Running Head: IS GENETIC ENGINEERING A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?

Is Genetic Engineering a Step in the Right Direction?

Jason Salcido
Arizona State University
IS GENETIC ENGINEERING A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? 2

Is Genetic Engineering a Step in the Right Direction?

Part One: What I Knew and Wanted to Find Out

The Human Body: Utterly Inconvenient

Humans have been known to be fond of tinkering. Since the dawn of man, we’ve wanted

to understand how things work in order to alter them in was that suite our needs. However, one

dreadful inconvenience has still yet to be tinkered with to its fullest potential: ourselves.

Mankind is deeply flawed; fragile and susceptible to many inconvenient diseases. There is,

however, a way for us to “tinker” with our own bodies to overcome such adversities. The field of

genetic engineering is an answer to many problems facing the human body such as harmful

bacteria and diseases.

Genetic Engineering’s History

Believe it or not, humans have been “genetic engineering” for thousands of years. By

selecting certain qualities in plants and animals, and having the organisms with favorable

qualities breed, we create entire populations of organisms based on the characteristics we deem

useful to us. The most obvious result of this we see in day-to-day life is dogs. By breeding

wolves that are naturally more obedient and more capable of understanding commands, we

ended up with the golden retrievers, pugs, and huskies we see today. However, it wasn’t until the

discovery of DNA that we began to manipulate genes on a molecular level, being able to cause

random mutations quickly albeit somewhat unpredictable. These mutations led to the production
IS GENETIC ENGINEERING A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? 3

of what we call Genetically Modified Organics (GMO’s) which are what make up most of the

produce we consume daily.

Recent Development in Genetic Engineering: CRISPR

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), sometimes referred

to as CRISPR-Cas9, is a method of genome editing that has gained a lot of buzz in recent years.

In short, CRISPR is used by bacteria to fight viruses by storing DNA from a virus when it

attacks, and using a protein known as Cas9 as a sort of “GPS” system to target viruses that may

attack it in the future. In recent years, we’ve discovered that this system is programmable and

can even be used in humans. So far, it has been used to treat anemia, arthritis, and even cancer by

targeting cells that are susceptible to these diseases and cutting them out. Although a promising

idea, the method is still in its infancy and we’re not entirely sure of its full potential or possible

negative side-effects from CRISPR treatment.

Controversies Surrounding Genetic Engineering

Genetic Engineering, in a lot of ways, sounds too good to be true. In theory in can be

used to solve world hunger, improve human’s metabolisms, and eradicate thousands of diseases.

So why aren’t people jumping on board? From what I understand, there is a lot of dissent at the

idea of modifying genetics, both by the layman and even within the scientific community itself.

My goal in this research is to identify and explore the various views of genetic engineering from

points of psychology, sustainability, and from the scientific community itself.

Part II: My Search Process

IS GENETIC ENGINEERING A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? 4

As stated before, genetic engineering is a very controversial topic, so simply searching

“genetic engineering” returned results mostly pertaining to the moral views of it, ranging from

general scientific to psychological perspectives. Personally, I am someone who very much

supports the use of GMO’s and the idea of implementing genetic engineering reaching human

bodies to improve us for the better excites me. However, I’ve never done sufficient research into

the other side of the argument. My first goal for the paper was to search for information as to the

moral views regarding genetic engineering, then to see what kind of opposition it has as a

practice.

A Psychological Approach

The psychological approach is arguably the most important aspect to tackle because it is

what keeps people from accepting the practice on a personal and emotional level. There are a lot

of reasons as to why, religion being one prominent reason, however it usually comes from the

fact that people simply don’t feel right about having that kind of relationship with nature, one

that involves manipulating it to fit our own needs (Kaebnick, 2016). The idea that humans would

be defiling nature through genetic engineering is one that should be taken seriously, and must be

addressed respectfully. However, genetic engineering is sought to be used in ways to bring back

long-since-lost organisms in a sort of “de-extinction”, and restore them to ecosystems

