Human Genome Project 2 Essay, Research Paper

It all started back in 1953 with two men by the names of

James D. Watson and Francis Crick when they discovered the

double-helical structure of DNA. Little did they know they were

opening the door to the creation of a perfect world. In 1986,

the Human Genome Project, led up by the National Institution of

Health(NIH), took a giant leap through this door. They began the

long process of mapping out the entire genetic makeup of the

human body. The main purpose of the HGP was originally for the

use of preventing inherent diseases. However, as studies

continue to progress, increased opportunities arise for

genetically altering the unborn. You are now able to choose the

sex of you child before they are born with great accuracy. What

is on the horizon now, is the possibility of designing your child

to be perfect . Over the years, there has been heated, ethical

controversy on each of these issues, especially designer babies.

How far will we let biotechnological discovery take us? What

will come of the world if designer babies become standard

procedure?

The earliest and maybe simplest use of genetic manipulation

was in the selection of the sex of an unborn child. In Vitro

Fertilization(IVF – A procedure in which a woman s eggs are

removed from her body, fertilized outside using sperm from her

husband or another donor, and then transferred back to her body.)

was originally limited to couples that were infertile. Even the

use of IVF for the infertile was unheard of at one point. But

growing demand makes it socially acceptable, and now anybody

who s infertile demands IVF, says Lee Silver, a Princeton

University biologist. Several years ago, fertility clinics

announced the new possibility of sex selection. It was obviously

an exciting breakthrough, but when these clinics were inquired

about their results, they only had about a 50 percent success

rate. Its affluent clients could have achieved exactly the same

outcome by leaving a note for the tooth fairy, requesting a girl

or a boy (Riddell). In the same way, there were many who were

opposed to the idea at first especially with the results they

were getting, but over time the procedures have been almost

perfected and it has become socially acceptable.(Lemonick)

Many issues have arisen from the possibilities sex selection

will provide. In cultures where males are valued more than

girls, such as China and India, assured sex selection could

really throw off an already out of balance society. In the

United States it may not be as likely for there to be a favored

sex, generally speaking. In our case, it is more of a weighted

opinion on what order you should have your kids, what sex should

come first. Statistics show that the ideal family has a male as

the firstborn. Males tend to be more assertive and more dominant

than females, as do firstborns. If you put all this together, it

seems as though we are headed towards an even more male-dominated

world. This is obviously a huge issue not only for the feminist

and gender-role stereotypes, but also for the more general idea

of a balance of nature. Will females eventually fade out of

existence? That is obviously farfetched, but definitely not

impossible.(Lemonick)

At this point, the majority still agrees that the provisions

of genetic engineering should be limited to the correction of

inherent diseases. There are two primary ways that genetics can

be used to treat diseases. The first is gene therapy, in which

one or more genes are injected into the patient to replace those

that are absent or not working properly. This approach has been

used to treat a broad range of disorders such as heart disease,

many forms of cancer, Alzheimer s disease, arthritis, AIDS, and

many more. The second way to employ genes to treat diseases is

known as small-molecule therapy. In this approach, the patient

is given a small molecule (drug) to modify the function of one or

more genes in the body. When the pioneers of gene therapy first

requested government approval for their experiments in 1987, they

vowed they would never alter the patients germline (eggs or

sperm).(Begley)

Dr. W. French Anderson, who had had a broad background in

the study of gene therapy mainly from the University of Southern

California, did a lot of work with gene therapy. He had a desire

to use gene therapy to cure a fetus of an inherited disease even

before it was born. The only problem was the potential of the

introduced genes slipping into the patient s egg (or sperm) cells

too therefore carrying those changes onto the patient s children

to the nth generation. This not only would go against the promise

the pioneers had made, but also, as biophysicist Gregory Stock

said, life would enter a new phase, one which we seize control

of our own evolution. There was obviously great hesitation as

to whether or not gene therapy should be used in a way that could

be detrimental to our evolution, but with the confined use

towards inherent, fatal diseases there was more acceptance.

What I worry about, says Mario Capecchi, a geneticist from the

University of Utah, is that if we start messing around with

[eggs and sperm], at some point–since this is a human

enterprise–we re going to make a mistake. You want a way to

undo that mistake (Begley).

