John Quigley

Genetic Engineering in Humans

Works Cited

Since the beginning of time, all life has evolved, from single cell beings to multicellular beings through vertebrates. After hundreds of millions of years, evolution produced homo sapiens, modern humans. Humans now stand at the precipice of profound evolutionary change because of our ability to alter ourselves genetically, cell by cell, protein by protein. But this potentially drastic reconstruction of the product of almost a billion years of evolution is obviously not something taken lightly. The consequences of even the slightest mistake could be catastrophic, maybe an unstoppable disease for which we have no immunity. Despite such a horrifying image, the lure of genetically altering our bodies and the possibilities of becoming "more than human" or "transcending our current form" more than warrant the observations of genes for possible later use.1

Genetic Engineering began with the discovery of the double helix DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953.2 From that point scientists have discovered the four molecules that make up DNA and what DNA does and what it is. What are called genes are actually strands of DNA that code for the production of certain specific proteins.3 These proteins are crucial for life in many cases and their deficiency can cause severe defects and even death. To treat these gene based deficiencies, scientists must first understand what they are working with. They must understand the genetic makeup of man. The Human Genome Project is a multi-billion dollar international attempt to map out the 3 billion base human genome, which is the distribution of genes or chromosomes.4 In 2000, it was announced that scientists were successful in uncovering and identifying thirty thousand separate genes in the human body, which was a huge step in uncovering our basic biology. The completion of the Human Genome Project has enabled scientists to make huge jumps in genetic engineering and in the treatment of diseases. Through the human Genome Project, scientists have discovered that every single human cell has the same exact genes, but different cells in different parts of the body have different genes activated. Genetic engineering involves obtaining access to these genes and activating or deactivating specific genes in order to produce the desired effect.

Prior to the completion of the Human Genome project, scientists and doctors have attempted to treat various genetic illnesses like Cystic Fibrosis with somatic gene therapy. Somatic gene therapy involves the alteration of the genes in the body cells in order to cure whatever problem may be present.5 Because of the fact that somatic gene therapy only affects a limited number of genes in our body, it does not affect the next generation.6 The attempts at curing a disease using somatic gene therapy had been unsuccessful until the year 2000, when Dr. Alan Fischer, in Paris, cured "two infants suffering from a rare form of severe combined immunodeficiency disease by removing and genetically modifying their bone marrow cells."7 On the other hand, after researchers at the University of Pennsylvania attempted to introduce new genes to the liver of a boy using a modified virus, the boy died.8 It is unknown whether the death of the boy was caused by the introduced genes or some other factor such as the virus used to transport the genes spreading to and affecting other parts of the boy's body. The problem with somatic gene therapy is that the modified genes must come from the diseased area and they must be reinserted back into the same place. With some internal organs such as the liver and the heart, somatic gene therapy is too invasive to be performed. A less invasive procedure, germline engineering, has arisen.

Germline engineering involves the genetic engineering of a single cell in any part of the body and that cell in turn affects the genes of every other cell in the body in the same way that the initial genes were engineered.9 Germline engineering enables scientists and doctors to engineer the genes of a single strand of hair to cure a genetic disease or disorder that affects another part of the body. The modified gene is then placed into a human embryo, changing its growth and genetic traits. Because germline engineering influences all of the cells in the body, the cells that make up the human egg and sperm also known as the "germ cells" would be modified so the genetic modification would be passed down to future generations. This is where the issue in the genetic alteration of humans lies. Those against germline engineering see it as disrupting either evolution or God?s plan for us. Those in favor of germline engineering see it not as an interrupter of evolution but as evolution itself. Those in support see it as humans taking advantage of the intelligence that evolution has given us in order to take control of our own bodies.

Although less invasive than somatic gene therapy, germline engineering carries a very low success rate. In the words of Richard Hayes, the director of the Center for Genetics and Society, "It?s very difficult to get a desired new gene into a fertilized egg on a single try", and if the first try fails, the embryo dies.10 This presents the obvious problem of the deaths of hundreds of embryos in order to produce one successful case of germline engineering. The only partially feasible method of achieving the required number of embryos to obtain one successfully engineered embryo that scientists have come up with has been cloning, another issue that is heavily debated.11 Cloning such large amounts of humans is not politically or economically practical in this day because of the significant opposition by many groups. This eliminates germline engineering as a possibility in the immediate future, but as scientists refine their methods of implantation and engineering, the number of embryos needed to produce one successfully engineered embryo will shrink rapidly.