(Kaebnick). In this pursuit we fix the ways that humans have already defiled nature in driving

species to extinction, by fixing the ecosystems that we’ve harmed. Although this wouldn’t

necessarily convince those with reservations about genetic engineering that it should be used in

food products, humans, or other commercial ventures, it would instill the idea that genetic

engineering isn’t inherently reprehensible since it can be used to fix some of our own mistakes.
IS GENETIC ENGINEERING A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? 5

A Sustainability Approach

For this section I interviewed a friend of mine who is majoring in Sustainable

Engineering, and is as interested, if not more so, in genetic engineering as I am. I posed the

question: As a someone majoring in a field relating to sustainability, how do you feel about the

practice of genetic engineering in food products? Additionally, do you feel its use in humans is

morally reprehensible? His response revolved around the controversies surrounding genetic

engineering by examining the pros and cons.

He notes the lack of evidence supporting the claims of the practice being harmful, then

goes on to list the benefits of GMOs in the developing world in the present. He notes that one of

GMOs main goals is to produce as efficiently as possible, which is greatly beneficial for the

environment since they require less pesticides and water consumption in their growth. He further

goes on the say that to deny the practice under the pretense of it being simply an attempt to play

nature is a danger to nature itself, as it is a viable way to combat climate change. In regards to

genetic engineering in humans, he notes that there are many parts of the human body that are

simply inconvenient (wisdom teeth, appendices, etc.) that would greatly benefit people by having

them “edited out”.

The Scientific Community’s Thoughts

For those that see no moral wrongdoings in genetic engineering, the practice is incredibly

promising especially in human beings. Researchers using CRISPR-Cas9 could, in theory, edit

immune systems to be able to detect and fight cancer cells more efficiently, edit reproductive

cells in ways to eliminate hereditary diseases, and possible even more vain things like edit eye
IS GENETIC ENGINEERING A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? 6

color. It’s exciting for those in the researchers involved, however not everyone in the scientific

community is sharing in the excitement, and not for moral reasons. To put it simply, we don’t

know exactly what we’re dealing with yet. Scientists have only been experimenting with genetic

engineering for a few decades, and there have been instances of it going wrong such as mad cow

disease that killed over a hundred people in the UK. The tragedy came because of lack of

precautions taken at the time and we essentially got ahead of ourselves. (Millstone, E., Stirling,

A., and Glover, D, 2015). Such recklessness cannot happen again, especially if we’re seeking to

expand directly into human gene editing. So often when genetic engineering is proposed it’s

done in a way that glorifies the practice as the solution to all the world’s problems, without

acknowledging the drawbacks (Millstone, E., Stirling, A., and Glover, D.). Although the practice

is very exciting that doesn’t mean it should be exempt from regulation to ensure its safe for the

public. Regulation shouldn’t be seen as a inhibition to genetic engineering either, if anything it

will guide the innovation of it in a safe and practical way so that it doesn’t fall into scrutiny

again.

Part III: What I Can Conclude

My prior knowledge of the subject came mostly from biased YouTube videos and select

articles from around the Internet. In each of these, they glorified genetic engineering as the

savior of humanity, listing all the benefits and quickly dismissing the “moral issues” as silly and

baseless. The research into the topic from those actually in the field was enlightening because it

not only let me understand that the opposing views should be taken seriously, because morality is

subjective. To simply dismiss an opposing view is ignorant, because the goal should be to

convince people to accept the practice and silencing them wouldn’t accomplish that.
IS GENETIC ENGINEERING A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? 7

Furthermore, the article calling for regulation of genetic engineering was my favorite since it got

me to “snap out” of my infatuation with the possibilities. Regulation is absolutely necessary for

genetic engineering because it can be dangerous if we let ourselves get reckless with it. What we

have is a fire that could light the way for innovative breakthroughs in medicine and genetics, and

it would be an awful fate to burn ourselves in the process.

IS GENETIC ENGINEERING A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? 8

References

Kaebnick, G. E. (2016). Moral psychology and genetic engineering. Hastings Center Report,

46(3)

Millstone, E., Stirling, A., & Glover, D. (2015). Regulating genetic engineering. Issues in

Science and Technology, 31(4), 23.