United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization

Regulation of Genomic Modification

Co-Chairs: Kristen Meola and Olivia Kim

Dais: José Ortega

Table of Contents

Letter from the Dais 2

Statement of the Issue 4

History 5

Relevant International Action 9

Analysis 12

Questions to consider 14

1

Dear delegates,

We are thrilled to welcome you to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO) committee for the sixth session of UNISMUNC. As delegates in this

committee, you are tasked with looking forward to the future: to examine our technological

capabilities as well as the social and economic ramifications that the implementation of such

technology will bring. We look forward to seeing what well-researched analyses and creative

proposals each delegate will bring to the committee in December.

My name is Olivia Kim and I will be one of your chairs for UNESCO at our sixth session of

UNISMUNC. I am currently a senior at UNIS and recently ended my tenure as UNIS Model UN

Head of Business to serve as Vice President of the Model UN Club. My hobbies include

procrastinating, stress-painting, re-evaluating my life choices and pretending I can play the

violin. This session of UNISMUNC is a bit of a bittersweet one for me as my last UNISMUNC

after being involved in the conference, in some capacity and with varying degrees of success,

since eighth grade. I look forward to being able to take a step back and leave you in the very

capable hands of my co-chair and dais member so I can watch the chaos.

Your co-chair is Kristen Meola: a Junior, three-time UNISMUNCer, and strong believer in

communicating with your co-chair before composing a Letter from the Dais in order to avoid

writing in different grammatical persons (her co-chair is a proponent of proactivity and also

recalls that writing in the third person was previously labeled “pretentious”). She currently

serves as the Head of Business of the Model UN Club. Her MUN teammates are “v surprised”

that she agreed to be a dais member again, as she is still in recovery from the infamous

SOCHUM Committee of ‘18. Outside of MUN, Kristen is a Year 11 Student Council

representative, YYGS SDSE alum, and founder of the club (In)visible Women NYC, which clears

2

the taboo surrounding women’s homelessness and fundraises for female and LGBTQ+ residents

in local shelters. Heavily influenced by Fleetwood Mac, Tame Impala and Janelle Monáe, she is

an avid violinist, pianist, guitarist, and kazooist.

Jose Ortega will be the dais for the sixth session of the UNISMUNC. He is currently a Junior at

UNIS and has attended PMUNC twice: ECOFIN the first year and SOCHUM the second year. He

is planning to attend another Model UN conference this year, most likely in Spring. Outside of

Model UN, he is the Co-Founder of the newly established Finance Club where we collaborated

with UBS to educate students on basic principles of the stock market. He also enjoys playing

soccer and is currently the captain of the JV team (“I know I should be in varsity but I will get an

auto spot for varsity next year and more playing this year”). He unfortunately chose to play the

flute when he was in 6th grade and now is stuck with a very demanding teacher who doesn’t

really understand his workload as high school students.

Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns about the committee at

20okim@unis.org or 21kmeola@unis.org. We’re looking forward to seeing you in December!

Best,

Olivia Kim and Kristen Meola

3

Statement of the Issue

In a report by the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee, experts called genome

editing “unquestionably one of the most promising undertakings of science for the sake of all

humankind”. Genetics is one of the most fast-paced studies of present day; since the discovery of

DNA in 1953, genome editing has become a practice applied to animals, plants and, more

recently, humans in a number of fields. With technology like CRISPR-Cas9 that is increasingly

more efficient and precise, there are considerable environmental, humanitarian and medical

implications for the world. Treating, or even curing some genetic illnesses like sickle cell anemia

or cystic fibrosis have become more achievable possibilities.

At the same time, these recent advances in genomic editing technology raise ethical

concerns about what should be carried out as well as what can be. In November of 2018, Chinese

biophysics researcher He Jiankui brought gene editing to the forefront of international attention

when he attempted to genetically modify the embryos of two twin girls in an attempt to grant

them immunity from HIV. However, the procedure not only failed to guarantee the girls’

immunity, but may have also had unintended consequences on their health and wellbeing.