Widespread alterations of human genetics requires reliable and safe methods for germline engineering. In 1997, John Harrington and Huntington Willard came one step closer to creating a reliable method for germline intervention.12 What they created was an artificial chromosome, capable of performing "all the essential elements for chromosome functioning"13 which include the storage and distribution of the blueprints for the human genes. Research and development of artificial chromosomes was taken over by large companies shortly after the initial creation. In 1998, one company reported that "it?s synthetic chromosomes had passed stably through more than a hundred cell generations in human tissue culture"14 while another company reported in 1999 that its artificial chromosomes had been retained by successive generations of mice reproducing normally.15 Adding a new chromosome pair to our genetic make up would increase the number of chromosomes in humans from 46 to 48, more properly known as 46 and 2.16 The addition of a new pair of chromosomes would enable scientists to put an entirely new genetic module in our genes instead of attempting to modify our already existing genes. Because of the extra space for genes, scientists could get far more specific in their modification of the human genome.17 Scientists would not have to risk the embryo?s life in order to modify its genetic makeup because there is no harm in damaging the genes necessary for life and if the insertion of the artificial chromosome went awry, theoretically it could be removed, which is not the case for organic chromosomes. Furthermore, scientists could design a "shut off switch" so that if the chromosome malfunctioned, a chemical signal could be given to the chromosome to shut it off. The deactivation of the chromosome would not cause any significant consequences because none of the genes crucial to human life would be on the chromosome. Genetic engineers are also receiving more aid from the human body in that the complex nature in which our genes activate and deactivate at certain times can be easily observed and simulated artificially.18

Once artificial chromosomes prove effective and reliable in the insertion of genes into human embryos, the next step would be not just the repair and replacement of damaged genes, but the expansion upon existing cellular functions. Take for example prostate cancer and the modifications required to protect humans from it. Two genes and their regulatory aspects are needed, the first gene to instruct the body to make a poison that kills the cancer cells. The first gene would be regulated by a factor that activates it only in the presence of a certain hormone that is not found in the body through natural processes.19 The second gene would be coded to activate only in the cells vulnerable to prostate cancer. The trick is that the second gene codes for the hormone dependency of the first gene. This construction restricts the activation of the gene for poison to only the cells vulnerable to the cancer and only when a hormonal injection is received. If a man who had this modification were discovered to have prostate cancer later in his life, he could just go to the doctor and receive a hormonal injection in order to kill most of the cancer cells.20 This genetic modification is not unthinkable today. All of the basic components exist, it's just the specifications and configuration that need to be improved.21

Although futuristic human improvements-like wings and gills-are almost pure fantasy, more human-like tendencies, like age, can be extended by genetic engineering. Aging is also the perfect human quality to modify because it is so predictable. Every human will age despite his or her conditions. Scientists have already discovered the germline enhancements and modifications needed to extend a mouse?s life and they have successfully achieved such extension in the laboratory.22 The only downside to an anti-aging modification to the human genome would be the delayed results. It would take several decades to obtain reliable observation.23

With the ability of accurate, reliable germline engineering comes the issue of germinal choice, or eugenics; the genetic engineering of an embryo in order to produce the best possible results or to improve the embryo genetically.24 If germline engineering and enhancement becomes safe and affordable, every parent would want their child to be the best child possible, but if all parents endeavored to take this road and have their child, still in the embryonic phase, genetically modified and improved, all individuality between children could be lost. Children would no longer be distinct in their abilities, both mentally and physically, all of them programmed to be "the best." Those who oppose eugenics argue that it is not "playing God", it is destroying what God has given us, our individuality. Eugenics has become the most opposed form of genetic engineering because it does not save lives or cure diseases, it only improves the individual in bodily ways like strength, hair, and intelligence, and most people find genetic engineering to be too drastic a process for the vanity of improving bodily attributes. Those who oppose eugenics color to skew the definition to include sterilization and Hitler?s experiments during World War II to mate "racially pure" German women with German officers to create a "superior race." In reality, the eugenics that genetic engineering offers has nothing to do with sterilization or Hitler.

The discovery and decoding of the human genome opened up a new avenue of research for science and since then, genetic engineering has blossomed into a method for the acceleration of evolution in man. Genetic engineering in itself is intrinsically neutral, unlike many people, both supporters and opposers of it, believe. How the population decides to use genetic engineering is what gives it its moral or immoral quality. If today?s scientists do decide the right path in the research and use of genetic engineering, human society will prosper immensely from the rewards of genetic engineering, but if scientists ignore moral codes in the development of genetic materials, the future could turn out to be very sinister.