De La O 1

Kate De La O

Instructor McCann

English 1302.203

30 April 2022

Keeping it Real

Ambition, the drive pushing humans to improvement, is evident throughout history. Any

boundaries set seem only to aggravate the human race to surpass them. Technological

advancements made in the twenty-first century have revolutionized medicine and what is

perceived to be possible. Genetic modification of the human embryo is a new curiosity plaguing

those who are ambitious to now alter the human race. While the pace of technological

advancements never kept up with the humans' imagination of possibility, it has now in the aspect

of germline editing. Genetically modifying plants and animals is no longer sufficient. Going a

step further with modifying the being of an individual is the next upcoming challenge. Genetic

modification of the human embryo is supported by many for its plethora of benefits: removing

hereditary diseases, curing diseases, and building immunity to sicknesses. However, surpassing

this challenge may undo the very good and harmonious living it is trying to achieve. Genetic

modification of the human embryo is not a route to progression it is perceived to be, as its

unethical practice, interference with rights, and multitudinous adverse effects on the future can

all be avoided with alternatives.

Regulations In Research

While genetic modification of the human embryo claims many benefits, our technology is

not up to par, requiring more research. However, research backing the modification of germ

cells, sperm cells, eggs, and embryos, is unregulated. Currently, in the U.S, germline editing is
 De La O 2

banned, preventing the government from funding any research regarding human genetic

engineering (Global Gene Editing Regulation Tracker). Granted, there are no legislations

preventing private companies from entering and experimenting in this field of study. There is no

opposition to one's right to create a private organization of study but rather the latter, the

unrestricted experimentation process of human embryos. Without a blanket of protection from

the federal government, human embryos are exposed to unethical and cruel methods of

experimentation. Though many may argue that an embryo is not yet a human, merely a fertilized

egg, they are considered human research subjects by the National Institution of Health (NIH) if

they are intended to transfer into a woman's uterus (Dressor 203). Therefore, only protecting a

few out of the many potential lives to be experimented. Many embryos stay in the embryotic

stage, stuck, never conceived. Countries such as Hungary, Costa Rica, and Ecuador determined

that every embryo has the right to life (Ossarch 736). While the United States has not yet come

to specific definitions and regulations when it comes to genetic modification of the human

embryo, it leaves the door wide open to unethical practice. Embryos that would have otherwise

grown to become healthy children are now threatened to be a product of curiosity and

experimentation. Regulations should be implemented as technological advancements are made in

this field of study. The Department of Health and Human Services can only advise "responsible

conduct of research involving human subjects such as pregnant women, embryos and fetuses"

(Dressor 204). If regulations are to be put in place, how strict and direct can they become to

protect human embryos and allow room for advancement simultaneously? There will never be a

balance in which both sides live in a harmonious functioning agreement. Like freedom and order

in the U.S, the human embryo's regulation and protection counter each other in every recurrence.

In order for there to be experimentation, there is failure and death of an embryo, and for
 De La O 3

complete protection of the embryo, there is no room for experimentation, consequently no

leading to no advancement.

No scientific breakthrough was accomplished without failure. Failure, in this case, is

more than just the disposing of chemicals or prototype machinery; it would result in the disposal

of human embryos and lives. Despite the rise of the revolutionary CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing

technology and its claims of accuracy, it is still too risky to sacrifice humans' lives, forever

altered, for the better or worse. Experts from Sangamo BioSciences assert that edits made by

CRISPER/Cas 9 are still too unpredictable:

It would be difficult to control exactly how many cells are modified. Increasing the dose

of nuclease used would increase the likelihood that the mutated gene will be corrected,

but also raise the risk of cuts being made elsewhere in the genome. (Lanphier and Urnov

2)

Genetic modification is extremely complicated and unpredictable. Germline modification is

messing with the biases of life, genetic material that makes up every living thing. If an embryo is

born with negative off-target results, unforeseen and unintended genome edits, where would the

guilt lie? Who would remain responsible for providing and aiding the individual whom is

unfortunately and unfairly a failed product or byproduct? Answering the infamous question, "do

the ends justify the means?" is where the argument narrows too. Is humanity ready to make those

types of sacrifices? One may argue that other scientific breakthroughs, such as antibiotics,

involved human endangerment as this technological advancement in medicine was new to the

twentieth century. On the contrary, while antibiotics were, in essence, in an experimental phase

at one point, they never put in danger future offspring of the individual who was experimented

on. Nor did it achieve its success through unethical practices. Those who were experimented on
 De La O 4

willingly gave consent. None of these ethical necessities in experimentation can be attributed to

genetic modification of the human embryo.

