Genetics needed for correction, not perfection

Human genetic engineering may make us Superman, but our ambition may be our Kryptonite. Science continues to expand our knowledge of everything from the universe to the human body. Most scientific advancements in health-related fields aim at lengthening human life and increasing the quality of that life.

Human genetic engineering (HGE) is a relatively new field of medicine that has become available in the past two decades. Although HGE offers many breakthroughs with respect to the way we treat various diseases, its development may supersede its original objective in a negative manner. That is, extending its use from treating genetic diseases, to pursuing human perfection by the manipulation of the human genome. HGE, if allowed to continue to grow without proper regulation, will have massively detrimental effects on job markets, insurance policy and human reproduction, by the means of genetic discrimination.

Genetic engineering is a process in which an organism's genetic makeup is manipulated to evoke a change in that organism. The process is most commonly done by creating recombinant DNA by splicing specific genes from one organism and combining them with the DNA of another organism. The end result of such recombinant DNA is called a genetically modified organism (GMO).

According to the Genome News Network, the first genetically engineered organisms were created in 1973 from recombinant DNA. Genetic engineering is used today, primarily in agriculture, to produce genetically modified plants that are resistant to disease, produce their own pesticide and grow larger in size to produce larger crop yields.

Another common form of genetic engineering is gene therapy, which is the replacement of faulty human genes with a functioning gene. Gene therapy targets genetic-related disorders such as cystic fibrosis.

Human genetic engineering is a slippery slope of temptation to modern scientists and clinicians pursuing perfection of the human species. John F. Haught, respected professor of theology at Georgetown University, wrote an article for the Washington Times, "Ethical Views of Humans and Genetic Engineering," in which he assesses the appropriateness of genetic modification. Haught argues that genetic intervention will lead to discrimination based on genetic makeup in the workplace and with health and life insurance. If you were an employer looking for a long-term employee, why would you not choose the applicant who is genetically pre-disposed to live longer, be more resistant to disease and be an overall more reliable employee?

Haught explained GME's implications on health care: "Moreover, some form of universal health care and guaranteed life insurance will provide a favorable framework within which to make responsible and fair genetic decisions." Individuals who have engineered genetics will have an unequivocal advantage when pursuing health care coverage and life insurance policies. This raises a huge moral and socioeconomic dilemma because genetic separation will divide humans into sub-classes; those with superior-modified genes will overshadow those of inferior natural genes.

There were a number of questions on HGE in a recent article from the Augusta Chronicle in Georgia. The article acknowledges obvious benefits such as "eradicating fatal defects, including cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease," but then continues on: "Where is the line of acceptability between preventing severe birth defects, on the one hand, and genetically engineering a homogeneous race of ‘perfect' humans, on the other?"  

The Augusta Chronicle summarizes the danger behind HGE: how do we differentiate between defective genes and simple variations from the norm? Would differentiation in characteristic features such as height, bone structure or even skin color then be deemed "faulty genes?" Would fair skin be considered a high-risk and therefore unacceptable attribute due to its correlation with skin cancer? Wouldn't every man want his son to grow up to be an authoritative 6'5" and 225 lbs., and every woman want their daughter to develop a curvaceous feminine body? Would we experience genetic inflation, where a new higher standard of phenotypic traits would become the status quo? And what about the safety net of genetic variability, which protects a species from epidemic infections or other environmental variables — won't it fall to pieces as the human race becomes more and more homogenized?

For instance, "designer babies," a procedure which is yet to be practiced but is a realistic avenue in the near future, has an enormous set of moral, ethical and practical implications past those who assert genetic engineering is morally wrong. Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, elaborates on the psychological and social repercussions society could face in his article "Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective": "The ability to select the genes of our children (will)…corrupt parents, who will come to view their children as mere products. We will then begin to evaluate our offspring according to standards of quality control," says Bostrom.  Multiply this effect over several generations, and competitive gene advancement will essentially dehumanize the human race by employing radical gene change that would alter human identity.