These girls were not the only ones affected by the treatment, as those health consequences could

be passed down to their children. Since the procedure, experts around the world have called for

the establishment of clear universal standards and guidelines regarding genome editing

technology, especially regarding germline modification procedures like He’s. This international

concern surrounding the field of genetics and increasing demand for better international

standards is not only rooted in worries about safety, but also about the potential applications of

gene editing technology. Most notably, the development of the CRISPR-Cas9 technique has

made “designer babies” (i.e. to genetically modify embryos to control inherited traits like eye

4

color or intelligence) increasingly possible, thus raising social and socioeconomic issues as well,

especially when taking into account the devastating ramifications of the eugenics movement

during the early-mid 20th century.

In this committee, you will examine the various applications of genome editing and the

implications of such applications, attempting to reach a global consensus on what technologies

should be explored and when. As genome modification technology continues to evolve, so does

its potential uses. As a global leader, you will need to consider when genetic modification should

be explored and where a line should be drawn; where research, or commercial or humanitarian

uses should be pursued; what universal standards should be set and what should be left to

individual nations to decide. Genetic modification technology is a powerful tool that could

reshape our world; it is your responsibility to decide how we harness it.

5

History

Although humans have had rudimentary understanding of heredity for thousands of

years, as demonstrated through the early domestication of wild animals and food crops, there

was virtually no understanding to the mechanisms behind genetic inheritance. The first, and

overwhelmingly incorrect, explorations into the field of genetics began in Classical Greece when

Hippocrates hypothesized that every organ inside an individual released invisible seeds made of

miniature building components, which were transmitted during intercourse and reassembled

themselves to form a baby inside the mother’s womb. Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that

the building component was actually blood containing hereditary “essences”. His hypothesis was

that menstrual blood and semen (what he believed to be purified blood) mixed in the womb to

form a baby under the influences of their hereditary essences. This concept of blood being the

key to heredity is why we still talk about “bloodlines” when referring to family connections.

These theories were generally accepted and were not further explored for the next two

thousand years, until understandings of genetics began to unfold in the 19th century. In 1856,

Austrian monk Gregor Mendel began cross-breeding peas and observing the characteristics of

their offspring. In doing so, he was able to recognize mathematical patterns of inheritance.

Mendel realized that a single trait was defined by a gene pair, and that parental gene pairs would

be randomly separated to the sex cells so their offspring would inherit one genetic allele (version

of the gene) from each parent. Mendel also recognized that some alleles were dominant and

some were recessive. If the offspring had two different alleles, it would express the dominant

one. Around the same time, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species by Means of

6

Natural Selection”, detailing his theories of evolution, painfully cognizant of the fact that his

entire theory was based on mechanisms that remained completely unknown . 1

Darwin’s findings inspired Francis Galton, a distant cousin, to look at evolution and

selective breeding as a way of preserving desirable human traits. Galton was a believer in genetic

determinism, meaning he believed these “desirable” human characteristics to be hereditary. It

should be noted that Darwin was strongly against Galton’s studies, coined “eugenics”, although

it quickly became an established academic discipline around the world. Beliefs about eugenics

also began to become incorporated into government policies around the world following three

International Eugenics Conferences in 1912, 1921 and 1932; the forced sterilization of

“undesirable” members of society began in the United States and later spread to other countries

including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Brazil, Canada and others. These

“undesirables” were largely part of disabled, poor, and minority populations. The scientific

validity of eugenics began to abate during the 1930s after racial policies were implemented in

Nazi Germany, citing eugenics as justification. In Mein Kampf, Hitler had praised the eugenic

legislation in the United States; when he took power, he followed the United States in classifying

individuals and their blood lines as “degenerate”, including the poor, mentally ill and disabled,

as well as promiscuous women, homosexuals and racial minorities. In Nazi Germany, these

people with “undesirable” traits were not only segregated and institutionalized or segregated,

but sometimes subjected to mass murders. By the end of the war, many of the eugenics policies

adopted by other countries had been abandoned, having become associated with Nazi Germany.

2

1 Gleick J. “‘The Gene’ By Siddhartha Mukherjee” May 12, 2016.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/books/review/the-gene-by-siddhartha-mukherjee.html 2 Black, Edwin (2003). War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master

Race. Four Walls Eight Windows.

