Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Essay 2 Draft 2 English 1302
Essay 2 Draft 2 English 1302
Kate De La O
Instructor McCann
English 1302.203
13 March 2022
Something
It is no secret that technology has advanced at an exponential rate. Just comparing today's
society to that of twenty years ago exemplifies the progression that society has undergone as a
result of and with technology. Jets that travel faster than the speed of sound are now exhibited
during air shows for the means of public entertainment. Personal assistants controlled via voice
control are found in almost every household. With new technology breaking past limitations, it
was only a matter of time before some limits once thought to be sacred were broken. Genetic
modification, what was once an element of science fiction, is no longer a thought or dream but a
matter of controversy, more specifically, the genetic modification of human embryos. Is genetic
modification within the jurisdiction of human intervention? Is it breaking the laws of nature? Or
Successful genetic modification of the human embryo would reveal a new aspect of
progression for the human race. Nevertheless, in order for there to be a progression in a scientific
field, there is always a system of trial and error. The conflict lies in whether the process of
genetic modification is ethical. Ossareh, an advocate for genetic modification of the human
embryo, states that the federal government "steers clear" of directly and clearly "interfering with
the practice of assisted reproduction" (753). (INSERT SENTENCE HERE) Despite the federal
De La O 2
regulations implemented, like the Common's Law, in the views of many authors, like Dresser,
claim "gaps" remain in "existing federal policies" (Human Research Policies 195). Few federal
laws address genetic modification in humans but remain broad with directed attention to the
The health of the modified embryo is ultimately up to the interpretations of laws. Broad
regulations lead to compendious interpretations. The Common Rule simply states that "risks to
the subjects must be minimized, any remaining risks must be reasonable in relation to anticipated
benefits, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result"
(Dresser Human Research Policies 206). Without defining what is considered a minimized risk,
this essentially leaves it open for a vast number of interpretations. Some scientists may deem
hearing loss due to unforeseen effects as a minimal risk, while others may view these effects as a
significant risk.
Since the practice of genetic modification on the human embryo is relatively new, there
are multitudes of adverse effects that can occur. Authors such as Dressor and Montoya evidently
claim in their articles that a tremendous amount of life and/or possible life will be terminated or
permanently ruined prior to reaching a successful attempt. Federal organizations responsible for
authorizing genetic modification in human embryos merely skim through the process of genetic
modification and specialize in the "regulation of human genetic devices" (Ossareh 735).
Implying that there is no protection for the subjected embryos. Li et al. agree that safety
regulations and laws should advance with the evolutions of genome editing technology and
trump the individual's health compared to that of the scientific process (37). An advocate for
genetic modification or not, all the authors agree that basic regulations and laws must be applied
The option for one to opt towards the utilization of genetic modification is controversial.
The genetic modification of a human embryo does not solely affect the grown individual, but the
individual's decedents. Therefore, according to Montoya, not within the sphere of parental rights,
as the effects are larger than the individuals themselves. As the genetic modification of human
embryos changes the human gene pull, the authorization should fall upon greater shoulders, such
that of the U.S national government. In contrast, Ossareh protests that genetic modification of an
embryo is a parental right (756). Genetic modification does not necessarily pertain to the
deformities. The option for parents to genetically modify their child is within their realm of
privacy and right to attain the "highest level of health" in the aspect of therapeutic practice. The
argument between these two authors then comes down to the law. Under the fourth amendment,
the elastic clause protects the right to privacy and fundamental rights. In order for genetic
this case, advocates bring up the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case and claim that the choice to
"make procreative and parental choices" has, in fact, been protected for many years (Ossareh
729). A case of genetic modification has yet to be presented to the Supreme Court. It is up to the
narrative of the Court after hearing both arguments to decide whether or not genetic modification
If it is possible to prevent one from being born with a disease that would otherwise
complicate their lives, then genome editing can be viewed as a moral obligation. Sparrow
introduces two types of effects induced by genetic technologies: person and identity affecting.
De La O 4
Person affecting is the genetic modification of an individual, while identity affecting is choosing
who is conceived (Sparrow Nature of Our Reasons 3). Due to the selection of the best
genetically modified embryo prior to gestation, Sparrow identifies genetic modification of the
human embryo as identity affecting. He alleges that as long as genetic modification of humans is
not classified as person affecting, then it may be justified under moral obligation (Sparrow
Nature of Our Reasons 9). Dressor opposes this belief and states that genome editing technology
is not efficient and accurate enough. Genetic modification deals with those who are considered
the vulnerable of the human race: fetuses, children, and women. Therefore, putting at risk, the
protected in the name of science. Montoya acknowledges that a high accuracy rate can be
achieved, with only a one-in-one-trillionth chance to produce an off-target edit (1023). A point
can be made that successful genetically modified babies, twin girls Lulu and Nana, are proof of
accuracy and low-risk genome editing. While in an opposite view, Li et al. and. Sparrow agrees
that scientists have no absolute control over the edits made. They are essentially random
deletions made in the hopes of success, as Li et al. put it, "shooting birds with canons" (35). One
can note the continuous successful animal and plant genome modification as further proof of
continuous execution. Though successful nonhuman trials have occurred, they do not provide
(Designing Babies 3). The plethora of uncertainties tied with genome editing seems to be the
foundation argument for oppositionists, while advocates perceive it as a right and point to the
possibilities of improvement.
