Genetic engineering gives people power they should not have.

1
To what extent do you agree?
Perhaps the defining issue of our generation, genetic engineering provides the basis of
fear in our society that designer babies will lead to a tow tier society of those who are
‘perfect’ and those who are of a ‘natural’ decent; but paradoxically it provides the hope
that so many sufferers of crippling diseases need; that one day such ales will no longer
exist.

Now that the human genome has been translated, scientists now have the power to
control the genetic pattern for making a person. Specific genes that are linked to illnesses
such as multiple sclerosis can be targeted and altered or removed. Similarly, genes can be
altered by induced mutation by chemicals or radioactivity or using recombinant DNA
which involves using part of the genetic code of one organism and using it in another
living one. An example of this would be scientists placing the genes for human insulin
production into e. coli bacteria which led to a rapid production of insulin. With this new
power in the hands of scientists, the possibility of creating ‘designer babies’ is a very
realistic possibility that raises many moral dilemmas with many people seeing it as going
to far by playing ‘God’.

It is modern science that advocates genetic engineering for the benefit of humanity,
claiming that through alteration of cells, diseases can be prevented or eradicated.
However, it is the possibility of designer babies that has lead to a highly argumentative
moral debate. The question is what qualities are good ones, and which are bad, and which
ones should be removed or kept in order to benefit the individual and society. Deafness or
blindness for example are natural occurrences, and although those without those
attributes would be pleased that they are not being limited, those with them would
consider them to be a positive quality. The question is therefore whether variety of all
kinds in society is desired or if we wish for a society that is tampered with by the
previous generation. Nature as a constant has given the human race illnesses, and that
very same nature has given us the intelligence to overcome such obstacles and cure them.
In the past, this has meant vaccines as cures and technologies to make our lives better, but
to cure the genetic disorders that plague our society today would mean altering our own
genetic make-up. This could have long term negative consequences that have yet been
undefined, such as the inability of the human ace to naturally adapt to changing
environmental conditions.

The issue of the sanctity of human qualities in particular is the most inhibiting block in
full blown genetic engineering on humans. Nazi Germany during the Second World War
purged those who they deemed to be inferior compared to the blues eyed, blonde Aryan
German race that Adolf Hitler promoted as the ‘ideal’ and ‘perfect’ version of humanity.
Granted, the comparison is quite different because of the psychotic nature of Hitler, but
as a society in the 21st century we have the ability to do exactly the same; but rather than
sending these people to concentration camps, we merely deny their very existence in the
first place as the genes that would have produced a blue eyed brown haired boy or
someone who is blind would have been altered at the embryo stage of development. The
very fact that an analogy can be drawn with the Nazi’s and genetic engineering is
suggestive that what we are doing not only effects in the present, but rather far into the
future. For example, the society depicted in Aldous Huxley’s Brave new World is one
Genetic engineering gives people power they should not have. 2
To what extent do you agree?
with a two tier system of those who are perfect and engineered and conform and those
who do not. The chances of that happening if genetic engineering where to be introduced
now is unlikely, but over several generations a two tier system of those who could either
afford to have their child genetically engineered and produced and those who cannot
afford it or don’t want it would emerge. This kind of system would lead to a massive
discriminative culture, one that would make today’s social problems look small.

There is also the issue of abuse. Like the nuclear power, genetic engineering is destined
to become a source of pain and angst. Nuclear power promised so much, but humanity
twisted it into a problem; with nuclear weapons now the biggest single threat to human
existence ever known. Genetic engineering sounds like it will offer spectacular things,
but really the potential abuses of it will far outweigh any potential gains if we sacrifice
our very humanity in an attempt to save it. The human species has proven that it is not yet
mature enough to have a technology such as genetic engineering and use it appropriately.
Only in a time when countries in the world are not investing billions of money into
weapons, and a new age of harmony has emerged that as a planet we can focus all
attempts on benefiting the species without having to look over our shoulder all the time in
distrust at other nations; as it is atmospheres like that which lead to the abuse of
technologies all in the name of defensive measures. Genetic engineering holds as many
military applications as it does medical.