7

More scientific research into the specific mechanisms of genetics during the mid-late

19th century began to correlate with the findings of Mendel. Researchers including Thomas

Hunt Morgan, Calvin Bridges, Reginald Punnet and Herman Joseph made tentative

contribution in increasing the understanding of chromosomal anatomy and heredity, expanding

on Mendel’s work. In 1952, Rosalind Franklin was able to capture an x-ray diffraction image of 3

DNA indicating a helical structure. After seeing the photo, biophysicist James.D.Watson and

British physicists Francis Crick were able to finalize and publish their model of the molecular

structure of DNA. These discoveries lent themselves to establishing the central dogma of

molecular biology, which says that DNA is transcribed to RNA which is translated to protein.

Essentially, DNA is the genetic information that is processed to become the physical traits of an

individual.

In the 1970s, microbiologists Daniel Nathans and Hamilton Othanel Smith discovered

restriction enzymes which, in essence, cut DNA at specific nucleotide sequences. This discovery

was essential as it later allowed biochemist Paul Berg to create the first artificial recombinant

DNA molecule, created by isolating, taking apart, and reconfiguring them. Later, biochemist

Herbert W.Boyer and Stanley N. Cohen found a way to create or generate recombinant plasmids,

which essentially take a circular shape of DNA, by first dividing them to self replicating DNA

molecules and then implementing them inside a bacterial cell. These developments led to a field

known as recombinant DNA technology and allowed scientist to maneuver and manipulate

genes through the process of removing and inserting DNA sequences. This led biologist Walter

Gilbert and biochemist Frederick Sanger to develop techniques around genetic sequencing.

3 Winchester, A.M. “Genetics.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.,

www.britannica.com/science/genetics.

8

Furthermore, in the 1980s, biochemist Kary B.Mullis created the polymerase chain reaction

which essentially allows DNA to be copied billions of time for a few hours.

All these developments allowing humans to genetically modify DNA molecules put into

question ethical standards. In the 1970s, a decade seen as the foundation of bioethics, the first

Bioethic ‘Think Tank Institutions’ arose. Some of these were the Hasting Center, an ethics

research institution founded in 1969, and the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, founded in 1971 at

Georgetown University. During this time, the Federal Bioethics commission, which provides

protection to subjects of biomedical and behavioral research, was created as well as the first

Encyclopedia of Bioethics and Principles of Bioethics published in 1971. Many of the founders

and proponents of bioethics were skeptical and ambivalent about new technologies and their

ramifications.

In the 1980s, in Britain, many of the proponents of Bioethics, who expanded and

communicated their skepticism towards genetically modifying DNA molecules, wanted to

establish the National Bioethics committee. Kennedy, and other Bioethic proponents and

journalist who agreed with him, argued and wanted a politically funded committee in the

American President Commision. However, the project was hindered in the 1990s due to many 4

politicians and doctors arguing that it would prevent further research to expand the field of

genetics. At first after various conferences in the 1990s the Nuffield foundation were going to

create an independent bioethics committee, however, in 1997, under the ‘new labor’

government, interest toward bioethics by the government expanded. 5

4 Stevens M. “The History of Bioethics: Its Rise and Significance” San Francisco State University. 2014

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/411c/465786abd8240a3b6e2745df1c9338f22c79.pdf 5 Wilson D. “The Making of British Bioethics; Consolidating the ‘ethics industry’: a national ethics

committee and bioethics during the 1990s” Manchester University Press. 2014

9

Genetics, and the development of this field, is a complex and abstract topic. Knowing

about early understanding of heredity, the exponential development of genetics throughout the

past 200 years, and the beginning of bioethics movements will give you a better knowledge

about the complex fields surrounding genetics. Furthermore, it will help you propose more

effective solutions in your working and resolution papers. Understanding the history behind

genetics and bioethics is essential towards comprehending, debating, and proposing action

regarding genetic modification.

10

Relevant International Action

The global debate surrounding bioethics and genetic modification can be divided into

four distinct subsets: microorganism, animal, plant, and human. While a country’s policymakers

may advocate for scientific interference in one of these four fields, they may not feel the same

about interference in another. This is why it is important to be familiar with your country’s

beliefs and actions which address each aforementioned category. In order to understand why the

United Nations chose to officially recognize genetic modification in 1993 with the formation of

the International Bioethics Committee (IBC), one must first understand the origins of genetic

engineering’s primary breakthroughs.

