Human Genetic Engineering PDF

Human Genetic Engineering 1

Human Genetic Engineering: An Uncertain Future

Jack Silva

Professor Silva

Writing 50

September 14, 2008


Abstract

Human genetic engineering could be very beneficial to humanity by disallowing children to be

born with genetic diseases. Future generations of humans could be designed to improve upon the

species. However, there are many potentially irreversible consequences that could occur as a

result of genetically engineering an unborn child. The consequences revolve around the potential

destruction or alteration of the American social structure and the government. In order to

preserve the status of the human race, this technology should be heavily regulated and

approached with extreme caution. The usual process of racing to patent an exciting medical

innovation should avoided so this idea does not get out of hand.


Introduction

Genetic engineering is by no means a brand new technology. The first genetically

modified food was a tomato created in the early 1990’s, and the first mammal was cloned in

1996. Like all technology though, genetic engineering continues to rapidly expand. Genetic

engineering of plants and animals is now a widespread process implemented in cultures all over

the world; over 100 million hectares of genetically modified crops are cultivated every year

(Bevan, 2001). The success of genetically engineered plants and animals has led to the

discussions of genetically engineering humans. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is an integral aspect of

the process of human genetic engineering. IVF is the process by which an egg is fertilized by a

sperm outside of the womb in a laboratory setting. Since the first successful procedure in 1973,

IVF has become the best solution for overcoming fertility problems where traditional fertilization

is not possible (Bavister, 2002). Another main aspect of human genetic engineering is

preimplatation genetic diagnosis (PGD). According to Pray (2008) and Baird (2007), in vitro

fertilization has led to preimplantation genetic diagnosis which is paving the way for human

genetic engineering and genetically modified children. PGD is the process by which embryos are

screened for conditions that could lead to genetic diseases. If scientists learn enough about the

relationship between genes and their exhibited traits, the processes of IVF and PGD could lead to

the procedure of genetically engineering unborn children. The promising benefits of human

genetic engineering include the process of avoiding genetic disorders by screening embryos for

diseases that are known to be linked to certain genes. Without any laws banning the practice of

human genetic engineering in the United States, the stage is set for a future filled with

genetically modified children (Baird, 2007; Deneen, 2001; Van Court, 2004; Wright, 1999).


Despite the allure of this technology, the potential downfalls need to be considered with

equal importance. Deneen (2001) argues that if a system of genetically modified babies arises,

there will be consequences down the road that nobody on Earth could predict. Since these

consequences are apparently difficult to predict, research on the topic of human genetic

engineering largely ignores the possibility of unknown consequences that could have large-scale

effects. One must ask themselves what kind of world they would live in if this technology was

successfully implemented on a large scale. What would happen to the social structure of the

country if this became a procedure performed by privatized companies? What if it was a

procedure regulated and distributed by the government instead? This research paper will explore

the plausible downfalls that could result from the process of genetically designing unborn

children if active measures are not taken to regulate the technology. Specifically, the government

and the social structure of America could all be severely changed in separate or related instances.

What is human genetic engineering?

Human genetic engineering is the process by which a desired gene can be placed into a

human in order for that human to express a certain trait or be protected from developing a

genetic disease. To do so, the desired gene must be located on a strand of deoxyribonucleic acid

(DNA) and then cut out using a restriction enzyme, which severs a DNA strand at a specified

location. The gene is then integrated into a plasmid and placed into a vector, usually a virus. The

virus will inject the plasmid into a new cell, and the DNA in the new cell will adopt the desired

gene. This technology can be applied to human embryos by way of germline engineering, a

process that enables the genes that are placed into an embryo to be passed on to future offspring.

