Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases.

This functionality is provided solely for your

convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS
AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale In Context: Science Terms and Conditions and by using the machine
generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the
machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

Designer Genes
Author: Pamela V. Michaels
Editors: Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner
Date: Aug. 30, 2017
From: Biotechnology: In Context
Publisher: Gale, a Cengage Company
Series: In Context Series
Document Type: Topic overview
Length: 3,297 words
Content Level: (Level 4)
Lexile Measure: 1250L

Full Text:
Introduction
By definition, designer genes are those created or modified by genetic engineering, usually with a targeted or specific purpose. In
humans, designer genes often are used for medical treatment or for specific research purposes, such as preventing or curing
disease. Tacit gene design now occurs as a result of advances in human reproductive technology that make it possible to screen
externally fertilized (in vitro) embryos for certain genetic diseases and to select for gender. Multiple eggs can harvested and fertilized;
the embryos then are tested for the presence of specific genetic illnesses. Those that are free of the defective/undesirable genes and
are otherwise healthy can be implanted in the female host. In the United Kingdom, a couple sought genetic counseling and fertility
treatment due to high incidence of BRCA1 (highly heritable) breast cancer in the male partner's family. In vitro fertilization (IVF) was
used, and two embryos free of the BRCA1 gene were implanted. A healthy female infant was born in late 2008; she will neither
develop BRCA1 cancers nor transmit the gene to her progeny. Genetic engineering and IVF can be used to screen embryos for the
presence of a number of potentially fatal genetic diseases, such as x-linked hydrocephalus, Fragile X syndrome, familial
hypercholesterolemia, Diamond Blackfan Anemia, Down Syndrome, hemophilia, Fanconi's Anemia, and Duchenne's Muscular
Dystrophy.

Moralists, ethicists, and religious groups express concern that advancing human reproductive technology, combined with ongoing
specific gene mapping, will result in a future composed of humans whose genetic makeup has been carefully selected for specific,
desired traits. The essential question is: Who decides which are desirable traits? Design likely will focus on eliminating disease, but
could potentially also focus on what are commonly perceived in Western culture as less socially desired characteristics, such as
imperfect vision or hearing, short stature, or limited cognitive efficiency.

Words to Know
Designer baby
A baby whose genetic material has been altered, either by adding or removing specific genes. The egg and sperm are combined
through in vitro fertilization and the fertilized embryo undergoes germ line genetic manipulation. The genes are altered to make
certain that unwanted characteristics are eliminated and desired ones are present. This primarily is done to select healthy embryos
free of genetic diseases. Occasionally, this has been used to ensure that the resultant individual has healthy stem cells compatible
with an older sibling with a life-threatening genetic condition that potentially could be cured via an infusion of cord blood/stem cells
from a healthy sibling.
Genetic Engineering
Manipulating or changing DNA/genetic material in order to create a desired outcome, such as the elimination or removal of genes
causing a specific syndrome or disease. The ability to manipulate specific genes and DNA has existed only since the 1970s,
although selective breeding for desired traits and characteristics has existed since ancient times.
Germ line gene therapy
Modification of genetic material at the pre-implantation level. This process involves making genetic changes in fertilized embryos by
injecting new genes into an embryonic cellular nucleus. The embryo, with the new genetic material, is implanted into the female host
with the hope that a healthy, full-term pregnancy will ensue and result in a live birth of a genetically enhanced/altered individual.
Human Genome Project
An international research program designed to decode and base pair sequence all human DNA, to identify all genes in the human
genome, and to create a relational database system for the storage of the information obtained. The research project began in 1990
in the United States of America and was completed in 2003.
Somatic gene therapy
The process of embedding healthy or desired genes in an appropriate carrier, such as a virus, and injecting them into an existing
individual with the hope of transmitting the new genetic material to the cells, which then will reproduce the “new” genes and
incorporate them into the organism.
Historical Background and Scientific Foundations
Records of agriculture in early civilizations provide evidence that farmers noted changes in plants as they naturally interbred with
other species, producing new forms that came to be known as hybrids. Over time, crop manipulation became more deliberate, as
farmers selectively saved and reused seeds from plants showing desired traits.