Bioethics became a topic for discussion worldwide in the early 1970s, when in 1972

American biochemist Paul Berg assembled the world’s first recombinant DNA molecule. This 6

opened the floodgates for American geneticists Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer, who used

Berg’s techniques to create the first genetically modified organism a year later. Cohen and 7

Boyer found that living organisms are capable of carrying genes from another organism, and

that certain enzymes are able to break apart and piece together fragments of DNA with said

genes. They used research on plasmids and restriction enzymes to cut the pSC101 plasmid (a

cloning vector) and ultimately develop a bacteria resistant to Kanamycin A, which is an

antibiotic whose most common use is to treat tuberculosis.

In 1974, a mouse in German biologist Rudolph Jaenisch’s laboratory became the world’s

first genetically modified animal. In collaboration with Berg, he searched for a way to identify 8

6 http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/timeline/1972_Berg.php

7 Ibid.

8 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rudolf-Jaenisch

11

viral DNA within mice. Using a technique to radioactively “tag” now known as Nick translation,

Jaenisch injected the DNA of the polyomavirus simian virus 40, or SV40, (which causes brain

and bone cancers as well as lymphomas in animals and possibly humans) into a mouse embryo.

The DNA did not cause sarcoma in the mouse, but meshed into its tissues. This type of modified

animal later became known as transgenic.

The first genetically modified plant was tobacco in 1983, however it was commercialized

in China in 1998. This was appealing to those in the agricultural industry. Tobacco can grow in 9

large quantities despite extreme climates and nutrition deficiencies in its environment, however

it is highly susceptible to viral infection which can ravage the crop. China’s commercialism of 10

tobacco lead to the development of other virus-resistant crops across the globe, which can be

found today in most supermarkets within flowers, peppers, beets, cucumbers, and even baby

food. The first of these was the Monsanto Company’s Flavr Savr: a tomato altered to have a

longer shelf-life while retaining its natural colour and flavour. On May 18th 1994, the U.S. Food

and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the fruit’s aminoglycoside 3'-phosphotransferase II

for human consumption, and the tomato became available to the public. Since this time, China

has conducted about 130 projects concerning GMOs, including 31 different microbes, four

animals, and 47 different plant species. China (3.7 million hectares of GM crops in 2015)

remains a world leader in the development and distribution among genetically modified crops,

alongside the United States (70.9 million ha), Brazil (44.2 million ha), Argentina (24.5 million

ha), India (11.6 million ha), and Canada (11.0 million ha). 11

9 https://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/359

10 http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=16907

11 http://www.genewatch.org/sub-532326

12

These findings by chemical companies like DuPont and Monsanto have the potential to

ameliorate a massive global crisis: world hunger. Modifying the genomes of “staple crops” such

as rice, beans, and corn could prolong their shelf life and therefore reduce the amount of

inedible food waste. The Flavr Savr tomatoes were not sold in stores anymore because of the

high cost of production, however the use of the same technology could allow underdeveloped

nations to have greater food stores and fewer shortages. Conclusions from 150 studies on this

subject confirmed that over the past two decades, genetic modification has greatly increased

crop yields. Soybeans, corn, and cotton increased by 22%, and farmers profited 68% more. 12

This was a relief to farmers in developing countries, as many worried that the cost of genetic

modification would lead to small profit. Those in developing countries who already had been

harvesting GM crops saw 14-60% profit increases because their produce was edible for much

longer. However, the world population is rapidly increasing and researchers doubt that GM

farming alone can continue to have benefits of this proportion. 13

At this point in time, genetic modification (most recently that of commercialized

produce) had become a part of everyday life in countries such as China and the United States. In

order to address this rapidly growing field, the United Nations formed the International

Bioethics Committee (IBC) in 1993. It is described as “a body of 36 independent experts that

follows progress in the life sciences and its applications in order to ensure respect for human

dignity and freedom”. It currently remains the only international assembly with the sole goal of 14

12 Maya, et al. “Feeding the World One Genetically Modified Tomato at a Time: A Scientific Perspective.”

Science in the News, 11 Aug. 2015, sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/feeding-the-world/.

13 “Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects” National

Research Council (US) Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically

Engineered Foods on Human Health. Washington. 2004

14 “International Bioethics Committee: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.”