According to Hayes (2000), germline engineering is only possible when the gene is implanted

into a sperm cell, egg, or very early embryo. The other method for human genetic engineering is


called somatic engineering. In this process, a gene is added to a cell that is not an egg or sperm

cell, so the implanted gene will not be inherited by any offspring (Hayes, 2000). Of those two

processes for human genetic

engineering, germline engi

neering would be the process

used for genetically

engineering a baby. Figure 1

illustrates how the process

would take place. A large

stock of stem cells would first

be cultured by using a sperm

cell to fertilize an egg and

allowing the oocytes to

multiply. Then, viral vectors

carrying the desired genes

would implant their DNA

into the stem cells. From

there, each stem cell would

grow into larger colonies to be tested using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). PGD is a

process for screening embryos for certain genes or conditions, so by using this technique, the

scientist could determine whether or not the desired trait was picked up by each colony. If a

specific colony showed that it acquired the desired genes, those stem cells could be placed into a

new embryo and inserted into the womb of the future mother by the process of in vitro

Figure 1. Method for germline engineering. Retrieved from: http://www.arhp.org/uploadImages/cloning_7.jpg


fertilization (IVF). IVF is engrained in the whole process of genetically engineering a baby,

because it starts with fertilizing an egg outside of the womb, and ends with implanting the

embryo into the mother’s uterus (Bavister, 2002). Currently, IVF coupled with PGD is used on

embryos to determine the risk factor for that embryo to develop genetic diseases. It is a heavily

debated topic because of the associated possibility of aborting a fetus if it is determined to be at a

high risk for genetic disease. Adams (2004) explains that not enough is known about the

relationship between genes and their resulting outward appearance to make judgments other than

those pertaining to genetic disease.

History of Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is a technology that has been used on plants and animals for many

years, and is now being applied to the genes of humans. The origins of genetic engineering date

back to the 1970’s. It was then that scientists first used the knowledge of restriction enzymes to

isolate, identify, and clone genes and also manipulate, mutate, and insert those genes into other

species (Meyer, 2004). Restriction enzymes enable DNA to be cut at specific sections, leaving a

“sticky end.” If another portion of DNA is cut in the same fashion, the two “sticky ends” can

combine, forming a new hybrid molecule with the particular gene of interest (Hayes, 2000). With

this knowledge, scientists found a way to use the genetic code from a living organism and

implant it into the stem cells of an unborn organism, producing a clone. After these discoveries,

gene cloning was researched and practiced worldwide, but it has never been applied to humans.

The following years were littered with great advancements in the field including the creation of

genetically engineered human insulin, the hepatitis vaccine, and the tissue plasminogen activator

(tPA) that dissolves blood clots after heart attacks (Meyer, 2004).


Genetically engineered plants began in the 1980’s, when it was first discovered that genes

could be transferred between different species of plants. Scientists quickly learned how to

recognize specific genes in plants and how they correspond to the phenotype of the plants. By

implanting desirable genes into plants, crops could be cultivated to maximize yield and

nourishment while minimizing pesticide usage (Bevan, 2001). However, there are several ethical

and environmental concerns surrounding genetically engineered plants. Bevan (2001) points out

the ability for animal genes and even human genes to be implanted into crops, causing

uneasiness among vegetarians who could consider those crops to be non-vegetable. Bevan also

warns about the possibility for genetically engineered crops to transfer genetic material via

pollen to wild plant species like weeds, thus giving them the ability to be resistant to herbicides.

Despite the debates surrounding plant engineering, genetically engineered food is produced and

sold across the globe.

Genetic engineering has also made its

mark on crime scenes. The discovery of the

polymerase chain reaction led to the possibility

of genetic fingerprinting with only a tiny

sample of blood, hair, semen, skin, etc (Meyer,

2004). The polymerase chain reaction is a

process by which genetic material can be

copied and amplified at a very high speed by

exploiting the natural function of the enzyme

polymerase, which copies genetic material

(Powledge, N.D.). According to Powledge, the

Figure 2. Polymerase Chain Reaction. Retrieved from: http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/04etta/background/dna/media/dna_1_600.jpg


process is carried out by first separating the double helix structure of the original genetic material

into two strands by heating in to 90-96 degrees Celsius. Next, two primers consisting of

nucleotides attach themselves to the complimentary pairs of the now single-stranded DNA.

Lastly, the polymerase enzyme reads the template strand and matches it with the complimentary

nucleotides, resulting in two new helixes with the same code as the original genetic material (see

Figure 2). This process can be repeated, doubling the output every time; and each cycle only

takes one to three minutes (Powledge, N.D.). All of these advancements were important to the

field of genetic engineering, but it was the completion of the Human Genome Project after the

turn of the century coupled with the process of in vitro fertilization that has paved the way for the

present day definition of human genetic engineering.