Double-Edged Sword

Rights and liberties are the epidemy of American beliefs. The drive fueling the American

Revolution was the belief that every human was designated, from birth, fundamental rights. The

current governmental system in the United States is centralized around protecting citizens'

liberties and rights. While the loose interpretation of the Constitution seems to be the most

common form of interpretation, many argue that genetic modification of the human embryo is a

right. Nevertheless, human germline editing has not yet been directly ruled by the Supreme Court

as a right, as no human germline modification case has been presented before it. Advocates for

human germline modification use the extended clause under the fourth amendment to justify the

right to genetic modification of the human embryo, which was endorsed in the Meyer vs.

Nebraska Supreme Court case (Ossareh 737), hence expanding parental rights. This justification

is inapplicable as any modification conducted on the germ level becomes hereditary, affecting

generations to come. Therefore, altering more than that one child's life and being outside the

sphere of parental rights. The Myer vs. Pierce Supreme Court case established two requirements

necessary to prevent government intervention in raising a child: "the right at issue had to be

fundamental, and the right had to be traditionally protected by our society" (Montoya 1033).

Genetic modification of the human embryo is not deeply rooted in human culture, thus not

"traditionally protected" by society. The human race has gone all its years of existence without

human germline modification, proving that genetic modification of the human embryo is not

fundamental nor a fundamental right.

 De La O 5

The right to the “highest level of health” is often the claim made by genetic modification

advocates. Yes, every individual has the right to achieve the “highest level of health,” but if the

individual is born with modification byproducts, then the claim comes entirely undone. What if a

child is born with a condition, illness, or disease that has never before been encountered? There

would be no medicine or treatment to aid the child, nor will doctors be able to predict the future

effects of the condition. In essence the child is left to fend for themselves, go down a path never

traveled, one created by genetic modification. Toying with genetic material may change the

composition of the human body. Modified individuals’ body systems may reach a point in which

they operate differently to a non-modified individual. The anatomy and physiology of the current

human body is still being studied and understood today, many mysteries still lie. Once the

individuals possessing the alternative human body are conceived, they are obligated to medical

treatments. Adding an altered human body to the human body research would require research

and experimentation from ground zero. The understanding the anatomy and physiology of this

newly developed human can take decades. Not only does that leave individuals with the altered

human body without an understanding, thus no medical treatments, but it would also delay the

progression of research dedicated to the current human body. The human health research

workforce would be forced to divide in order to blanket the newly developed human research.

It is hypocritical to claim human germline modification as a right when the act itself

obstructs rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are the unaidable rights mentioned

in the Declaration of Independence. These "god-given" rights are the foundation upon which the

rest of the United States government is built. The protection and guarantee of these very rights

dictate the governmental system, laws and regulations passed, and how the country is operated.

A parent's choice to genetically modify their child denies this individual liberty and the pursuit of
 De La O 6

happiness. The genetically modified individual had no say in whether the modification should or

should not occur jointly with the type of modification that was to be conducted. Yes, it is absurd

to expect consent from an individual that was yet to be developed and birthed, but this only

further proves the point. There is no consent established prior to the choice of whether or not

modification should take place. Human embryos modified and discarded are denied the right of

life. Embryos born with defects, deficiencies, and off-target edits are robbed of their right to a

healthy life. Those born and left to live out their lives are dispossessed of liberty and privacy,

being obligated to constant supervision and continuous check-ups by the experimenters and

examiners. On the surface, genetic modification of the human embryo seems like a contribution

to the human race, but taking a deeper narrative exposes the harsh reality that many advocates

seem to overlook: the unethical research and experimentation and the unpredictable effects of the

first modifications.

Malevolence

Through time, it has been exemplified that a human with an ambition to conquer will

climb the tallest mountains, crawl through the roughest terrain, and swim through the greatest

oceans to achieve their goal, even if it means harming others. As opposed to other mammals, the

human race is capable of intentional harm and malicious intent. Any resource within reach is

utilized for the purpose of getting one step closer to one's visualization. If genome editing in

humans permits one to pick specific characteristics, what stops another from selecting traits that

favor war, tyrannical rule, and complete obedience? One with the means and drive to create a

specific civilization can with germline editing technology. Of course, genetic modification of the

human embryo is neutral, neither a negative nor a positive, only tipping the scale as the effect of

one's use. While the current intention to operate the genetic modification of the human embryo is
 De La O 7

good to improve human health, it may very well be used to produce super soldiers; soldiers

incapable of feeling pain, soldiers with no remorse. In the circumstance of World War II, if

Hitler had such technology as germline modification at hand, one can only assume that it would

have been utilized. Possibly to create obeying, painless, abnormally strong, and fast soldiers, or

to create the Herrenvolk, the German race thought to be superior. Yes, one can argue that laws

and regulations will prevent such uses. However, with current laws established it can be noted

that while the laws and regulations are enforced, it has not prevented illegal gun purchases,

human trafficking, illegal usage of drugs, etc. No matter law or regulation, there will always be

one who does the contrary, one who has no regards for the law.