International Bioethics Committee | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,

13

reflecting on bioethics. Five years after its creation, the IBC established statues in order to

clearly define its responsibilities and guidelines. Members, who are selected by the UNESCO

Director-General according to their area of specialization and geographical demographic, serve

four-year terms. They are accomplished in the fields of law, life and social sciences, human

rights, education, and philosophy. Together, they reflect on new genetic research and its ethics

and possible legal complications. They have jurisdiction to encourage awareness of bioethics on

the part of private decision-makers and governmental/non-governmental organizations, and

strongly believe in communication in order to prevent negative outcomes of these discoveries.

The committee convenes at least once a year, where it eventually disseminates recommended

actions to UNESCO member states involved in issues of bioethical controversy. From

2018-2019, the IBC focused on Article 5, Autonomy and Individual Responsibility, of the

Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights which states “The autonomy of persons

to make decisions, while taking responsibility for those decisions and respecting the autonomy

of others, is to be respected”. In addition, it discussed issues surrounding parenthood, such as 15

reproductive justice and how new technologies are allowing for modern parenting methods. The

Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights was composed at the IBC’s 32nd meeting

in October of 2003 . It was written to serve as a culturally inclusive, moral set of universal 16

standards for bioethics. While the committee’s power extends only to recommending actions to

external organizations, groups, and policymakers, this declaration has been used as a guideline

in a variety of countries when striving to make ethical decisions on genetic engineering. Partially

www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/international-bioethics-committ

ee/.

15 “Work Programme for 2018-2019” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

2017. 16

“Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization.” Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights | United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,

14

composed by philosophers, it adapts to human nature (such as perception of fear and injustice)

and establishes a clear list of rules for all United Nations member states to turn to in order to

certify that their decisions do not have negative effects on humans or the environment. It

recommends that nations respect their citizens’ personal integrity, privacy, vulnerability, and

consent. In addition, Article 16 takes into account the wellbeing of future generations, and

Articles 26-28 propose ethical steps to be taken when specific situations call for solutions not

present in the Declaration. However, these situations are also addressed in more depth during

IBC sessions.

In addition, UNESCO has contributed to the field of international bioethics through the

Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (adopted unanimously and

backed by the General Assembly in 1998), and the International Declaration on Human Genetic

Data (adopted by the General Conference on October 16th 2003). Similarly, the World Health 17

Organization (WHO) established 19 international Collaborating Centres for Bioethics (CCs) in

both high- and low-income countries as to encourage collaboration between these institutions.18

These centres are partnered with research and academic centres which seek information on the 19

effectiveness and safety of medicines and treatments. This leads to increased safety precautions

surrounding the use of certain drugs and genetic modification procedures.

17 Ibid.

18 “Global Network of WHO Collaborating Centres for Bioethics.” World Health Organization, World

Health Organization, 21 Dec. 2018, www.who.int/ethics/partnerships/global_network/en/.

19 “Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine.” World Health Organization, World Health

Organization, 9 Aug. 2019, www.who.int/traditional-complementary-integrative-medicine/en/.

15

Another notable committee, the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC), was

formed in 1998 by Article 11 of the Statutes of the IBC. Prominent member states include 20

Ecuador, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Germany, and Kenya. Once every two

years or as many times as the IBC sees fit, the IGBC’s 36 member state representatives meet to

analyze and revise the advice and recommendations of the IBC. This process ensures that no

human rights are being overlooked, and that decisions being made in genomic editing do not in

any way endanger the subjects or cause any collateral environmental damage. Other

organizations involved in advising the IBC are the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific

Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) and the UN Interagency Committee on Bioethics

(UNIACB). In a September IBC conference in 2014, representatives all of these branches 21

collaborated within a working group to address rapidly evolving technologies and procedures

including sequencing DNA, personalized medicine, biobanks, and non-invasive prenatal testing.

Concept notes were combined in July 2015 IGBC session, and the final report was adopted in

October during the 22nd IBC session. This report, entitled the “Report of the IBC on Updating

Its Reflection on the Human Genome and Human Rights,” outlined five principles to be aware of

to achieve scientific advancement in an ethical manner. These are: (1) respect for an 22

individual’s autonomy and privacy, (2) justice and solidarity, (3) understanding of illness and

health, (4) cultural, social and economic context of science, and (5) responsibility towards future

generations. The IBC put forth recommendations for governments and actors of civil society.