In the mid-1800s, Austrian monk Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) conducted experiments on pea plants, looking at the inheritance of
specific traits in successive generations. Although his research was not given much scientific notice until the early 1900s, Mendel's
research came to be considered foundational for the science of genetics. European scientists began to use Mendel's methods to
alter, enhance, and create new plant species in the early decades of the twentieth century.

In 1944 it was determined that DNA is responsible for carrying genetic material from one generation to the next. In 1953, American
James Watson (1928–) and Englishman Francis Crick (1916–2004), both molecular biologists, published their seminal paper on the
double helix structure of DNA. This led to the development of recombinant DNA technology in the early 1970s. Using recombinant
DNA technology, a section of DNA could be removed from one cell and transferred into the DNA of another. Recombinant DNA
technology paved the way for modern genetic engineering techniques.

The 1980s heralded the era of cloning research. Techniques were developed by Scottish scientists Ian Wilmut (1944–) and his
colleagues using adult animal cells to produce clones. In 1986 a sheep's embryo was cloned in the United Kingdom; that same year a
cow's embryo was cloned in the United States. Mice were reproducibly cloned by Japanese and American researchers in 1998.
Currently, cloning is still considered unreliable, because it typically takes dozens to hundreds of attempts in order to clone an
organism successfully, and the cost is extremely high. Because there have been relatively few successful clones reaching adulthood,
there is insufficient scientific evidence regarding overall health and longevity of the individual organisms.

In 1980 the United States Supreme Court ruled that genetically modified organisms could be patented, leading to the patenting of an
oil-consuming microorganism by Exxon (an organism intended for use cleaning oil spills). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) approved the commercial use of Humulin, an insulin manufactured by Genentech, in 1982. This form of human insulin was the
first produced via a bacteria using genetic engineering. In 1987 the United States Patent and Trademark office determined it
appropriate to patent non-human, genetically-modified animals, and in 1988 the Harvard-DuPont Oncomouse, a genetically-
engineered mouse that was highly predisposed to develop breast cancer and thus valuable to breast cancer research studies, was
patented.

The FDA approved the first genetically-engineered vaccine for humans, used for the prevention of hepatitis B, in 1986. In 1996 the
Genzyme Transgenics Corporation created a transgenic (genetically engineered) goat designed to carry a human, cancer-combating
protein in her milk. Genzyme, in partnership with Tufts University, since has produced transgenic goats that carry substances in their
milk shown to be effective in the treatment of some cancers, hemophilia, and kidney disease. By the year 2000, laboratories and
research facilities were able to reliably produce other transgenic animals including chickens, pigs, cows, and sheep. Current research
with these animals centers around creating new and more effective treatments for human diseases and in developing vaccines.

Impacts and Issues

In agriculture, designer genes are used in a variety of ways, from creating drought- and insect-resistant seed strains to the
modification of traits and behaviors in animals that lead them to be more readily domesticated. In non-human genetic engineering
(molecular genetics and agriculture, for example), the desired traits and characteristics of designer genes would not normally be
found in the unaltered species. Genetic engineering in this realm involves a variety of plants such as canola, soybeans, corn/maize,
wheat, tomatoes, grapes, and a variety of different types of trees. The animals normally targeted for agrarian genetic engineering are
fish, shellfish, sheep, pigs, chickens, and cattle. Although much of the genetic engineering research occurs at universities and
research facilities, large corporations also heavily invest in genetic engineering and the production of designer genes.

