ethical issues
Any technology that offers benefits will usually come with risks as well. Genetic engineering cons are being put forward vehemently by those who believe this technology is far too young and too little understood to be applied in real life, and by those who believe that it is something in which the human race should not be dabbling anyway. It is not disputed that there are benefits to be derived from the use of genetic engineering but can they be derived safely and without excessive risk and damage to both the ecology of the planet and to human users of genetically modified products? There is evidence to suggest that the risks involved are too great to take.
Transgenic biotechnology presents an exciting range of possibilities, from feeding the hungry to preventing and treating diseases; however, these promises are not without potential peril. Some of the issues that need to be considered are the following:
Social Concerns
Transgenic biotechnology presents an exciting range of possibilities, from feeding the hungry to preventing and treating diseases; however, these promises are not without potential peril. Some of the issues that need to be considered are the following:
Social Concerns
- If the blending of animal and human DNA results, intentionally or not, in chimeric entities possessing degrees of intelligence or sentience never before seen in nonhuman animals, should these entities be given rights and special protections?
- What, if any, social and legal controls or reviews should be placed on such research?
- What unintended personal, social, and cultural consequences could result?
- Who will have access to these technologies and how will scarce resources—such as medical advances and novel treatments—be allocated?
- What, if any, health risks are associated with transgenics and genetically modified foods?13
- Are there long-term effects on the environment when transgenic or genetically modified organized are released in the field?
- Should research be limited and, if so, how should the limits be decided? How should the limits be enforced nationally and internationally?
- Are there fundamental issues with creating new species?
- Are species boundaries “hard” or should they be viewed as a continuum? What, if any, consequences are there of blurring species boundaries?
- Are chimeras and transgenics more likely to suffer than “traditional” organisms?
- Will transgenic interventions in humans create physical or behavioral traits that may or may not be readily distinguished from what is usually perceived to be “human”?
- What, if any, research in genetic engineering should be considered morally impermissible and banned (e.g., research undertaken for purely offensive military purposes)?14
- Will these interventions redefine what it means to be “normal”? The Issue of Species Boundaries Some individuals argue that crossing species boundaries is unnatural, immoral, and in violation of God’s laws, which presumes that species boundaries are fixed and readily delineated. However, several books and journal articles demonstrate that the concept of fixed species boundaries continues to be a hotly debated topic. Some bio ethicists point out that a variety of species concepts exist: biological, morphological, ecological, typological, evolutionary, and phylogenetic, to name a few. All of these definitions of what a species is reflect both changing theories and the varying purposes for which individuals conceptualize and utilize different species. If species boundaries are simply a matter of a naming convention, and there are no truly fixed boundaries to cross, then many philosophical objections to transgenics are rendered less problematic. While the morality of crossing species boundaries reflects differing worldviews and is subject to disagreement there are, however, several known risks associated with the transplantation of cells or organs from animals to humans. For example, there is a small but significant risk of the transmission of usually fatal zoonotic diseases, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (aka “mad cow disease”), porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs) and Nipah encephalitis. The introduction of these diseases to the human population could have devastating consequences. As a result, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned xenotransplantation trials using nonhuman primates until the procedures have been adequately demonstrated to be safe and until ethical issues have been sufficiently publicly discussed. However, with the advent of stem cell tissue engineering and 3-D printing, xeno transplantation may quickly become outmoded, opening the doors to more complex social, ethical, and legal issues and discourses.
Figure 4: Many plants and animals form hybrids in nature. Should these hybrids be considered separate species? Copyright 2013 by The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California. Used with permission. Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41
Health risks:
Health risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been described in exaggerated, alarmist terms, implying that foods made from GE crops are inherently unsafe. There is no evidence, for instance, that refined products derived from GE crops, such as starch, sugar and oils, are different than those derived from conventionally bred crops. It is also an exaggeration, however, to state that there are no health risks associated with GE. But we do know of ways in which genetically engineered crops could cause health problems. For instance, genes from an allergenic plant could transfer this unwanted trait to the target plant. This phenomenon was documented in 1996, as soybeans with a Brazil nut gene—added to improve their value as animal feed—produced an allergic response in test subjects with Brazil nut allergies. Unintended consequences like these underscore the need for effective regulation of GE products. In the absence of a rigorous approval process, there is nothing to ensure that GE crops that cause health problems will always be identified and kept off the market.