They are urged to make human cloning for reproduction illegal, create a clear set of

20 “Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization.” Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights | United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

21 Ibid.

22 International Bioethics Committee “Report of the IBC on updating its reflection on the Human Genome

and Human Rights” 2015

16

non-controversial laws to restrict modifying human embyos, and create non-discriminatory

healthcare systems to provide anyone (regardless of financial or cultural status) with treatment

that they need. To ensure that these regulations did not diminish new beneficial findings

surrounding the human genome, the joint committee suggested that member states consistently

contribute to international fora so that research can be updated worldwide. This also allows

nations to protect their citizens by not repeating treatments that have proven in other cases to

have negative and unsafe consequences.

Following the 1998 IBC statues, genetic modification technology began to address the

possibilities of ameliorating human health. Each of the groundbreaking genetic discoveries

(microorganisms, animals, and plants) paved the way for the next. These scientists’

advancements in the field of genetics allowed for other scientists and doctors globally to study

which human health concerns could be reduced or eradicated. The first concrete procedure to

modify human genes was accomplished by He Jiankui, who attempted to remove the risk of HIV

in twin embryos. His subsequent failure lead to increased international debate around not only 23

the ethics of manipulating a person’s genes using such a new and clearly unreliable method, but

also the extent of what this technology could be used for. Echoing the sentiments of former UN

Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, a spokesperson for the IBC in 2015 said that “Interventions on

the human genome should be admitted only for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic reasons

and without enacting modifications for descendants,” and that such interventions to yield

selective traits as seen in Designer Babies would “jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal

23 Stein, Rob. “Chinese Scientist Says He's First To Create Genetically Modified Babies Using CRISPR.”

NPR, NPR, 26 Nov. 2018,

www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/11/26/670752865/chinese-scientist-says-hes-first-to-geneticall

y-edit-babies.

17

dignity of all human beings”. Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned against “play[ing] 24

God,” saying that eugenics could lead to the demise of the human race.

Analysis

Like all scientific revolutions, genetic modification has become largely controversial in

recent years among bodies like UNESCO and WHO. Because there is no objective boundary to

defining which procedures are ethical, researchers, employers, policy-makers, and even patients

struggle with moral dilemmas about privacy, safety, and finances. Patients who are suffering and

whose conditions may be terminal become desperate for treatment. Said treatments are so new

and untested that their full side-effect profile is currently unavailable. This is why review

committees such as the IBC must ensure that the only gene treatments available are proven to

be safe. Eric Wickstrom, a professor of biochemistry and pharmacology at Jefferson Medical

College, warned that “Gene therapy hasn’t really worked yet, and it necessitates a great deal of

care.” 25

People who are resistant to supporting new research in the genetic modification of

humans for medical purposes claim that it is too risky, and that patients should seek alternative

treatments or refuse gene therapy. In 1999, Jesse Gelsinger, 18, participated in a University of

Pennsylvania gene therapy trial. He died as a cause of the institution’s failure to disclose

important information on informed consent papers, and its decision to test on ineligible

24 “UN Panel Warns against 'Designer Babies' and Eugenics in 'Editing' of Human DNA | UN News.”

United Nations, United Nations, 2015,

news.un.org/en/story/2015/10/511732-un-panel-warns-against-designer-babies-and-eugenics-editing-hu

man-dna. 25

Wilson D. “The Making of British Bioethics; Consolidating the ‘ethics industry’: a national ethics

committee and bioethics during the 1990s” Manchester University Press. 2014

18

patients. This incident caused other universities and programmes to alter their own policies to

be more cautious.

Despite these negative outcomes of genetic engineering, it has the potential to lessen the

damage of global catastrophes. For example, scientists at universities are currently modifying

mosquito embryos with new CRISPR technology so that they are not able to carry or transmit

deadly viruses. This process, known as “population replacement,” is one in which the released 26

modified mosquitoes must have offspring with pathogenic mosquitoes, and possibly lessen the

population of mosquitoes able to spread Zika, malaria, dengue, and West Nile virus. Another

version of this method which has been proven to be successful is when “sterile” males are

released into the wild with a new gene lethal to female mosquitoes. They then mate with females

(who carry disease), and their female offspring die. Their male offspring carries the same gene,

and the female mosquito population diminishes. The British company conducting these

experiments, Oxitec, has researched in the Grand Caymans, Malaysia, Brazil, and the United

States. Every year, mosquito bites kill over one million people and infect 700 million people.