In vitro fertilization is a process by which a zygote is formed using an egg and sperm cell

in a laboratory setting, outside of the mother’s body (Bavister 2002). The fertilized egg is then

placed in the uterus of the mother to be born conventionally. Bavister (2002) claims that in vitro

fertilization is a common treatment for couples with fertility problems when other forms of

assisted reproduction have failed. Baird (2007) argues that the knowledge of the entire human

genome paired with the process of in vitro fertilization led to the process of preimplantation

genetic diagnosis, or embryo screening. By this process, embryos can be screened for genetic

conditions that could lead to genetic diseases (Pray, 2008). If the embryo shows signs of these

genetic conditions, the embryo will most likely not be implanted. According to Pray (2008),

another use for preimplantion genetic diagnosis is for the controversial process of sex selection.

By screening the embryo, the sex of the future child can be determined, and the parents can

choose to accept or decline it based upon the findings.


The two forms of human genetic engineering in place are called germline and somatic

genetic engineering (Pike & Vo, 2007). Each has a different process and a different outcome.

Somatic genetic engineering was used far before germline genetic engineering, largely because

of its uses. Somatic genetic engineering deals with adding genes to cells other than sperm or egg

cells. This is the process used for gene therapy to correct diseases caused by specific genes. The

potential disease could be treated by inserting a healthy gene into the cells that are affected.

Somatic gene therapy is made possible by the use of viruses as a vector for carrying the gene that

is to be implanted. The viral gene is replaced by the therapeutic gene and then infects whatever

cells it normally infects, inserting the therapeutic gene into the cells that need it (Pike & Vo,

2007). The important difference between somatic and germline genetic engineering is that

somatic genetic engineering does not allow an implanted gene to be passed to any offspring

because it is not placed in any gametes. Germline genetic engineering represents the other form

of human genetic engineering. By this process, Pike and Vo (2007) explain that genes are

implanted into sperm cells, sex cells, or embryos in very early stages of development. This

means that the changes in the genetic code would be inheritable by any offspring and any further

generations that come to exist. Germline genetic engineering is a process associated with the idea

of parents designing their children to have more desirable traits by altering their genetic makeup.

Accompanied by the process of improving the genes of an unborn child is the idea of eugenics.

Eugenics is the process by which the human race would potentially improve itself by selective

breeding. According to Van Court (2004), those with more desirable traits are encouraged to

reproduce, while those with undesirable traits are discouraged from it. In terms of human genetic

engineering, undesirable traits would not be implanted into unborn embryos, and desirable traits

would be, thus improving the genetic code of the human race.


Another important aspect that would pertain to the future of genetic engineering is the

idea of eugenics, defined as a process by which a species is improved by using the laws of

heredity to select future offspring (Van Court, 2004). Eugenics can be traced back to the origins

of the human race, but Plato is considered the first to develop a philosophy about it, and Sir

Francis Galton scientifically organized the concept after reading Charles Darwin’s On the Origin

of Species (Sandall, 2008). Sandall explains how Dalton saw a clear correlation between the laws

of heredity and the idea of racial improvement, and called for eugenic action in order to achieve

that racial improvement. The Spartans and the Nazis are classic examples of eugenic societies,

but the process has history all over the world. In the United States, the process has been

advocated by Alexander Graham Bell, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Margaret

Sanger, to name a few (Sandall, 2008). The term eugenics currently has a negative connotation

because of the apparent link to genocide resulting from the Nazi regime’s use of eugenics, but

the definition of the term could be easily applied to human genetic engineering.

All of the aforementioned procedures and ideologies contribute to the focus of the

research paper, which is the imminent possibility of parents “designing” their children based on

specific genes that pertain to specific attributes of personality, appearance, and health. If that

process becomes a reality, certain processes and ideologies would be altered or redefined. One

must ask themselves what would become of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Would the

process be altered such that embryos would be designed based on the requests of the parents, and

then chosen to match those requests? Would in vitro fertilization no longer be just a treatment for

couples unable to conceive by natural measures, but a common procedure for child birth? If

those questions become realities, somatic genetic engineering would become an irrelevant

practice, because no children would be born with genetic diseases that need fixing by way of


somatic gene therapy. The theory of eugenics also has the potential to be redefined by human

genetic engineering. Instead of using natural child birth as the foundation for change, could the

eugenics become associated with improving the human race by means of actually manually

improving the genetic code of future generations?