Procedures have been taken in order to reduce the extremity

of genetic tampering, to limit it to a single generation if need

be. The principle of informed consent (the belief that no one s

genes, not even an embryo s, should be altered without his or her

permission) played an important role in the development of these

procedures. The first proposal was by John Campbell, a UCLA

geneticist. He said that a certain drug taken voluntarily by the

patient would pair up with the introduced gene acting as an

on-off switch. There is also, in the working, the possibility of

making the introduced gene self-destruct when it begins to

interact with cells that will become eggs or sperm. This way,

the genetic tampering will only affect one generation and will

not be passed on to the children. These precautions are

necessary in the case that the procedures backfire. If we were

to manipulate a patient s genes in order to eliminate a case of

mental illness and it resulted in limiting the patients

creativity, we now have ways of choosing whether or not to pass

that on to future generations. It isn t quite as big of an issue

with tampering with the genetics of endless generations as far as

inherent diseases are concerned; the problem of an affected

evolution lies more in the realm of designer babies.(Begley)

The NIH has been hard at work with the Human Genome Project.

By 2003 they will have decoded 3 billion letters that spell out

our 70,000 or so genes(Begley). The research and discoveries of

genetic engineering have come so far so fast that most experts

don t know what to do with the possibilities before them. In a

world where only a few years ago it was unheard of for even an

infertile couple to enter a clinic to experience IVF just so they

could simply have a child, in the near future couples will be

going to the same clinics to design their perfect child. They

will be able to pick from a list of options the way car buyers

order air conditioning and chrome allot wheels (Lemonick). What

has been an important factor in the hesitancy of making this

happen is the ethical issue of only the rich being able to create

a perfect society, then the poor will be even more outcast. All

of a sudden we will have complete control over every

characteristic of our children. If we want them to be tall,

smart, attractive, and have an intriguing personality, it will be

possible. There will be no more children struck with handicaps.

Again, it still is in the future and not many people support the

idea, but there are always those that have the money and power

and would do it, just because they could. Silver proposes that

society will split into the gen-rich and the gen-poor, those

with and those without a designer genome(Lemonick). This has

already been proposed in the 1997 Sci-Fi film Gattaca. In this

film only the rich, elite class can afford designer babies, and

those that can t afford them are left behind. The gen-rich

class builds a city in space that only admits perfect people.

All the way from Watson and Crick in 1953 to the very near

future, the advances and discoveries of science have taken us

from a very controlled and uninformed society to a futuristic

Sci-Fi dominance where we control our evolution. Will the

hesitation caused by ethical views be able to hold back a chaotic

future? Biotechnological advances have taken us from the

question of, Where do we begin? to the ever haunting question,

Do we know where to stop?

Beardsley, Tim. Profile: gene doctor; W. French Anderson

pioneers gene therapy. Scientific American August 1990:263.

Online. InfoTrac Expanded Academic ASAP. 19 Feb. 2000.

Begley, Sharon. Designer Babies. (altering unborn babies through

gene therapy). Newsweek 9 Nov. 1998:132. Online. InfoTrac

Expanded Academic ASAP. 8 Feb. 2000.

Daniel, Caroline. Every baby a perfect baby? (abortion debate in

the United Kingdom. New Statesman 2 August 1996:125.

Online. InfoTrac Expanded Academic ASAP. 8 Feb. 2000.

Lemonick, Michael D. Designer Babies: Parents can now pick a

kid s sex and screen for genetic illness. Will they someday

select for brains and beauty too? Time 11 Jan. 1999:153.

Online. InfoTrac Expanded Academic ASAP. 1 Feb. 2000.

Riddell, Mary. We have seen the future: genetically perfect

children. What we need to see next are laws and regulations

to ensure that time never arrives. New Statesman 21 Feb.

1997:126. Online. InfoTrac Expanded Academic ASAP. 8 Feb.

2000.

Unknown. Designer babies, anyone? National Catholic Reporter 22

Oct. 1999:36. Online. InfoTrac Expanded Academic ASAP. 8

Feb. 2000.