Genetic Engineering

By Lang | Friday, 18 September | 5 Comments

The advance of genetic engineering makes it quite conceivable that we will begin to design our own evolutionary progress. -Isaac Asimov

 

For some, genetic engineering is a strong topic. Whether you are for or against it, it has clear advantages and disadvantages, and can instil strong feelings for both sides. For everyone else, there’s confusion, protests, spin and large corporations all muscling in to influence us.

 

Genetic Engineering is the modification of genetic material, no points for guessing that. DNA is a long double helix. The helix has rungs, each rung has a total of four different combinations. This code contains the information needed to build the body and run it. Genes are pieces of long strings of DNA, and genes are stored in chromosomes, essential pieces of tiny bundled strands of DNA. Each chromosome can contain up to over 1,000,000,000 pieces of DNA. That is a lot of information!

 

Humans have actually been using genetic engineering since civilisation began, and possibly before that. Selective breeding was (and still is) about selecting the crop or animal that you want to keep the characteristics of in the next generation of that crop or animal. For example, if you want larger chickens, by using selective breeding, you can breed only the largest chickens every time you need more animals. Eventually, the chickens will be a lot larger than what you started with.

 

There is evidence of selective breeding all through human history. It was the basis for the infamous Eugenics philosophy (more on that later), Nazism, most distinct animal breeds and nearly all modern crops. Corn originally had many small “crops”, similar to many grasses or bushes. But through selective breeding, American Indians cultivated the corn into what it is today, with sweet corn and it’s derivative wild crop, teosinte, compared, it is easy to see the massive difference.

 

Today, genetic engineering is about more than selecting the crops you think have tasted better or look better. A genetic scientist can look at that plant and ask themselves, what is it that makes that plant do what it does. Given enough time, the DNA responsible can be identified and replicated into new organisms. This has happened with corn, sugar beets, potatoes, mice, soy beans, rice, and the list goes on for some time. Corn was modified by adding Bacillus thuringiensis to make it pest resistance. Similar modifications were made to many crops, even more modified by making them resistant to pesticides and herbicides. The advantages are clear; resistant crops, and lower maintenance, and hopefully higher yield.

The disadvantages can also at times also be only too clear. Selective breeding and genetic engineering can produce some rather gruesome results. In Africa, whole crops were lost after genetically modified corn was found to be sterile. In England, some pedigree dogs were found to be so inbred that by the age of five, they were suffering from things such as arthritis and breathing problems. And these problems are not helped by lack of free concise information concerning the state of genetic engineering and ingredients used in foods.

Of course, these rather controversial issues pale in comparison to the hot potato that is human genetic engineering. In our civilisations fingertips, the ability to perfect ourselves is there. We have mapped our whole genome. The ability to prevent disease before it becomes a threat, to eliminate just about any form of disability, to predict almost exactly how someone will look, and to modify that. Scientists have opened the Pandora’s box that is genetic engineering. They have the power to modify the human to be and do just about anything physically possible, from building new body parts to replace damaged, to eliminating the aging process, to giving parents the options to choose how a child will look, move, act. But, just as genetic engineering has great and good potential, there are many who rightly hold concerns.

From religion to the poor, from philosophers to the organic movement, there are plenty of potential (and real) issues that revolve around human genetic engineering. For starters, where do we start to modify DNA? Can we start from modifying those with a disability so they can lead normal lives without being a hindrance to the community? How about those with a high risk of heart disease or cancer? Can we modify them too? Or if you are destined to have no coordination? Can we modify you too? And once we have decided where to draw the line, where do we get the genetic material? Would you be willing to provide your DNA for research? What about cells that we can only get from an unborn baby? How does the child feel about it?

If we could answer all those questions, we would be able to get some real advantages from genetic engineering. Already, we have plants producing insulin for diabetics, we have mice that can mimic every condition we want to study. And we have benefited enormously already from genetic engineering. But due to ethical, moral and religious issues, modifying human genetic material has been severely limited. There is no easy answer to any questions surrounding genetic engineering.

Politicians, the religious, scientists, farmers, business men and many others are all extremely concerned about genetic engineering. Some, like farmers, may gain if they with genetic engineering, stand to gain. But the risks involved may bankrupt them as well. Politicians seem to use it to attack each other and gain voters, the religious all seem unanimously opposed to human genetic engineering. There are strong vices in play.

I have to confess that I also feel strongly about genetic engineering. Attempted unbias towards genetic engineering stops here. While caution does have to be exercised, I say go for it. If we can spare the suffering of those with disabilities, then go for it. If we can cure dementia, cancer, osteoporosis, then we are better off curing them. Civilisation now has the power to shape human evolution, and I say we go for it. We have mapped the human genome, we know what does what, how it affects what and how to do many basic things that could save suffering and improve lives. It sounds to me like we should use it.

The main conclusions that can be drawn for genetic engineering is that it certainly is not an easy topic to deal with. Large corporations like Monsanto stand to gain big from genetic engineering, while those who want to stay GE free will lose. It seems that powerful figures will continue to debate genetic engineering for many years to come. We stand to gain and lose, depending on how we utilise genetic engineering and where we draw the line.

A few links for further investigation:

http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/home-1

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/gmfoods/