There is no history strictly about the process of designing children with genetic

engineering, because it does not exist, but the technology that would be involved in that process

already exists. In terms of technology, nothing stands in the way of the advancement of

genetically engineered babies. Scientists are certainly eager for the chance to give every child the

right to a life without genetic diseases, but it may be possible that their judgment is clouded by

visions of fame, fortune, and praise. There are many known drawbacks to this technology, so it is

logical to wonder if there are also unknown areas of drawbacks that will not be discovered until

it is too late to reverse the effects.

Potential Consequences of Human Genetic Engineering

Human genetic engineering undoubtedly has mystical allures. It doesn’t take much of a

search to encounter a variety of convincing arguments for the development of human genetic

engineering with a purpose of bettering the human species. Adams (2004) argues that the human

race is running on outdated software, and in order to continue to positively progress, we need to

update our genetic code with human genetic engineering. The most promising notion of human

genetic engineering is the possibility of phasing out genetic diseases completely with germline

genetic engineering; if no genetic diseases are passed on to offspring, they will cease to exist

(Baird, 2007; Shanks, 2005). As a result, the number of aborted fetuses would decrease

dramatically since parents would no longer face the tough decision of aborting their child

because it will have a genetic disease. Also, money currently spent by the government to ensure


financial stability for genetically disabled humans could be spent elsewhere, leading to certain

improvements in other government-funded programs.

A more radical possibility of human genetic engineering includes the ability for parents

to choose the genes of their children to code for a certain appearance, intellect, and even

personality. This ideology might seem closer to science fiction than reality, but if scientists can

link a gene to a trait, it can be genetically engineered. For instance, if scientists discovered a

particular set of genes that controlled the ability to recognize patterns, those genes could be

optimized and placed into embryos. This theory could even extend to the possibility implanting

animal traits into humans. Children could be born with the eyesight of an eagle or the scent

recognition of a dog. With all these potential benefits, one could find it hard to imagine why

anyone would argue against it. However, the potential downfall of humankind could be just the

case to go against human genetic engineering. Is the allure of controlling our own evolution and

natural selection overshadowing the imminent threat to our species posed by genetically

engineering ourselves?

This paper aims to point out the possible pitfalls and negative effects that may be

overlooked when discussing the future of human genetic engineering. Some may be blind to the

many possible outcomes from a lack of knowledge, but others could have their judgment clouded

by the excitement of creating genetic superhumans. Obvious ethical arguments focus on the

notion of “playing God,” but ethical arguments are purely opinion-based. Evans (2002) explains

that ethical debates about human genetic engineering naturally turn into political and social

debates, and ultimately into debates about who should have jurisdiction over the research.

Therefore, ethical views cannot be cited as evidence for or against human genetic engineering.

When debating the topic of human genetic engineering, certain fields need to be taken into


serious consideration: the effects on the future of the government and on American society and

social structure.

Social Outcomes

The social structure of the United States faces drastic changes if genetic engineering

reaches the point where it is possible for parents to design the genetic makeup of their children.

Classism has existed in the past to a certain degree, but the basis for that classism is unfounded.

There is no argument that can disprove the fact that every human is inherently equal in the sense

that every human is the same species. If parents have the ability to improve the genetic code of

their children, the human species will cease to be just one species. To make that conclusion,

several things must be assumed to be true. The first is that the opportunity for parents to design

their children would come at a cost. The second is that the majority of the population would not

be able to afford such a procedure for their future children. Last is the assumption that such

procedures would be performed by privatized companies, not government-owned facilities.

By following the first two assumptions, only families with enough money will be able to

design their children to be more attractive and intelligent than the average human. These

genetically designed children will be more likely to grow up to be financially successful and

have enough money to design their own children. This trend would continue, and the lineage of

those families would continue to get richer with future generations.

