Dogra 1

Onkar Dogra

Professor Gregory Graham

RHET 1312-06

28 April 2019

Genetic Engineering: The Wrong Path to Human Evolution

Imagine a society with genetically advanced humans who are mentally and physically

superior to the naturally bred individuals of previous generations. Though it may sound similar

to the plot of Gattaca, the 1997 science-fiction film, it is actually what our future may hold. In it

is a foreseeable dystopian future in which cutting-edge technology and science leads to genetic

induced personal and social complications.

Through continuous research in DNA, geneticists have finally mapped out the human

genome. With a greater understanding of our makeup, science can help solve human conditions

and further advance the body. In the present day, engineers are at the forefront of making the

revolutionary jump to “perfect” the human race. While many support the leap in human

evolution, some individuals believe it is a step too far for science, as it is an unsafe and unethical

practice that will make Gattaca a reality.

Within the last couple of years, genetic modification has widely been used on animals

and plants to increase their size, production rate, and favorable traits. Even more recently,

geneticists began using this same concept by targeting the human genome as the next step for our

evolution. Scientists believe that genetically engineering humans can create many lasting

benefits for society such as reducing susceptibility to diseases. According to Julian Savulescu, a

writer for the Phys.org, there are five main reasons for the support of gene-editing including:

stopping genetically acquired diseases that are otherwise unpreventable, preventing both
 Dogra 2

complex mental and chronic diseases, delaying aging and age-correlating illnesses, reducing the

cost of treatment, and choosing favorable traits for an individual (2-6). Similar to how

engineering animals and plants is acceptable due to an economic gain from lower costs and

greater output, many view engineering humans in a similar light. Many futurists believe that

engineering humans can create an overall benefit to society by reducing their maintenance and

increasing their longevity, thus increasing productivity of society.

While genetic engineering may seem like a plausible goal to attain, in actuality it will

result in dismay and greater suffering for society. Take for example, CRISPR, the uncertain

process through which genetic engineering is possible, yet still unperfect. Yasemin Saplakoglu,

writer for LiveScience, explains how scientist He Jiankui used CRISPR, “a powerful gene-

editing tool to snip out unwanted genes from human embryos, creating the first genetically

modified humans” (2). Saplakoglu continues stating that Jiankui “delete[d] a gene in human

embryos in order to make the babies resistant to HIV (2). While it may seem like a massive

achievement to accomplish HIV resistance, geneticist Mazhar Adli asserts that the deleted gene

“has many more functions than just aiding HIV infection” (qtd in Saplakoglu 3). Such

complementary functions of the gene include the prevention of West Nile viral infection and

aiding the function of white blood cells (Saplakoglu 3). Though it may seem appealing to use

genetic-engineering to remove susceptibility to diseases, it comes with a high price of giving up

resistance to other illnesses and key bodily immune defenses that are crucial for survival.

Furthermore, it is unknown as to the future additional illnesses genetically modified individuals

are prone to.

There are various methods, aside from genetic engineering, that allow parents to have

children who are not susceptible to genetic diseases. According to the Executive Director of the
 Dogra 3

Center for Genetics and Society, Marcy Darnovsky, “parents can have children unaffected by the

disease they have or carry by using third-party egg or sperm, an increasingly common way to

form families” (Harris and Darnovsky 4). Although having a donor is one of the safest ways to

prevent such diseases, some may argue that they would prefer a child who held hereditary ties to

both sides of the family. Another method called “preimplantation genetic diagnosis allows

doctors to choose which of a number of embryos created outside the human body to implant into

a woman’s womb in order to ensure that a child is born without particular undesirable genes”

(Sparrow and Cohen 3). Unlike genetic editing, having a donor or using PGD ensures individuals

that there is no gamble or risk when producing an offspring. The child will not be at risk of

developing possible diseases on the thought of a new method that is supposedly revolutionary.

Despite the fact that genetically modifying individuals is dangerous and may result in

further diseases, Professor John Harris of University of Manchester attempts to prove the act as

permissible. Harris states that:

Those who fear the risks of gene editing don’t take into account the inherent dangers in

the “natural” way we reproduce. Two-thirds of human embryos fail to develop

successfully, most of them within the first month of pregnancy. And every year, 7.9

million children- 6 percent of total births worldwide- are born with a serious defect of

genetic or partially genetic origin. (Harris and Darnovsky 3)

Harris explain that while there may be dangers from genetic engineering, there are still

many more dangers that occur in the natural process of procreation. He states that a large portion

of embryos do not develop correctly, and many births across the globe are met with serious

defects. Harris implies that genetic engineering will be a safer method of birth compared to the

natural process. While Harris may be correct about genetically engineered children having a
 Dogra 4

greater successful birth rates, one thing he overlooks is the susceptibility to diseases and other

illness after birth. Due to genetic engineering involving inserting and deleting genes, many of

which interact with one another, it is unknown how it may affect a baby during growth

(Saplakoglu 3). Genetically engineering an individual may result in greater suffering for him/her

after birth and create chronic health concerns. Robert Sparrow, Professor of Philosophy, says

“no matter how many animal trials we perform, there will be no way to be sure how the

modification will affect a human child as they mature” (3). In other words, geneticist can

practice eugenics, but the results will always be uncertain. The uncertainty in eugenics creates

the possibility of suffering after birth, which is worse than an embryo not being born or suffering

at all.

Aside from the biological hazards of committing to genetic engineering, there are many

ongoing ethical debates to the potential destruction of society that the practices may hold.