Environmental Impacts:
Genetically engineered crops can potentially cause environmental problems that result directly from the engineered traits. For instance, an engineered gene may cause a GE crop (or a wild relative of that crop) to become invasive or toxic to wildlife. But the most damaging impact of GE in agriculture so far is the phenomenon of pesticide resistance. Millions of acres of U.S. farmland are now infested by weeds that have become resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. Overuse of Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" trait, which is engineered to tolerate the herbicide, has promoted the accelerated development of resistance in several weed species.Looking for ways to fight back against these "superweeds," farmers are now turning to older, more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba. As if on cue, agribusiness companies have begun to develop new GE crops engineered to tolerate these older herbicides—with no guarantee that the Roundup Ready story will not repeat itself, producing a new wave of resistant weeds. And this issue is not confined to herbicides: recent reports suggest a growing problem of corn rootworms resistant to the insecticide Bt, which some corn varieties have been engineered to produce.
Industrial Agriculture
As the superweed crisis illustrates, current applications of genetic engineering have become a key component of an unsustainable approach to food production: industrial agriculture, with its dependence on monoculture—supported by costly chemical inputs—at the expense of the long-term health and productivity of the farm.
A different approach to farming is available—what UCS calls "healthy farms." This approach is not only more sustainable than industrial agriculture, but often more cost-effective. Yet as long as the marketplace of agricultural products and policies is dominated by the industrial model, prioritizing expensive products over knowledge-based agroecological approaches, healthy farm solutions face an uphill battle. In the case of GE, better solutions include crop breeding (often assisted by molecular biology techniques) and agroecological practices such as crop rotation, cover crops, and integrated crop/livestock management. Such healthy farm practices are the future of U.S. agriculture—and policymakers can help speed the transition by supporting research and education on them. In the meantime, stronger regulation of the biotechnology industry is needed to minimize health and environmental risks from GE products.
References: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/glenn.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/risks-of-genetic- engineering.html#.VP9GptKUdOg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/biotechnology_1.shtml
http://www.geneticengineeringinhumans.com/ar/genetic-engineering-cons.php
#Disclaimer: This website is for curriculum based purpose so not to be used for professional use.
Health risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been described in exaggerated, alarmist terms, implying that foods made from GE crops are inherently unsafe. There is no evidence, for instance, that refined products derived from GE crops, such as starch, sugar and oils, are different than those derived from conventionally bred crops. It is also an exaggeration, however, to state that there are no health risks associated with GE. But we do know of ways in which genetically engineered crops could cause health problems. For instance, genes from an allergenic plant could transfer this unwanted trait to the target plant. This phenomenon was documented in 1996, as soybeans with a Brazil nut gene—added to improve their value as animal feed—produced an allergic response in test subjects with Brazil nut allergies. Unintended consequences like these underscore the need for effective regulation of GE products. In the absence of a rigorous approval process, there is nothing to ensure that GE crops that cause health problems will always be identified and kept off the market.
Environmental Impacts:
Genetically engineered crops can potentially cause environmental problems that result directly from the engineered traits. For instance, an engineered gene may cause a GE crop (or a wild relative of that crop) to become invasive or toxic to wildlife. But the most damaging impact of GE in agriculture so far is the phenomenon of pesticide resistance. Millions of acres of U.S. farmland are now infested by weeds that have become resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. Overuse of Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" trait, which is engineered to tolerate the herbicide, has promoted the accelerated development of resistance in several weed species.Looking for ways to fight back against these "superweeds," farmers are now turning to older, more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba. As if on cue, agribusiness companies have begun to develop new GE crops engineered to tolerate these older herbicides—with no guarantee that the Roundup Ready story will not repeat itself, producing a new wave of resistant weeds. And this issue is not confined to herbicides: recent reports suggest a growing problem of corn rootworms resistant to the insecticide Bt, which some corn varieties have been engineered to produce.
Industrial Agriculture
As the superweed crisis illustrates, current applications of genetic engineering have become a key component of an unsustainable approach to food production: industrial agriculture, with its dependence on monoculture—supported by costly chemical inputs—at the expense of the long-term health and productivity of the farm.
A different approach to farming is available—what UCS calls "healthy farms." This approach is not only more sustainable than industrial agriculture, but often more cost-effective. Yet as long as the marketplace of agricultural products and policies is dominated by the industrial model, prioritizing expensive products over knowledge-based agroecological approaches, healthy farm solutions face an uphill battle. In the case of GE, better solutions include crop breeding (often assisted by molecular biology techniques) and agroecological practices such as crop rotation, cover crops, and integrated crop/livestock management. Such healthy farm practices are the future of U.S. agriculture—and policymakers can help speed the transition by supporting research and education on them. In the meantime, stronger regulation of the biotechnology industry is needed to minimize health and environmental risks from GE products.
References: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/glenn.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/risks-of-genetic- engineering.html#.VP9GptKUdOg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/biotechnology_1.shtml
http://www.geneticengineeringinhumans.com/ar/genetic-engineering-cons.php
#Disclaimer: This website is for curriculum based purpose so not to be used for professional use.