In humans, currently it is possible to produce an infant with selected genetic traits. The technology is commonly used to screen for
the presence of a variety of potentially deadly genetically transmitted diseases through a process called pre-implantation genetic
diagnosis (PGD). First, a woman is induced to produce multiple eggs in one ovarian cycle. The eggs (ova) can be harvested and
fertilized, then those embryos found free of undesired genes can be implanted in the female host. In addition to producing an infant
with selected genetic traits, a healthy infant's cord blood may be harvested at birth with the intent of treating an older sibling born with
a deadly genetic disorder. Genetic screening also allows for sex selection of offspring, an important consideration in many cultures.

One form of genetic engineering, somatic gene therapy, impacts only the individual with a defective or undesirable gene. A
corrected/healthy gene is introduced into the body of the host through a biological vector, usually in the form of a non-harmful virus.
Ideally, the healthy gene becomes incorporated into the cells and then is replicated, creating a cure for the affected individual. One
negative aspect of somatic therapy is that it is not always permanent: Most tissue cells eventually die and are replaced. It is possible
for the unhealthy genes to be reproduced over time and the syndrome to require periodic treatment with an infusion of new genes.
This has been shown to occur with somatic gene therapy of children with severe combined immunodeficiency syndrome. Somatic
gene therapy results in change only in the affected individual; the genetic alterations are not heritable.

Germ line therapy, genetic engineering performed at the post-fertilization, pre-implantation stage, is still considered experimental.
Germ line gene therapy produces permanent changes in the DNA structure of the gene, and they may be continued through
inheritance. The promise of this type of genetic engineering is that it can prevent and potentially eradicate fatal genetic disorders. The
concern expressed among ethicists is that germ line therapy eventually could be broadened to include selection for specific, highly
desirable traits and characteristics at the expense of human variation in the gene pool.

Proponents of genetic engineering and the creation of designer genes assert that this is the most effective and enduring means of
eradicating deadly heritable diseases. Many diseases cannot be cured once expressed, but it is also argued that conditions such as
some forms of muscular dystrophy likely could be eliminated by careful genetic screening before birth. The argument is that parents
who know that they are potential carriers of serious or fatal genetically-transmitted diseases or syndromes should be allowed access
to affordable genetic screening and the PGD process, eliminating current cost barriers. With access to genetic screening, over time,
many of the most serious or fatal syndromes potentially could be eliminated from the world's population without bias toward
socioeconomic status.

The first recorded birth of a baby born with “designer genes'” occurred in 2000, when Adam Nash was born both free of Fanconi's
anemia and tissue-matched to supply stem cells for treatment of his older sister who has the disease. Jamie Whitaker was born in
2003 as another “savior sibling,” for his older brother who was born with severe anemia. Jamie's genes were selected for freedom
from the disease and tissue compatibility for stem cell treatment for his brother.

Critics of genetic engineering argue that humans will, if given the opportunity, genetically engineer so as to select for height, skin
tone, IQ range, longevity, athletic prowess, personality type, body composition and myriad other traits and characteristics in addition
to freedom from genetic diseases. Ethicists express concern that genetic engineering will create a homogenous species, selected for
traits currently desirable, but also eliminating variation that evolution has shown essential to long-term survival.

Primary Source Connection

Scientists have been successful at creating and birthing the first genetically altered primate. ANDi, as he is called, is the product of a
specific type of gene from jellyfish and viruses, and gene reproduction through rhesus monkey eggs. Scientists look at the future
potential to model what they now know about rhesus monkey and human genes, to make advances in the alteration of genes that
cause Alzheimer's disease, cancer, hereditary blindness, schizophrenia, and Parkinson's disease in humans. Although the creation of
ANDi is considered a scientific breakthrough, questions and concerns arise surrounding bioethics and ethical responsibilities of
creating genetically altered animals, and about eugenics with respect to the potential creation of designer babies.