By the last assumption, the procedure for genetically engineering one’s child would be

performed by a privatized company. With the consumers of the child designing service getting

richer with each generation, the privatized companies would be able to charge more and more for

their services. This seems like a natural trend of economics, but the importance lies in the

distance that has been created between the families that can afford to design their children and


the families that cannot. Such a system would not allow for that gap to ever be bridged;

genetically designed families would begin occupying more positions of power and wealth,

driving all other families to lower class positions, closing the door on the dream of designing

their own children. Looking far enough down the road, genetically designed humans would

occupy a certain percentage of the uppermost echelon of society, while all others would subside

to being labor workers and holding positions with minimal power. By this time, one might

wonder what the effects have been on the actual genetic code of “humans.” It would not be

surprising to find that such extended periods of germline genetic engineering have changed the

actual genome of the human species.

Very little research exists that aims to prove that possible outcome, but some writers have

discussed the thought. Silver (1997) argues that the result of this process would be the separation

of humans into two non-mating species – the genetically engineered population and the non-

genetically engineered population. The most difficult question will be to decide which species

will be considered human. Speculating as to the long-term results of such an occurrence is

unimaginable because an event has never transpired among a species with enough self-awareness

to understand what has happened. That is not to say that such an occurrence has not taken place

among less intelligent species. In fact that occurrence is the reason for the diversity of species on

this plant; all species are derived from a common ancestor, separated by genetic changes over

long periods of time. African cichlids are a prime example of speciation over a relatively short

period of time. Cichlids in Lake Victoria and Lake Malawi exhibit very high rates of speciation

resulting from sexual selection (Ritchie, 2007). This example can be applied to the situation of

genetically engineered children because the speciation would result from the lack of mating

between the genetically engineered population and the non-genetically engineered population.


Governmental Involvement

The role that the government will play in the advancement of human genetic engineering

could go two separate ways. One way would allow capitalism in the United States to continue

existing at the consequence of de-humanizing its own citizens. The other would allow equality

among the citizens to exist at the cost of turning the country into a socialist or communist

regime. The first way mentioned, as described by Silver (1997), Wright (1999), and Deneen

(2001), would require genetically engineered children to be products of privatized companies.

The government would remain a separate entity, collecting heavy taxes from the rich. As the

technology progresses, society would begin to separate itself into two social classes, based on the

methods previously mentioned. The government would receive a larger and larger percentage of

its money from the rich, genetically engineered group. At the same time, the lower class, non-

engineered population would become more and more financially dependent on the government.

As this trend continues, the separation would grow, and the non-engineered population would be

diminished to very low paying positions at best. The other direction mentioned that the

government could take would require the government to be in charge of all human genetic

engineering processes, in essence making it a part of universal healthcare (FitzGerald, 2002).

This move would likely create the onset to a socialist country, with the possibility of becoming a

communist regime. The extent to which these genetic engineering processes could be carried out

would depend totally on how much money the government is able to put into it. Depending on

the future financial state of the nation, everyone could have the opportunity to design their

children, or nobody could have the opportunity to design their children. This solves the problem

of the potential rift between species, but it compromises the democratic basis on which the nation

was formed.


A Suitable Path for the Future of Human Genetic Engineering

The future of human genetic engineering could take many shapes, some that would

improve humankind on a revolutionary level, and some that would destroy humankind on a

disastrous level. It seems likely though, that the future of human genetic engineering will take a

path somewhere between the two extremes. There will always be those in favor and those

opposed, so as long as the debate continues, it will not be allowed to get out of hand. Humans

have proven they are capable of making great advancements for the benefit of the species, but

with those advancements have also come instances of dehumanization and corruption. So this

aspect of life should follow suit.

The idea of genetically designed babies does not seem to be a common interest of the

entire globe. Countries like France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Canada, and Australia have all

placed bans with stiff “crime against humanity” prison sentences on research regarding human

cloning and stem cell research, which are integral aspects of human genetic engineering