The United States practices democracy; the true power lying in the hands of the people.

An assertion can be made that American citizens will band together to petition and vote for

regulations in human germline editing. But what about other countries? Laws implemented in

one nation do not guarantee the implementation of similar laws in another. Inconsistent national

regulations on working conditions are manipulated today by corporate owners to increase profit.

Despite rules and enforcement meant to prevent evils and wrongdoings, these evils still occur.

Those who commit a crime have proven that the law is simply dismissed when ambition and

greed are too great. Introducing technology so powerful and influential would only, in the end,

aid those who wish to utilize it with malicious intent.

The Inevitable

Therapeutic practice is the root sprouting the curiosity and expansion of human germline

modification. Though therapeutic practices are the driving force for modifying the human

embryo, it will not always remain solicited to this intent. Commercialization and cometic

practice of germline modification will arise in a matter of years or instantly after therapeutic
 De La O 8

practices are successful and exercised. In the words of Brono, "The human heart is greedy: it will

use religion, color, or any other excuse to justify its greed. Blame the human heart." Those with

the want and means to cherry-pick specific characteristics will. The line between human and

product would be obscured. Children would be born with characteristics favored by the

generation of their parents. Rare and specialized characteristics such as colored eyes would lose

their value, becoming a common trait. The same can be said for large almond-shaped eyes. Each

generation deriving from germline editing would all have similar characteristics, ridding

individuality. As trends come and go, generations would change their preferences, each

generation differing from the last but nevertheless appearing similar to those born of that time.

Prodigies would seize to exist as now anyone can modify technical characteristics

favoring a talent. They would no longer be a phenomenon, a rare possibility, but rather become a

creation, a product. Individuals would be born into a role chosen for them. What if a child wants

to become an athlete, but was given the characteristics for a career such as a plane pilot? Able to

fully function with only five hours of sleep. Their predesignated role would become a restriction

on the most significant part of life, choosing what to become, what to dedicate the rest of one's

life to. Talents would no longer be considered talents but rather bought abilities. Already born

with an advantage to thrive in a particular field, pride in acquiring a talent would seize to exist.

Specialized characteristics may become necessary for job applications. As a passenger to

a plane, one would prefer a pilot who can run on only five hours of sleep as opposed to someone

who can but is inconsistent. Would abnormal strength and speed be a mandate to become a first

responder? Without a doubt, everyone would feel safer knowing that those there to help in cases

of emergency are specialized to do their job, but such requirements would limit the job field to

those who can afford a specific modification and to those who received the necessary
 De La O 9

modification. The commercialization of such technology is inevitable and in turn, may create

requirements for job applications in the name of efficiency.

The Future

The effects of genetic modification of the human embryo are exhibited as having a

positive effect on human civilization. Despite the health claims made by germline modification

advocates, human genetic modification has no precedent to reflect upon. As a matter of fact,

advocates seemed to have overlooked its effects on society as a whole. Staying within the realm

of therapeutic practices alone, a division would occur between those with the financial means to

receive such medical procedures and those who cannot. There are two types of service seekers:

"bad" service seekers, people who seek medical attention due to poor choices made such as

drugs, and "good" service seekers, those who seek medical attention for disease or disorders not

caused by voluntary choices (Shaver et al. 19). With medical procedures available to cure

hereditary diseases and disorders, the stigma associated with "bad service seekers" would be

expanded to families with lower income, as there was a "choice" to prevent the disease or

disorder from occurring. Lower amounts of pity and willingness to help would arise for those not

financially capable of receiving the procedure and for those who simply refuse to utilize

germline modifications. As Shaver et al. put it, "What was once an immunity of chance might

now become an immunity of wealth." Socioeconomic division and access to human germline

modification procedures do not only divide people within a country but as well as countries

themselves. Countries differ in economics and technological advancements, therefore differing in

medical procedures available. If one country were to utilize human germline modification, the

economic and social division would expand. People from different countries would no longer

differ solely in race, cultural practices, beliefs, and economic statuses but from human race.
 De La O 10

Humans from one country would have genetic modifications that make them superior in ability

compared to countries that do not have germline modification technology.

Even if human germline modification was available to every individual and every

country, a generational division would transpire. Technology continues to progress, an in time,

generate new types of accurate modifications. As a result, making each generation "better" than

the last. While there would no longer be a socioeconomic division, there would be a generational

division, one caused by an uncontrollable variable, time. Only objects that improve can become

obsolete, a feeling that would be introduced to humans as a byproduct of germline modification.