Brave New Monkey

He's a Frisky little fellow, swinging from a ring in his doll-size white T-shirt with the black belt, clambering over and through an
elaborate cat-scratching post, sucking his thumb and ducking for cover when playmates Sandy and Sammy ambush him. To all
appearances, ANDi (we'll explain soon) is an ordinary rhesus monkey. But appearances deceive. Born by cesarean section last
October, ANDi is the first genetically altered primate ever created. If he were human, he'd be called a designer baby. And that makes
him the embodiment of the greatest hopes as well as the worst nightmares here at the dawn of the age of genetics: that desirable
genes will be inserted into human eggs, producing “genetically enhanced” children. Although that was not the purpose of the research
that produced ANDi, the little guy with the soulful eyes is a landmark proof of concept. “At some point in the future,” admits Anthony
Chan of the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, who performed the manipulations that created ANDi, “it is conceivable that
others may attempt this technique to enhance humans.”

The researchers say they had no such goal in creating ANDi. Instead, they hope to create primate models of human diseases, and
they had to start simply. They first retrieved a well-studied gene, called the green fluorescent protein gene, from jellyfish. True to its
name, the gene makes a protein that, in blue light, glows green. They then put copies of the gene into viruses, since (as anyone with
the flu knows) viruses are adept at penetrating cells. Each virus dutifully carried the green gene into 224 rhesus-monkey eggs, where
it slipped into the monkey genes like a foreign spy hiding in a crowd. The eggs were then fertilized through microinjection of sperm.
After 126 of the fertilized eggs grew and divided beyond the four-cell stage, Chan selected what looked like the 40 best embryos and
transferred them into 20 surrogate mother monkeys. Five pregnancies resulted. One set of twins miscarried. One embryo failed to
implant. Three monkeys were born. Sandy and Sammy show no sign of the green gene. But ANDi does. Hence his name: short for
“inserted DNA,” backward.

The next step is to give rhesus monkeys human genes that play a role in Alzheimer's disease, cancer, hereditary blindness,
schizophrenia, Parkinson's or other scourges. A primate version of such a disease, scientists believe, should lead more quickly to
vaccines or treatments than the mouse models that currently exist. In addition, genetically altered monkeys carrying a gene “for”
Alzheimer's or prostate cancer, say, might show whether the suspect gene always causes the disease, or whether environmental
factors like diet or activity can cheat genetic destiny.

The researchers chose the green gene because its presence is so easy to detect, not because they wanted glow-in-the-dark
monkeys. In fact, ANDi looks nothing like a hairy green Lava lamp; the gene, although present in every tissue the Oregon scientists
tested, seems to be dormant. That's actually a red flag. Since ANDi shows no sign of the trait that was supposedly engineered into
him, viruses—which insert the foreign gene randomly— may not be the way to produce genetically altered animals. For genetic
enhancement, and perhaps even for making a monkey model of a human disease, you have to get the gene to the spot in the
chromosomes where it will be properly controlled.

Until ANDi, genetic engineering had meant slipping a bit of healthy DNA into cells of a patient who is suffering from a genetic disease
such as cystic fibrosis. ANDi breaks that mold, bringing us a step closer to tinkering with an individual's genetic endowment before
birth, and with the genetic legacy of generations unborn. The Oregon scientists don't know whether ANDi's sperm contains the green
gene, and they won't know for four years, when the little guy reaches sexual maturity. But if ANDi's sperm does carry the green gene,
he will pass it on to all his offspring. And then the first genetically altered primate will claim another title: father to a genetically altered
race.

Although Oregon's Gerald Schatten is emphatic that “we don't support the extrapolation of this work to people for genetic
enhancement,” some regard that step as an act of medical humanitarianism. Engineering eggs so that a healthy gene replaces a
disease-causing one should help both the child-to-be and his or her descendants, lifting a family curse of cancer, atherosclerosis,
schizophrenia or another disease with a strong genetic component. “If you could prevent future generations from having grave
genetic disease, it would make the life of our species a little less terrible,” says bioethicist Arthur Schafer of the University of
Manitoba.