(Matthews, 2007). Unless some groundbreaking, humanity-saving breakthrough is made in the

field, it seems as though the trend will continue with more countries placing bans on the

technology instead of lifting them. Since countries are instituting such bans, it alludes to the idea

that the potential negative consequences are being realized more and more. Until solutions are

formed to prevent those consequences, human genetic engineering should remain an untouched

subject. This is not to say, however, that advancements will not be made in the field. Scientists

will continue finding cures for genetic diseases with human genetic engineering technology, and

controversial experiments will continue despite ethical debates. Looking farther down the road,

natural human progression suggests that scientists will eventually find a way to genetically

engineer unborn babies to be smarter and more attractive. This process will never be lawfully


recognized, though. Instead, extremely extensive screenings will be carried out by doctors to

provide in depth analyses of early-stage fetuses. These screenings will be able to predict virtually

all aspects of the child’s personality and appearance. Parents will have to pay a price only

affordable to upper-class citizens. Similar to today, parents will then be able to decide whether

they want to keep or abort the child based on the findings of the screening. The difference will be

in the reasons for a fetus being aborted. Instead of making the decision to abort a fetus because it

will be born with a genetic disease, parents might choose to abort it because it will not be as

intelligent or attractive as they would have liked. It cannot be ignored that future scientists and

doctors could be willing to illegally genetically engineer a child to the specifications of a parent

for an extremely high price. Such an operation would be highly punishable by law, and one

would certainly be hard pressed to find a provider willing to carry out the procedures.

All things considered, the likelihood of a science fiction future resulting from human

genetic engineering is farfetched at best. Pop culture seems to magnify the reaches of technology

to impress the audience. If life progresses according to science fiction predictions, we would

already be deep into the age of flying cars and robot servants. The topic of human genetic

engineering is in its infant stages, and the technology will become understood in far greater detail

in the years to come. As of now, genetically designed babies are not an issue of extreme

importance; it is the ideologies that provide the greatest opportunity for scrutiny. What matters is

the ways in which society would handle such a technology. It is reassuring that the realization of

such a technology is far off, because if it were suddenly upon us, humanity would be at a loss for

ways to successfully and safely implement such a practice without sacrificing the ideals we build

our race around.


References

Adams, M. (2004). The top ten technologies: #7: Genetic engineering of humans . NaturalNews,

Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.naturalnews.com/001337.html

Baird, S. (2007, April). Designer babies: Eugenics repackaged or consumer options? (Cover

story). Technology Teacher, 66(7), 12-16. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic

Search Complete database.

Bavister, B. (2002). Early history of in vitro fertilization. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from

http://www.reproduction-online.org/cgi/reprint/124/2/181

Bevan, M. (2001). Information and guide to plant genetic engineering. Retrieved August 30,

2009, from http://www.genetics.org.uk/files/pdf/Plant%20Genetic%20Engineering.pdf

Bohlin, R. (2000). Human genetic engineering. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/humgeneng.html

Deneen, S. (2001, January). Designer people. (Cover story). E - The Environmental Magazine,

12(1), 26. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing god? Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public

bioethical debate. Cicago University Press.

FitzGerald, K. (2002, August). Knowledge without wisdom: Human genetic engineering without

religious insight. Christian Bioethics: Non-ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, 8(2),

147-162. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.


Hayes, R. (2000). The politics of genetically engineered humans. Loka Institute, Retrieved

August 30, 2009, from http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/PoGEH.html

Matthews, K. (2007). Overview of world human cloning policies. Retrieved from

http://cnx.org/content/m14834/latest/

Meyer, R. (2004). History of biotechnology and genetic engineering. In Genetics Encyclopedia

[Web]. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-

biotechnology-and-genetic-engineering

Pike, G., & Vo, H. (2007). The genetic engineering of humans. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from

http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/fall07/p28.pdf.

Powledge, T. The polymerase chain reaction. Breakthroughs in Bioscience, Retrieved August 30,

2009, from http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/The%20Polymerase%20Chain%20Reaction.pdf

Pray, L. A. (2008). Embryo screening and the ethics of human genetic engineering . Nature

Education, Retrieved August 16, 2009, from

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Embryo-Screening-and-the-Ethics-of-60561

Ritchie, M. (2007). Sexual selection and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and

Systematics, 38, 79-102.

Sandall, R. (2008). Sir Francis Galton and the roots of eugenics. Society, 45(2), 170-176.

Retrieved September 12, 2009, doi:10.1007/s12115-008-9058-8

Shanks, P. (2005). Human genetic engineering: a guide for activists, skeptics, and the very

perplexed . New York, NY: Nation Books.


Silver, L. (1997). Remaking eden: cloning and beyond in a brave new world. New York: Avon

Books.