There is also the issue of the accuracy of the technology itself. Debating the moral
implications of such a technology is missing out somewhat the actual procedure itself.
Genetic engineering or ‘designer babes’ has yet to be attempted, and to a lesser extent the
removing of genes and altering of them is very basic. At what stage do we deem the
technology safe enough to be used on human beings? It is the very possibility that the
procedure may fail and cause mass abnormalities that makes it so incredibly risky.

There have been various Christian responses to the issue of genetic engineering.
Generally, this is an area that is approached with caution as people worry that it is
eugenics in disguise. Meilaender points out that it is the issue of being ‘begotten’ and
the issue of being ‘made’ is what people have concerns with. Christians will generally be
concerned with the notion of playing God and how this would be pushing the limits of
natural development too far. Similarly, the concern of aiding nature and controlling
nature is prominent, as this too could lead to the issue of ‘playing God’ which for many
Christians is unacceptable. It is Reiss and Straughan who point that out Christians have
either adopted the stance of rejecting genetic engineering, being cautious towards it, or
accepting it with restrictions.

The Church of Scotland views genetic engineering with caution. Although they have an
openness to the possibilities of it, their Clothier and Nuffield reports suggest that genetic
engineering should not be used as a means to create a particular kind of society with
particular kinds of people in it. Furthermore, the Church of Scotland says that if genetic
screening is employed, and there are abnormities with the foetus, then there should be no
pressure at all on the parents to have a termination. This is the same with gene therapy,
where the Church believes in diversity in society and allowing it. However, the church
Genetic engineering gives people power they should not have. 3
To what extent do you agree?
offers no final opinion on genetic engineering with its study groups saying “in a fast-
changing discipline like human genetics, it is not possible to offer final conclusions.”

The stance of the Roman Catholic Church is similar, although Pope John Paul II said
that the therapeutic procedures on the foetus were acceptable “provided it is directed to
the true promotion of the personal well-being of the individual without doing harm
to his integrity or worsening his conditions of life.” This statement is quite promising
from the Church, as it means that some areas of genetic engineering could be acceptable
if it only helps the foetus develop and no more. However, it is the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith which opposes “attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic
inheritance” or where there are procedures which “are aimed at producing human
beings selected according to sex or other pre-determined qualities.” The Roman
Catholic Church would also be against anything that would lead to abortion, or anything
that would encourage it. Genetic screening without a cure to what problems are been
availed would fall into this category. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church would
also be against genetic manipulation because it violates the image of a person that God
wanted them to have. On this they comment, saying “Every person must be respected
for himself: in this consists the dignity and the right of every human being from his
or her beginning.”

Secularists have also commented on the issue of genetic engineering. Here the focus is
on the potential benefits that genetic manipulation offers, and B. Cross comments on this,
saying “Biotechnology is ideologically neutral.” This relates to the Secularist argument
that genetic engineering is not unnatural as it is humans who have always manipulated
nature; as we have improved so has technology which has allowed us to control nature.
Don Cupitt comments on this, saying “Nature is also wild, chaotic and pitiless.”

It is also the fact that nature is generally something that is not intrinsically good that
should allow us to have the right to improve it for out own good. Although there are
many moral dilemmas with the issue of genetic engineering, this is no reason to lock up
the whole possibility of using this technology. Hayry comments saying: “the ultimate
justification or rejection of biotechnology must be based on pragmatic
considerations.” The idea of condemning genetic engineering when it has yet to be used
is unfair, and essentially condemning those with diseases to a life of harsh suffering that
could be alleviated. Again, Hayry comments saying: “the expected consequences of
genetic engineering favour its acceptance.”

In conclusion, it would seem that the issue of genetic engineering provides as many
supporters as it does critics. The issue of whether or not it gives people power they
should not have is a difficult one, especially seeing as it those scientists that are the only
ones that can apply the technology. However, if a system were to be created where strict
regulations were introduced to make sure that genetic engineering was used solely for the
purpose or eradicating diseases, then it could easily be advocated. However, if it goes
into the territory of ‘designer babies’, then it is evident that it would be giving those who
control the technology too much power and a power that could affect the entire human
race and not for the better.
Genetic engineering gives people power they should not have. 4
To what extent do you agree?