De La O 1

Kate De La O

Instructor McCann

English 1302.203

22 March 2022

To Modify or Not to Modify?

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

is it a doorway to societal improvement, a possible solution to problems that many encounter

with hereditary malformations? Genome editing of the human embryo is discussed in bounteous

angles by authors with differing views, each voicing their opinion on the genetic modification

procedure, authority, justification, and its future effects.

The Genetic Modification Procedure

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
 De La O 2

embryo, states that the federal government "steers clear" of directly and clearly "interfering with

the practice of assisted reproduction" (753). Leaving no standards of ethicality and no

consequences in genome editing experimentation. Despite the federal 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 outcomes, such as future

discrimination of a genetically modified individual, as opposed to the process. 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
 De La O 3

genetic modification or not, all the authors agree that basic regulations and laws must be applied

to the experimental process of genome editing.

Authority & Justification

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

enhancement of desirable characteristics but as well as prevention of hereditary diseases and

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

modification to be classified as a fundamental right, it must be ruled as a tradition. However,

genetic modification is relatively new, therefore making it unlikely to be ruled as a tradition. In

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

will be protected or denied by the law.

 De La O 4

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.

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. Identity affecting, in Sparrow's definition, occurs all the

time. Simple choices such as the time one chooses to have intercourse, is essentially 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 to be put into practice. 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 utilizing new

technology called CRISPOR, standing for clustered regulatory interspaced short palindromic

repeats (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 "definitive information on physical and mental effects in humans," in Dressor's
 De La O 5

perspective (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

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

characteristics in men as a moral enhancement. Enhancing the feminine characteristics in men

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
 De La O 6

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.

As technology continues to progress, products become obsolete. Sparrow introduces the

fabrication of obsoleteness in humans if genetic modification were to occur. New aspects of

genetic modification would be introduced at an exponential rate. Making older generations, in a

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

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
 De La O 7

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

modifications. Consequently, introducing a new human classification and division.

As previously mentioned, a distinct division would be drawn between newer and older

generations of genetically modified individuals. Overturning the equality implication of genome

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

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

generations may altogether lose competitiveness. Newer generations would be sublimely

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
 De La O 8

prevention of such luculent divisions: availability and accessibility of germline editing

technology to all (20). In essence, while genetic modification may establish equality in

therapeutic terms, it has an inverse effect on the enhancement of traits.

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: justification,

authority, procedure, and future results. While some view genetic modification as a step forward

for humanity, others view it outside the realm of human choice. With technology pushing

forward, expanding its capabilities, it may have an injurious effect on humanity, cascading back

to the moral issues society has already band together to resolve. In the words of Alan Moore,

"Technology is always a two-edged sword. It will bring in many benefits, but also many

disasters." Genome editing is not the first technological controversy, nor will it be the last.
 De La O 9

Works Cited

Dresser, Rebecca. "Designing Babies: Human Research Issues." IRB: Ethics and Human

Research, vol. 26, no. 5, Sept. 2004, p. 1, https://doi.org/10.2307/3563945.

Dressor, Rebecca. Genetic Modification of Preimplantation Embryos: Toward Adequate Human

Research Policies. no. No. 1, 2004, pp. 195–214.

Kleiderman, Erika, et al. "The 'Serious' Factor in Germline Modification." Journal of Medical

Ethics, vol. 45, no. 8, July 2019, pp. 508–13, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-

105436.

Li, Jing, et al. "Experiments That Led to the First Gene-Edited Babies: The Ethical Failings and

the Urgent Need for Better Governance." Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE B,

vol. 20, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 32–38, https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.b1800624.

McMahan, Jeff. "Genetic Modification of Characteristic Masculine Traits: Enhancement or

Deformity?" Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 39, no. 12, Sept. 2013, pp. 736–40,

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100976.

Montoya, Fernando. Comment Intergenerational Control: Why Genetic Modification of Embryos

via CRISPR-CAS9 is Not a Fundamental Parental Right. Accessed 8 Mar. 2022.

Ndice Ossareh, Ta. Would You Like Blue Eyes with That? A Fundamental Right to Genetic

Modification of Embryos. Accessed 8 Mar. 2022.

Shaver, LanceGarrett, et al. "A Human Rights Analysis of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short

Palindromic Repeats Germline-Editing for Disease Prevention." Journal of Public Health

and Primary Care, vol. 1, no. 1, 2020, p. 17, https://doi.org/10.4103/jphpc.jphpc_21_20.

 De La O 10

Sparrow, Robert. "Human Germline Genome Editing: On the Nature of Our Reasons to Genome

Edit." The American Journal of Bioethics, Apr. 2021, pp. 1–12,

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,

June 2019, pp. 6–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1618943.

U.S Department of Energy. "Genetics Legislation." Ornl.gov, 3 Apr. 2019,

web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/legislat.shtml.