Ethical Issues Related to Human Genetic Engineering
Introduction
Human genetic engineering significantly depends on science and technology. Genetic engineering technology was developed to help prevent the spread of diseases. The technology allows scientists to change genomes’ conduction method to eliminate specific diseases that occur due to genetic mutation. Munsie & Gyngell (2018) suggest that genetic engineering is useful in resolving problems such as diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and others. The technology is also useful in treating Bubble Boy, a deadly disease that results from immunodeficiency (Burgess, 2016). Thus, genetic engineering can improve health and well-being for a longer lifespan. One of the most significant benefits of human genetic engineering is helping cure diseases and illnesses in unborn babies. Fetus screening facilitates the treatment of the unborn. While human genetic engineering can prevent diseases from spreading, the technology has raised various ethical issues regarding its acceptance. This study explores the issues and reveals how they relate to privacy rights and proposes policy to address the issues using a specific framework.
Ethical Issues Related to Human Genetic Engineering
Human genetic engineering raises critical environmental concerns. Although the positive impacts of the technology could be enormous, many people question its effectiveness in conserving the environment. For instance, Burgess (2016) argues that new organisms created by human genetic engineering could create an ecological problem. Environmental changes that may occur due to genetic engineering are often unpredictable. The creation of a new genetically engineered species might cause ecological imbalance as exotic species. According to Rodriguez (2016), an accident in engineering a virus’s or bacteria’s genetics can lead to a stronger type, causing a severe epidemic when released. Thus, accidence or unexpected results are fatal in human genetic engineering because it can lead to significant medical problems.
The technology also has severe effects on human life. While genetic engineering uses a viral vector that puts functional genes inside the human body, its repercussions are still unknown. According to Munsie & Gyngell (2018), there is no clue about where functional genes are placed. It is insecure that the functional genes may even replace useful genes rather than mutated genes. Hence, the uncertainty about functional genes replacement may trigger other health conditions or diseases on the human body. Furthermore, as a defective gene is replaced with a functional gene, it is expected that there will be less genetic diversity. If humans have identical genomes, the entire population will be vulnerable to viruses and diseases. Burgess (2016) suggests that genetic engineering, ay create unknown outcomes or side effects. Particular changes in an animal or plant may cause unexpected allergic reactions. Other changes may make an organism toxic to humans.
Antibiotic resistance is another ethical issue of human genetic engineering. According to Gyngell (2018), genetic engineering usually uses genes to create antibiotic resistance as selectable markers. These markers are useful in identifying cells that take up foreign genes in the engineering process’s initial process. Although the markers have no other use, the genes continue showing in plant tissues. Rodriguez (2016) suggests that most genetically engineered plant food contains functional antibiotic-resistance genes. The antibiotic-resistance genes in foods may have lethal effects. In this sense, eating these foods may reduce antibiotics’ effectiveness to fight diseases when. The resistance genes also may be transferred to human pathogens, making them resistant to antibiotics. The transfer may trigger serious health problems on antibiotic-resistant disease organisms.
Moreover, technology has raised critical social issues. For example, once an altered is transferred to a human body, the process cannot be reversed. In this regard, the public is concerned about RDNA modification, which may lead to infectious diseases, leading to epidemics.
How Expression, Copyright, and Privacy Rights Relate to Human Genetic Engineering
People often consider genetic information about themselves as private. Each person’s genome is unique. However, specific changes within an individual’s genome might be extensively shared with biological relatives or across the entire population (NASEM, 2017). The mixed genome character may lead to extensively shared common elements. For instance, due private has raised significant concerns about genetic privacy (Rodriguez, 2016).
On the other hand, DNA is conceptualized as a unique identifier that preserves a person’s life history. Burgess (2016) suggests that DNA provides insights into various aspects of the person’s future. This conceptualization influences many people’s ideas about access control to their genetic information. WHO (2019) suggests that privacy rights protect personal data and genetic information, which is also considered private. While human genetic engineering is useful in treating various diseases, data privacy rights regulate people who should share their data to minimize breaches’ risks.
Insurance-related discrimination also relates to human genetic engineering. According to Munsie & Gyngell (2018), one of the primary issues of genetic engineering was identifying disease loci. However, this may allow insurance bodies to create several risk factors. These risk factors would deny coverage to the increasing number of people. When a genetic test would show negative implications for coverage, the consumer might have to forgo the test to remain insured. In this sense, insurance organizations believe the vulnerability of insurance-related discrimination might lead to underutilization of the technology, thereby undermining the human genome objectives. The primary genomic research goal is to develop tests to determine risk factors for various diseases.
In light of this concern, insurance organizations supported the establishment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) in 2008. The law prohibits US professionals from using genetic information in firing, hiring, promotion, and compensation decisions. The law also bans insurance bodies from collecting genetic information from the professionals. Furthermore, GINA protects health plans and insurance bodies from denying coverage or charging premium prices based on a person’s genetic information and family history (Gyngell, 2018). The insurance bodies are also forbidden from requiring or requesting insured people to undergo genetic testing.
Using Utilitarianism to Prose a Policy for Addressing the Ethical Issues Related to Genetic Engineering
Utilitarianism is one of the best influential moral theories that can help develop effective policy to address the ethical issues related to human genetic engineering. According to Robertson & Walter (2017), utilitarianism believes the effects of an action determine whether it is morally right or wrong. The theory suggests that morality’s purpose is to enhance life by increasing the number of good things. Most importantly, utilitarianism rejects moral codes that are based on traditions, customs, or orders from leaders and supernatural beings.
Thus, utilitarianism reveals that human genetic engineering can be morally right or wrong because it leads to positive results and, sometimes, negative results. For example, genetic engineering prevents the spread of diseases. However, unknown results may trigger epidemics. While the primary purpose of morality is to make life better by implementing more good things, various policies can address genetic engineering’s ethical issues, increasing its efficiency. For example, I think that providing genetic modification information can help individuals understand DNA effects. Gyngell (2018) suggests that the characterization of genetic modification can help consumers understand the affected genes. The genetic engineering process should ensure privacy protection to enhance consumers’ safety and well-being. Most importantly, genetic engineering should minimize unknown outcomes to avoid creating epidemics. These policies will increase genetic engineering efficiency and align with utilitarianism moral theory.
Conclusion
Human genetic engineering can improve the healthcare industry since it helps treat various diseases. However, technology has raised several issues regarding health and human rights. Genetic engineering may create new viruses and diseases due to unknown outcomes. The technology may not comply with particular rights, leading to potential risks such as breaches and insurance problems. Moral theories can help address the ethical issues by developing relevant policy. In this case, policy developers should focus on minimizing genetic engineering criticism to enhance its effectiveness.