Perhaps the largest problem of creating genetically modified humans is the alienation of the

naturally bred individuals from the designer individuals. Paul Knoepfler, a biomedical scientist,

exemplifies the separation in a scenario he explains in a Ted Talk. Knoepfler presents a situation

in which the viewer’s child is naturally bred, while her friend is a designer baby who was

genetically modified. The designer baby is smarter, taller, and more athletic than the naturally

bred. Eventually, the designer baby is assigned to a school for gifted children, while the naturally

bred is not. The situation produces an unsettling feeling toward designer babies, as if there is a

problem with them. In addition, the genetically modified individuals would be more narcissistic

and aggressive creating their feeling of superiority. Thus, the indifference toward each party

would result in a rift among society (Knoepfler). The fact that “only the most privileged

members of society will be able to have ‘designer children’ that possess greater intelligence or
 Dogra 5

physical attractiveness” would create further tension in the form of a genetic aristocracy

(Simmons 2). The situation would present an ethical dilemma among parents as to whether their

children should be natural or enhanced like the others their age. (Knoepfler).

Knoepfler presents an accurate real-world social problem that may result from genetic

engineering taking over society. Not only will it produce a realization of a difference between the

designer babies and natural babies from the moment of their birth, but it will also establish

jealousy among parents. Such jealousy would result in further separation between the two, and

thus lead to genetic inequalities. Eventually, acceptance into certain schools, sports, etc. will only

be available to designer babies. There would be massive discrimination against those who cannot

afford to have a designer baby and those who want only a natural baby.

Philosopher Leon Kass states that “as bad as it might be to destroy a creature made in

God’s image, it might be very much worse to be creating them after images of one’s own” (qtd

in Anderson 3). In other words, it is worse to reshape what God made for the planet, than to

destroy what God had made. By attempting to harness the power of God, humans are offending

God’s will and all creation, thus making the act immoral. On a large scale, humans have killed

animals and one another, but even more insulting to God’s creation is the practice of trying to

redefine humanity in our image through genetically engineering individuals. With the continuous

practice of engineering humans, chaos would erupt. Societies would be split further by income as

some would afford the process while the majority cannot. Individuals who are genetically

enhanced would reign superior to the natural born. Even with the ability to amend what God

made, it would result in greater devastation than prosperity.

Not only does engineering humans take away the power of God, thus deeming the act

immoral, but the act also takes away the unpredictability of nature. Considering the millions of
 Dogra 6

gametes that race to fertilize an egg producing one unique person, the process of procreation is

completely random and unknown. Sigal Klipstein states:

We humans have an innate understanding that reproduction leads to an outcome that is

inherently uncertain. We are aware that we can predict neither how our children will be at

birth nor how they will develop over time. We embrace this uncertainty, and it allows

us to strive to raise our children to be the best possible versions of themselves. We rear

our children with hope and anticipation, but with the knowledge that their development

and strengths and weaknesses are not fully knowable. Such a process would be dampened

if much of the future was predetermined, and this would take away much of the joy of

raising children. There is a beauty in not knowing and in the randomness of reproduction.

(Klipstein 31)

Humans are completely unknowledgeable as to the children they may expect, their

features, strengths, weaknesses, how they will grow, and who they will become. The

unknowingness creates the adventure and happiness of raising the child. As for genetically

engineered humans, one will always know the outcome and what to expect. Though having the

perfect child through gene editing may seem plausible, it would create less excitement as there

would be no rollercoaster ride to experience any thrill. Therefore, with a genetically engineered

society, excitement and unpredictability would not exist. The individuals of the dystopian society

would lack any element or glamour as they would be bred to have only a specific purpose.

Genetically engineering individuals may sound like an interesting future in which each

person has a predestined genome, physique, and mentality; however, it is a reality that the world

should not attempt to attain. The practice of eugenics will lead to health concerns, social unrest
 Dogra 7

among communities, and unknowledge of true personal desires. Humanity should leave their

genome to the unpredictable nature of God’s will.

 Dogra 8

Works Cited

Anderson, Ryan. “Just Because We Can Create Genetically Modified Babies Doesn't Mean We

Should.” The Heritage Foundation, 17 Dec. 2018, www.heritage.org/marriage-and-

family/commentary/just-because-we-can-create-genetically-modified-babies-doesnt-

mean.

Harris, John and Marcy Darnovsky. “Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on

Human Embryos?” National Geographic, 26 Nov. 2018,

www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-gene-editing-pro-con-opinions/.

Klipstein, Sigal. “Parenting in the Age of Preimplantation Gene Editing.” Hastings Center

Reprot, vol. 47, Dec. 2017, pp. S28-S33. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1002/hast.792.

Knoepfler, Paul. “The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies.” TED,

www.ted.com/talks/paul_knoepfler_the_ethical_dilemma_of_designer_babies?language=

en.

Saplakoglu, Yasemin. “Gene-Edited Babies Reportedly Born in China. What Could Go

Wrong?” LiveScience, 26 Nov. 2018, phys.org/news/2015-12-embrace-gene-editing-

human-embryos.html.
 Dogra 9

Savulescu, Julian. “Five Reasons We Should Embrace Gene-Editing Research on Human

Embryos.” Phys.org, 3 Dec. 2015, phys.org/news/2015-12-embrace-gene-editing-human-

embryos.html.

Simmons, Danielle. “Genetic Inequality: Human Genetic Engineering.” Nature Education,

www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-inequality-human-genetic-engineering-768.

Sparrow, Robert and Glenn Cohen. “Genetically Engineering Humans: a Step Too

Far?” Pharmaceutical Journal, 24 Sept. 2015, www.pharmaceutical-

journal.com/opinion/comment/genetically-engineering-humans-a-step-too-

far/20069421.article?firstPass=false.