Even genetic enhancement for reasons that fall short of life and death has advocates. If parents want a tall, thin, hazel eyed, athletic,
brainy kid, whose business is it of anyone else's? Today's well-off parents hire tutors, music teachers, private sports coaches and
SAT advisers for their children, if they can afford to. No one calls for banning SAT tutors in the interest of egalitarianism. “But genes
are different,” argues bioethicist Margaret Somerville of McGill University in Canada. The human genome—the collection of some
80,000 genes carried by every human—is “the patrimony of the entire species, held in trust for us by our ancestors and in trust by us
for our descendants. It has taken millions of years to evolve, should we really be changing it in a generation or two?” And Schafer
warns of a new social division: in addition to the haves and have-nots, we will have the gene-rich and the gene-poor.

At infertility clinics, couples are not clamoring to choose their would-be child's traits the way they choose options on a car. At least not
yet. “Some request a particular gender, but no one has asked for a specific gene,” says Dr. Paul Gindoff of the George Washington
University in vitro fertilization clinic in Washington, D.C. “The traits that couples might care about—eye color, hair color, height,
intelligence and personality—don't come from a single gene anyway, but from a complex combination. We are orders of magnitude
away from being able to offer traits to order.” The closest couples come to their own private eugenics is embryo selection, says Dr.
Martin Keltz of St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in Manhattan. In this process, clinics screen the embryos they create to
determine whether any carries a deleterious gene that runs in either partner's family. If it does, that embryo is discarded; only healthy-
seeming ones go into the woman's uterus. But if today's patients aren't asking for custom-made babies, tomorrow's might. When a
March of Dimes poll asked people if they would “improve” their child's appearance or intelligence through genetic tinkering, 42
percent answered yes.

Whether society allows that will likely depend on what might be called the “ick” factor—a sense of repugnance at treating children as
a product, at robbing life of its sacredness. Society emitted a collective “ick” at the first test-tube baby, the first surrogate mother, the
first baby born to its biological grandmother. But “ick” tends to dissipate; more than 300,000 test-tube babies have been born.
Science now has the power not merely to create, but to manipulate creation as never before. In a 1944 essay, novelist C. S. Lewis
warned that “the final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by prenatal conditioning … has obtained full control over himself.” That
day is now a little closer.

Sharon Begley

Begley, Sharon. “Brave New Monkey.” Newsweek (January 22, 2001).

Books

Gessen, Masha. Blood Matters: From Inherited Illness to Designer Babies, How the World and I Found Ourselves in the Future of the
Gene. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, 2008.

Harris, John. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.

Henderson, Mark, Joanne Baker, and Anthony J. Crilly. 100 Most Important Science Ideas: Key Concepts in Genetics, Physics and
Mathematics. Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books, 2009.

McCabe, Linda L., and Edward R. B. McCabe. DNA: Promise and Peril. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.

Nuüsslein-Volhard, Christiane. Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development. San Diego, CA: Kales Press, 2006.

Shanks, Pete. Human Genetic Engineering: A Guide for Activists, Skeptics, and the Very Perplexed. New York: Nation Books, 2005.

Wilmut, Ian, and Roger Highfield. After Dolly: The Uses and Misuses of Human Cloning. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2006.

Web Sites
Center for American Progress. “One Step Closer to Designer Babies.” http://scienceprogress.org/2011/04/one-step-closer-to-
designer-babies/ (accessed August 23, 2017).

Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority. “Preimplantation genetic screening.” https://ifqlive.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-

website/1828/preimplantation_genetic_screening.pdf (accessed August 23, 2017).

National Public Radio (NPR). “Screening Embryos for Disease.” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6653837

(accessed August 23, 2017).

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning

Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Michaels, Pamela V. "Designer Genes." Biotechnology: In Context, edited by Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner, Gale, 2012.
 In Context Series. Gale In Context: Science,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/WQRZNN191940438/SCIC?u=made79693&sid=SCIC&xid=1a785563. Accessed 18 Feb. 2020.
Gale Document Number: GALE|WQRZNN191940438