Genetic modification of insects is being proposed as an alternative to insecticides, which often

can cause health complications among humans. Still, like gene therapy for human subjects, this

alternative has been met with some local concerns. Residents of Key West in Florida petitioned

this genetic interference, citing the novelty of the method. If it fails to work, how can it be 27

reversed? People, plants, and animals face threats to their livelihood when undergoing genetic

modification, which has been proven time and time again across the globe. UNESCO is working

to reduce the likelihood of unsuccessful treatments, however thorough confirmation that a

26 Rasgon, Jason. “Genetically Modified Mosquitoes May Be Best Weapon for Curbing Disease

Transmission.” Medical Xpress - Medical Research Advances and Health News, Medical Xpress, 20 Aug.

2018, medicalxpress.com/news/2018-08-genetically-mosquitoes-weapon-curbing-disease.html.

27 Ibid.

19

treatment is safe can take years, considerable funding, and resources that are not currently

available in certain states.

Because of these restrictions, genetic engineering in biotech crops has only been adopted

in 67 countries. Even fewer have considered the genetic engineering of humans because of the 28

controversy surrounding the ethics of these experiments. In order to avoid criticism and legal

issues, many UN member states remain hesitant to introduce this technology that can reduce

disasters like HIV, Zika virus, and starvation in impoverished areas.

While in most cases, genetic engineering is meant to be used for avoiding crises and

allowing people to raise their standard of living, it can also be used for more mercenary and

selfish needs. In the discussion surrounding designer babies and sex selection, it is the role of

policy-makers and the IBC to determine if this technology is being used for the infant’s benefit.

Some parents want their children to possess certain abilities or physical features. In the United

States, companies are divided on this topic. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine

(ASRM) is willing to cater to a client’s wishes, while the American Congress of Obstetricians

believes that selecting traits and gender will lead to discrimination on the basis of sex, and more

social complications. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) does not take into account the

ethical implications of these actions, but rather only potential health risks. Adversaries of the

genetic modification of human embryos say that it could create social divide and deteriorate the

relationship between parents and their children (as parents could acquire tyrannical

expectations of their children). 29

28 “Developing Nations Lead Growth of GMO Crops.” Alliance for Science,

allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/developing-nations-lead-growth-gmo-crops/.

29 “Children to Order: The Ethics of 'Designer Babies'.” LiveScience, Purch,

www.livescience.com/44087-designer-babies-ethics.html.

20

While some topics seem more “black-and-white,” designer babies have been a point of

contention for years among large pharmaceutical companies. It is issues like these that beg for

definitive guidelines and regulations to be set by the UN, as to ensure the best quality of living

for global citizens. This is a time-sensitive issue. Gene-editing technology is rapidly developing,

and decisions must be made about whether or not this technology is ethical, before crises

become less and less controllable. Thus, the world needs to reach a consensus on when and

where to exercise genetic modification. What regulations should be in place, and who should

these affect?

21

Questions to Consider

- Should gene editing technology like CRISPR be used purely as a reparative treatment or

should it be used to augment current physical, and even mental, capabilities?

- If CRISPR is used as a reparative tool, what conditions qualify the treatment as

reparative (i.e. what is considered a disorder to be fixed)

- In recent years, investors have increased funding for the research and development of

gene editing technology in a number of private companies. As the technology looks to

become increasingly accessible to the general public, how should its commercial use be

regulated?

- Somatic gene editing targets specific types of cells (ex. skin or lung cells) of a living

person, while germline editing affects an individual’s entire genome and the genomes of

their offspring by altering genes in a sperm, ovum or embryo. How should somatic

editing be regulated in comparison to germline editing?

- According to price trends, the cost of “printing” a genome to synthetically create a

human being will be roughly equivalent to the cost of the tuition for many US private

colleges in less than 20 years . If it becomes available for commercial use, what role 30

could gene editing technology potentially play in exacerbating wealth disparities?

- Is it ethical to breed transgenic animals in order to study the potential effects of certain

illnesses on humans?

- Should steps be taken by governments to protect the wellbeing of genetic modification

testing subjects and volunteers? If so, what would this look like?

30 Yong, Ed. “The Moral Question That Stanford Asks Its Bioengineering Students.” The Atlantic, Atlantic

Media Company, 27 June 2017,

www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-moral-question-that-stanfords-bioengineering-stude

nts-get/531876/.

22