the patients best interests. Therefore, doctors have the moral obligation to provide the best available treatment, which in some cases could be gene therapy. The main task of parents is to take care of their young, therefore, is it wrong for parents to want a healthy child in whom they can love and care for (Brennan and Brennan, 89)? Parental autonomy also allows individuals access to the technologies available allowing gene therapy to be used. There is also the freedom of scientific inquiry, which has helped society develop better treatments for disease which needs to be maintained. Although not the main goal of gene therapy but a possible future result from gene therapy is cost reduction on the expenditure on treatment of very serious genetic diseases. Opposition to gene therapy, specifically germ line therapy rests upon the negative future results of this treatment as well as ethical considerations on the use of embryos and eugenics. Many fear that germ line therapy is a form of eugenics where an individual manipulates the germ line genes in order to improve physical and mental abilities (Lappe, 157). Germ line therapy utilizes embryos or the fertilized egg which in both cases is considered a human life as defined by the Catholic church (Tonti-Filippini, 94). Currently, gene therapy technology is very expensive and there is legislation limiting research. One must also consider other factors such as the unavoidable risks and irreversible mistakes that stem from this type of procedure. The manipulation of certain crucial genes for development may cause more harm than good (NHMRC, 20). Only 2% of all live births have a noticeable genetic defect and what are the implications for the person who has received this treatment in terms of an identity crisis (Chadwick, 193)? A review written in Science by Dr. Wivel, director of the Office of Recombinant DNA Activities, National Institutes of Health and Dr. Walters, professor of philosophy at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, have argued for the use of germ line therapy in certain cases (Wivel and Walters, 533). They argue that this controversial therapy should be used in instances where both parents have a recessive autosomal disorder (i.e. sickle cell) and the child would have a 100% chance of getting the disease. Another case would be where both parents are heterozygotes for a recessive genetic disorder (in many cases like two parents who do not have cystic fibrosis but carry the gene for it). The child would have a 75% chance of not having the disorder but gene therapy is another alternative to genetic screening and selective abortion (see an introductory genetics textbook for clarification of terms and concepts). With the ability to manipulate every human gene that makes up the human body, comes the issue of whether this is playing God. This is a dangerous path to go down with the ability to genetically enhance individuals. The possible implications of this technology being commercially available are enhancement of farm animals and changes to the environment (Jonas, 162). Necessary precautions and research are required in order minimize these risks to society while effectively treating disease. The stakes become even more evident when viewed in terms of the health care implications of gene therapy.