Future Effects
As previously mentioned, genetic modification will affect future generations. With the
ability to modify and enhance individuals, the human race will prosper and flourish in the eyes of
De La O 5
advocates. McMahan and Sparrow agree that genome editing will lead to the extinction of
specific characteristics in the human race. Everyone has preferred characteristics, a particular
hair type, color of eyes, facial structure, etc. Sparrow proclaims that while parents do not have
control over the environment their children are raised in, genome editing will allow parents to
change characteristics to decrease the "unjust social norms" (Nature of Our Reasons 8).
Permitting the editing of human embryos will lead to these preferred characteristics being chosen
repeatedly, in the end eliminating variety amongst the human race. Similarly, McMahan argues
that genetic modification will lead to the end of an entire gender. Males are seen as more
aggressive, daring, and competitive amongst society. In comparison, women are more
empathetic, cooperative, and compassionate. Some may view the mitigation of such
will, in turn, create an "absence of certain human types: the adventurer, warrior, or heroes"
(McMahan 739). Both of these authors' worries fall within the overall characteristics of the
human race. In opposition, Ossareh testifies that 42% of the time, clinics that offered PGD, pre-
implementation genetic diagnosis, were used to choose the gender of the child. Meaning that if a
couple wanted to, from the beginning, they could select the preferred gender, not having to alter
the characteristics of a male. An argument can be made that this, in turn, will lead to a dominant
female world, thus increasing competitiveness for a partner amongst women and vice versa.
sense, inferior to the more advanced newer generations. "Only things that become better can
become obsolete" (Sparrow Yesterday's Child 8). Inevitably blurring the lines between products
De La O 6
and humans, a human would become objectified and elementally branded. While technology can
be updated, genetically modified humans cannot. Once born, no other genetic modification can
occur, as it must have ensued in the embryo stage of an individual. One can argue that
obsoleteness already occurs through the process of aging. However, Sparrow opines that aging is
a slow natural process everyone undergoes at one point in their lives (Yesterday's Child 9). In
contrast, genome editing would definitively make one generation supreme to the other in a
matter of a couple of years. Genetically modified individuals will undergo a superior and inferior
cycle throughout their life. At first, being conceived, the individual would be superior; even so,
in a matter of time, would become "outdated" and therefore become obsolete. The effect of
obsoleteness varies by individual but ultimately has a negative effect on one's mental health.
"People are ends or choose ends, while things have ends" (Sparrow Yesterday's Child 12).
Dehumanization would inherently occur if genome editing were to take place on the basis of
enhancement. Humans would become a product of time, and those born into later generations
would feel cheated and robbed of the possibility of improvement. Parents would never feel as
though it is the right time to conceive a child, as new revisions are being made every so often.
Some parents may opt to have no children to avoid the burden of responsibility for their child's
obsoleteness. In turn, siblings and peers may feel hostility to newer generations as they no longer
have means of genetic improvement, in essence being stuck with unwanted and outdated
As previously mentioned, a distinct division would be drawn between newer and older
editing. Genetic modification of the human embryo is justified as equalizing the human race on
the prevention of disabilities and hereditary diseases by Shaver et al. (18). Nonetheless, one
De La O 7
prominent feature in human history is commercialization. Genetic modification will not remain
within the realm of disease and deformity prevention, especially without governmental
regulation, therefore moving into the realm of enhancement. Contradictorily, genome editing
may create a characteristic division amongst the poor and wealthy. Those who do not have the
financial means to modify their child genetically are excluded from the possibility of
enhancement, undoing the argument of equalization. "Good service seekers" are those whose
illnesses are caused by outside factors and seek help medically. Whereas "bad service seekers are
those whose illnesses are an effect of poor choices made (Shaver et al. 19). Parents who choose
not to modify their child for religious or financial reasons can be seen as "bad service seekers" if
their child was born ill, as they had the option to prevent such illness. Correspondingly creating
another division in morals. With enhancement of traits as a possibility, humans born in older
advanced in specific traits, like IQ, sports, arts, etc. Leaving older generations to feel defeated
and see no point in trying to improve certain skill sets. Alike, countries with more developed
genetic modification technology would become superior by not only economics and
development but also by citizens' characteristics. Shaver et al. propose a solution to the
technology to all (20). In essence, while genetic modification may establish equality in
Conclusion
Technology continues to introduce new possibilities, for the better or, the worse. Genetic
modification of the human embryo opens arenas of controversy in various aspects. While some
De La O 8
view genetic modification as a step forward for humanity, others view it outside the realm of
Works Cited
Dresser, Rebecca. "Designing Babies: Human Research Issues." IRB: Ethics and Human
Kleiderman, Erika, et al. "The 'Serious' Factor in Germline Modification." Journal of Medical
105436.
Li, Jing, et al. "Experiments That Led to the First Gene-Edited Babies: The Ethical Failings and
Deformity?" Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 39, no. 12, Sept. 2013, pp. 736–40,
https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100976.
Ndice Ossareh, Ta. Would You Like Blue Eyes with That? A Fundamental Right to Genetic
Shaver, LanceGarrett, et al. "A Human Rights Analysis of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short
Sparrow, Robert. "Human Germline Genome Editing: On the Nature of Our Reasons to Genome
https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2021.1907480.
Sparrow, Robert. "Yesterday's Child: How Gene Editing for Enhancement Will Produce
Obsolescence—and Why It Matters." The American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 19, no. 7,
web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/legislat.shtml.