De La O 1

Kate De La O

Instructor McCann

English 1302.203

18 April 2022

Something

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

boundaries set seem to only aggravate the human race to surpass it. 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 the new curiosity plaguing those who are

ambitious to now alter the human race. While the pace of technological advancements never kept
Genetically up with the humans’ imagination of possibility, it has now in the aspect of germline editing.
modifying
plants and Genetical modifying plants and animals is no longer suffice. Going a step further with the
animals is no
longer modification of the very being of an individual is the next upcoming challenge. Genetic
sufficient
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 they are trying to achieve.

(INSERT THESIS)

Regulations In Research Insert comma

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

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

germ cells (sperm cells, eggs, and embryos) is unregulated. Currently in the U.S, germline

editing is banned, preventing the government from funding any research regarding human

genetic engineering (Global Gene Editing Regulation Tracker). Granted, there are no legislations
 De La O 2

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 on. 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 advice “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 simultaneously protect human embryos and allow room for

advancement? There is never going to be a balance in which both sides live in a harmonious

functioning agreement. Like freedom and order in the U.S, regulation, and protection of the

human embryo counter each other in every recurrence. In order for there to be experimentation

there is failure and death of an embryo, and for complete protection of the embryo there is no

room for experimentation, consequently no leading to no advancement.

delete
 De La O 3

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. If an embryo 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? Sacrificing humans’

lives, forever altered, for the better or worse. 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. (INSERT

CLOSING SENT.)

Rights (SUBHEADING STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION)

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 the protection of citizens

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

forms 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.
 De La O 4

Nebraska Supreme Court case (Ossareh 737). This justification is unapplicable as any

modification conducted on the germ level becomes hereditary, affecting generations to come.

Therefore, affecting more than the life of one child 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 into human culture, therefore not “traditionally

protected” by society. The human race has gone all it’s years of existence without human

germline modification, proving genetic modification of the human embryo is not a fundamental

right. unalienable

“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are the unaidable rights mentioned in the

Declaration of Independence. These “god given” rights are the foundation on which the rest of

our government is built upon. It is the protection and guarantee of these very rights that dictate

the governmental system, laws and regulations passes, and how the country is operated. A

parent’s choice to genetically modify their child denies this individual from liberty and the

pursuit of happiness. The genetically modified individual had no say in whether the modification

should or should not take place jointly with the type of modification that was to be conducted.

Yes, it is absurd to expect consent from an individual that was yet be developed and birthed, but

this only proves the point further. 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
deprived
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. (ADD MORE INFO) (ADD CLOSING SENTENCE)

 De La O 5

Malevolence

It has been exemplified through time 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 harm to others. The human race, as opposed to

other mammals, is capable of purposeful harm, a malicious intent. Any resource within reach is

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

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

favor for war and obedience? One with the means and drive to create a specific civilization can

germ line editing. Of course, genetic modification of the human embryo is neutral, 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 with good intention to improve human health, it may very

well be used to create soldiers. Yes, one can argue that laws and regulations will prevent such

uses. However, in current laws established it is 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.

Replace? What about other countries? Laws implemented in nation does not guarantee the

implementation of similar laws in another. Inconsistent national regulations are utilized today

(ADD EXAMPLE). Despite rules and enforcement meant to prevent evils, these evils still occur.

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

greed is too great. In the case of World War II, if Hitler had such technology at hand one can

only assume that it would have been utilized. Possibly to create obeying, painless, and strong

soldiers, or to create the Herrenvolk, the German race thought to be superior. Technology so
 De La O 6

powerful and influential would only in the end aid those who wish to commit great harm or

control.

The Inevitable

“The human heart is greedy: it will use religion, color, or any other excuse to justify its

greed. Blame the human heart” - Brono

The Future

The unpropitious effects of genetic modification do not lie to far into the future as some

presume. Germline modification does not only put at risk the lives of future generations but

advancement and support for genetic modification of somatic cells. Modifications made to the

somatic cells are not inherited by the next generation and are conducted after the individual’s

birth and diagnosis of disease. The negative stigma associated with genetic modification of the

human embryo concerns scientists who see the improving and promising modification of somatic

cells.

Conclusion
 De La O 7

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.

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 8

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.