Van Court, M. (2004). The case for eugenics in a nutshell. The Occidental Quarterly, Retrieved

August 16, 2009, from http://www.eugenics.net/papers/caseforeugenics.html

Wright, R. (1999, January 11). Who gets the good genes? (Cover story). Time, 153(1), 67.

Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.


Appendix

Annotated Bibliography

Adams, M. (2004). The top ten technologies: #7: Genetic engineering of humans . NaturalNews, Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.naturalnews.com/001337.html

Adams has an optimistic view about the future of humankind with the implementation of genetic engineering in humans. He describes our current genetic code as “outdated software” that needs to be upgraded if humans want to continue to make positive progress. By deciding what kind of being we want to be in the future, we can solve all the problems we are likely to have. Adams recognizes the dangers involved with this idea though; he offers that humans are not even close to being mature enough to make a decision about changing who we are as a species. Furthermore, scientists are extremely far from understanding how our genes relate to human behavior, and could not possibly begin to discuss a method for controlling one’s personality through genetic engineering. Adams ends with the final thought that genetic engineering in humans would be an essential step in the betterment of our species, but the time for doing so should not be in the near future.

Baird, S. (2007, April). Designer babies: Eugenics repackaged or consumer options? (Cover story). Technology Teacher, 66(7), 12-16. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Humanity is moving in the direction of self-modification, and the allure is very difficult to dismiss. The benefits could be outstanding, but the drawbacks could be equally terrible. The basic science behind genetic engineering is discussed with its roots going back to in vitro fertilization. In vitro fertilization paved the way for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). The advancements in the field that would make “designer babies” possible are then discussed. Advanced reproductive technologies, cell and chromosome manipulation, genetics, and genomics are the major fields that pave the way for human genetic engineering. Arguments are then made for and against the notion of “designer babies,” citing the ability to cure genetic diseases as a benefit, and the consequence of having to terminate a large number of embryos as a drawback.

Bohlin, R. (2000). Human genetic engineering. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/humgeneng.html

Doctor Raymond Bohlin answers several pressing questions about human genetic engineering. He explains how genetic engineering could potentially be used to treat and cure genetic diseases in humans. However, Bohlin suggests a cautious approach to dealing with genetic diseases. He worries that gene therapy will soon be used for mere inconveniences instead of life threatening diseases. On the issue of creating genetically modified super humans, Bohlin cites the views of “anti-change” Christians and “pro-change” authors and scientists. Bohlin opines that the idea of selecting a child’s sex should not be taken casually. Even though there are many innocent reasons for choosing


a child’s sex, there are many discriminatory reasons as well, and distinguishing between the two could prove difficult.

Deneen, S. (2001, January). Designer people. (Cover story). E - The Environmental Magazine, 12(1), 26. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

The possible future that could result from the successful implementation of human genetic engineering is far different from the world today. What begins with targeting and curing genetic diseases could end with children being designed by their parents for a price, thus creating a separation of species. The timetable for all this to occur seems to be extremely far off according to scientists in the field. The article claims that the debates on ethical issues are almost irrelevant because the box has already been opened. The question to ponder is not if human genetic engineering will occur, but when. The author then speculates as to what kind of traits could be modified by parents in the future and where the line would be drawn with respect to designing a child. A warning is also given pertaining to the plausible environmental effects that would be almost impossible to predict. Without understanding the implications that follow breakthroughs like this, significant harm could fall upon humankind. Lastly, the likely path that technology will take in the future is discussed in relationship to human genetic engineering and human life in general.

Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing god? Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago University Press.

Bioethics has become an increasingly important topic in the field of biomedical research in the past 30 years. The book explores how bioethics has become such a popular subject, and how far the jurisdiction of bioethics can actually reach. The debates about human genetic engineering have come a long way since the topic was first discussed, and those debates are beginning to “thin out.” That means that instead of debating about both the long term goals and how to get there, debates are focusing only on how to get there. The book also explores the tendency of human genetic engineering debates to evolve into social and political debates about who should have the jurisdiction over the research being performed. Lastly, the role that bioethics will have in future debates about new technologies in the field of human genetic engineering is discussed.