"Skill sets can be updated through education or retraining, whereas genes may not" (Sparrow 9);

once conceived, the window for the types of modifications narrows. With a way of improving

and, essentially, "updating" the human race, older generations would become "outdated,"

creating obsoleteness amongst humanity. This obsoleteness would have significant effects on

human mental health and the process of aging. Aging would no longer consist of just becoming

incapable of specific tasks but, in essence, becoming inferior. Considerable technological

advancements can occur in a matter of a couple of years, having no regard for the feeling of

obsoleteness being introduced to children. Either through peers or siblings, children would begin

to understand that they are instituted with "old" and "unwanted" genes. Feelings of uselessness

and incompetency will contribute to the rise in mental health disorders amongst an extensive age

range.

The familial bond amongst family members would hinder as human germline

modification becomes consistent and normalized. Parents may never find it the right time to

conceive a child, as in a couple of years, a new genetic modification breakthrough would occur

(Sparrow 9). If one chooses to conceive, then a burden of guilt would formulate as their child's
 De La O 11

obsoleteness would directly result from the time they were conceived. Siblings would feel

hostility toward one another, as the older generations feel cheated out of the possibility and

chance to receive improved modifications. With such possibilities of the future at hand, is it

worth it? Human germline modification would have unpredictable or negative effects on

physiological health and actualize past nonexistent divisions.

Tunnel Vision

Modification of the human embryo is posed as the only, if not most accurate, way of

dealing with hereditary diseases and disorders. However, germline modification is not the

solution to genetic diseases. The effect of therapeutic practices can still be reached with human

somatic cell modification. Modifications made to the somatic cells are not inherited by the next

generation and are conducted after the individual's birth and diagnosis of a disease (Lanphier and

Urnov 2). However, the negative stigma associated with genetic modification of the human

embryo blankets over the improving and promising modification results to somatic cells.

Modifications to remove specific genes may later prove necessary with uprising diseases or

crucial to medical advancements. In the end, the human body has evolved and developed due to

years of adaptation to the environment and its threats. With germline modification technology,

humans will try and remove anything viewed as a deformity and disease and implement any sort

of immunity to improve overall human health. A possible unforeseen byproduct could be the

inverse, the degeneration of human health and the growing accustomed to just temporarily

putting diseases aside by deleting them.

By eradicating individuals with certain conditions, we also lessen the likelihood of

eradicating the condition itself because research on it is slowed or halted. The condition

could come back at any time, springing up again elsewhere. Unless we entertain the idea
 De La O 12

of a large compulsory screening programme of every birth and person. We enter a never-

ending game of whack-a-mole, forever erasing, should that condition ever recur. (Stamell

280)

Technology would continue advancing germline modification but would remain stagnant in

disease cure research. There is always more than one way to solve a problem, another route that

provides a pleasant result.

Conclusion

Genetic modification of the human embryo promises humans the power to prevent human

suffering. Advocates overlook the totality of germline modification. With no regulations set by

the government, the research and experimentation process used to reach the success of genetic

modification is open to unethicality. Despite claims of parental rights, it does not apply to

germline modification. Somatic cell modification promises similar results without affecting

future generations. While the goal is to terminate hereditary diseases and disorders, genetic

modification of the human embryo will, like any advancement, become commercialized and used

for personal preferences or characteristics. With its profound adverse effects on the future, too

pivotal towards the decline of the human race, and with alternatives at hand, genetic modification

of the human embryo should not come to pass.

 De La O 13

Works Cited

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

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

Global Gene Editing Regulation Tracker. "United States: Germline / Embryonic." Global Gene

Editing Regulation Tracker, 23 July 2019, crispr-gene-editing-regs-

tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/united-states-embryonic-germline-gene-

editing/#:~:text=Federal%20law%20prohibits%20the%20use.

Lanphier, Edward, and Fyodor Urnov. "Don't Edit the Human Germ Line." Nature, vol. 519,

Mar. 2015, pp. 410–11.

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.

Montoya, Fernando. COMMENT INTERGENERATIONAL CONTROL: WHY GENETIC

MODIFICATION of EMBRYOS via CRISPR-CAS9 IS NOT a FUNDAMENTAL

PARENTAL RIGHT. Accessed 8 Mar. 2022.

Ossareh, Ndice. WOULD YOU like BLUE EYES with THAT? A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to

GENETIC MODIFICATION of EMBRYOS. Accessed 8 Mar. 2022.

Shaver, Lance Garrett, 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 14

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.

Stamell, Kiruna. "Why Gene Editing Isn't the Answer." Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine,

vol. 110, no. 7, Apr. 2017, pp. 280–82, https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076817706278.