FitzGerald, K. (2002, August). Knowledge without wisdom: Human genetic engineering without religious insight. Christian Bioethics: Non-ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, 8(2), 147-162. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Significant benefits resulting from human genetic engineering have yet to be seen, but the outlook looks promising. New technology in the field seems to point in the direction of beneficial knowledge about human genetics and the associated genetic engineering. Because of that imminent possibility, questions must be raised about how that technology will coincide with healthcare, or if it will even coincide with healthcare at all. The newest and most promising practices in the field of human genetic engineering are discussed in depth. Also discussed is the relationship between human genetic engineering and the previously held theories about human nature. Lastly, in regards to these new practices,


FitzGerald discusses the need for humans to gain wisdom about the subject and not just knowledge.

Pike, G., & Vo, H. (2007). The genetic engineering of humans. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/fall07/p28.pdf.

Pike and Vo explore the realities and possibilities of genetic engineering in humans from a social and scientific standpoint. The term “eugenics” is used to describe a form of genetic engineering used in the past to try and improve the human race. The term “direct genetic engineering” is used to describe what is thought to be the present day definition of genetic engineering by use of somatic engineering and germline engineering to actually change the DNA of a human. Pike and Vo discuss the rights of to want to better themselves, and that could mean genetically engineering themselves. The opposition is also acknowledged, and how genetically engineering humans would be like “playing God” and could potentially lead to a social classification system based on a person’s DNA screening. Pike and Vo finally settle upon the opinion that despite all the drawbacks, genetic engineering in humans has the ability to be very beneficial to mankind.

Pray, L. A. (2008). Embryo screening and the ethics of human genetic engineering . Nature Education, Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Embryo-Screening-and-the-Ethics-of-60561

There are two very opposite sides to the debate over human genetic engineering. The process of “reprogenetics” to select and modify genes in embryos before they are born is a very controversial topic. Pray also explains the process of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), a form of embryo screening, to ensure offspring will not inherit certain genetic diseases. PGD is also used to determine the sex of an embryo so as to avoid certain sex-linked diseases. A more controversial use of PGD is to screen for individual diseases. Lastly, Pray discusses how the opposition feels about PGD and why a large amount of people are skeptical about the process.

Shanks, P. (2005). Human genetic engineering: A guide for activists, skeptics, and the very perplexed . New York, NY: Nation Books.

Technology surrounding genetic engineering spans across a wide range of ethics. Some practices like targeted drugs and genetic testing are largely accepted practices. While other practices like genetically engineered babies and the creation of new species is mostly seen as unacceptable. This book discusses many important issues surround genetic engineering, as well as some of the less talked about issues. It provides the reader with insight as to how genetic engineering works and to what extent it can be used by modern technological standards. Lastly, implications are discussed that could result if genetic engineering is completely successful in the future.

Van Court, M. (2004). The case for eugenics in a nutshell. The Occidental Quarterly, Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.eugenics.net/papers/caseforeugenics.html

Eugenics is a practice that has been around for centuries, and the idea might not be as farfetched as one might immediately assume. A bridge is made between the idea of


eugenics and human genetic engineering with a main focus on intelligence. Van Court claims that intelligence is mostly hereditary, and civilization is directly related to the level of intelligence present. Van Court also states that the higher the degree of civilization that exists, the better off the population will be. The main point is that we are currently evolving to become less and less intelligent because the less-intelligent people are reproducing more than those with higher intelligence. Van Court’s final argument for eugenics is that our civilization will invariably decline unless we reverse the trend that is occurring, and eugenics through use of genetic engineering is a possible vessel to achieve this.

Wright, R. (1999, January 11). Who gets the good genes? (Cover story). Time, 153(1), 67. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

With the dawn of human genetic engineering upon us, the discussion must be had as to who will be in control of the probable eugenic processes. Though science fiction might scare people away from the notion of government regulation, it might be the better option. Putting the eugenics in the hands of perfection-driven parents could be far more disastrous that a government controlled operation. If the government doesn’t get its hands dirty with human genetic engineering, it would become a privatized company only accessible to families with enough money to design their children. If done correctly, the government could ensure that poor and rich families alike have the same opportunities to improve the quality of life of their children. Unless our country suddenly becomes a totalitarian regime, the likelihood of A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley becoming reality is extremely small.

Documents

Human Genetic Engineering PDF