Diverse perspectives ensue vivisection, bio, and genetic engineering activities, trying to deduce their significance in evolution, medicine, and society. Significance in society, medicine, economics, or evolution is not the sole concern for human-hybrid experimentations. Legal and ethical perspectives are equally essential and remain salient considerations that determine continuous activities in these areas. With the tremendous and accelerated advances in technology and scientific developments, researchers and organizations continue working round the clock, investigating myriad extremes of science. Notably, genetic engineering is the centre of all human and animal cloning. Indeed, the issue of biomedical ethics would not have gained the light of day were it not for the persistent endeavours to map the human and animal genomes. The effects of mapping human and animal genomes have opened a new realm of possibilities. H.G Well’s The Island of Dr. Moreau has been used as a basis for the effects of scientific advancements in fiction and the real world. As such, this research will represent several perspectives on animal and human genetic engineering. Research shows that alterations in protein translation would yield significant discoveries in industries such as therapeutic companies. Genetic engineering has biasness toward animals compared to human beings, which is unethical, and the latter’s rights should be rewritten.
Human and genetic engineering is often perceived as an area of science that faces a dilemma with regard to obtaining informed consent. The difficulty exists in the hot debate gauging potential benefits of the processes’ likely aids against consequences. Jonlin (2020) postulates that informed consent requires regulatory compliance, sensitivity, truthfulness, and attention to ethical standards. H.G Well’s novel illustrates the vivid vivisection operations on subjects to create human-like creatures such as the dog man, the Puma, swine-men, wolf creatures, leopard-man, and other humanized animals (Wells, 1896). Dr. Moreau’s justification is that his experiments do not involve humans but animals. Indeed, he dismisses the idea of inflicting pain on the animals he humanizes and is not troubled whatsoever by his unethical actions.
Further, he justifies his experiments by noting that the animals eventually revert to their original nature, after which he releases them into the wild. Essentially, informed consent continues to be a hot debate and an indomitable dilemma. However, as genomic trials increase and become more mutual, informed consent is rapidly changing (Ganguly, 2020). Moreover, despite the current justification of benefits in health and evolution, it is salient to realize that implications could produce terrible consequences, as shown by H.G. Wells.
Adopting genetic engineering processes risks creating totalitarian control over the animal and human life, accompanied by economic inequality and human suffering. In the real world, animals continue to be used in experiments involving investigations in genetics and medicine in general. For example, numerous research exists where animals are used to test the functionality of certain enzymes and cells from humans under predefined conditions. Today, 98% of the population is still not well-versed with gene-therapy implications and thus does not support it (Kahn, 2008). Unlike Dr. Moreau’s experimental results in his fictional novel, the effects of genetic manipulations in real life, be it at the cellular level, could pose serious medical, social, and legal ramifications. Currently, animal welfare is a significant threat, despite government endeavours to keep them from malicious scientists.
The number of laboratory testing continues to increase, and so does the number of animals continue to decrease. Schröder-Bäck et al. (2014) posit that beneficence, non-maleficence, health maximization, proportionality, justice, respect for autonomy, and efficiency influence decision-making in genetic experiments. Research shows minimal usage in providing health care and conducting medical experiments despite these medical principles. There is a notable reduction in medical personnel or institutions that consider or even employ them in the day-to-day decision-making (p. 2012). In his fictional novel, H.G Well outlines the repercussions met by society when such principles are ignored.
Dr. Moreau notes that despite his efforts to humanize the animals, they eventually reverted to their inherent nature (Wells, 1896). For example, the Leopard man breaks Dr. Moreau’s rules and eats a rabbit, and he is chased and shot by Prendick (Wells, 1896). Additionally, the creatures have to endure long periods of pain, long after the vivisection procedures, after which they have to constantly fight against their true nature—imprisoned by human nature (Wells, 1896). The situation and strategies are rarely different in the real world, only hidden behind the shadow of potential benefits to society and government protection.
The following illustrates the distinct views on specific principles in the medical field that were not adhered to by Dr. Moreau and are still major ethical concerns. To begin with, medical operations of any nature must never pose harm to the patient. The non-maleficence principle must be held irrespective of a patient’s wishes to the contrary (Schröder-Bäck et al., 2014). However, the degree of harm and what can be traded for it comes into play. Medical experts have been known to ignore certain degrees of liability due to the possibility of the emergence of more significant harms or for resulting potential benefits. For example, animals may be cloned, creating better species that would have otherwise not survived in a particular niche. Thus, eventually, it is the role of medical professionals to decide on the best way forward with regard to this subject.
Beneficence lies at the heart of biomedical functions and health care in general. The objective of any medical service is to provide benefits, including healing to patients and animals (Schröder-Bäck et al., 2014). Claims have been made that animals do not feel pain, and thus they can be manipulated to achieve the researcher’s objectives. The contrary is true for experiments involving genetic modifications of animals. Dr. Moreau’s experiments are the perfect examples of contradictions to the principle of beneficence. He engineers animals without sedation, giving them human characteristics and making rules that imprison them in their new hybrid form. Today’s scientific experiments are quite different due to the monitoring done by various health organizations. However, scientists will still ignore some patients’ cases to benefit others who have perceived better importance.
The next point of view concerning animal and human genetic and phenotypic manipulation is based on respect for autonomy. Schröder-Bäck et al. (2014) note that this is a controversial perspective, as animals cannot be regarded as able and independent decision-makers – there must be an external decision-maker, hence presenting a conflict of interests. However, some institutions monitor animal welfare, such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the American Humane Society, and the Human Society of the United States. However, their reach is limited in preventing and possibly deciding the fate of every animal in the world. This is a pertinent reason why animals are used in large numbers even in studies that should involve humans, as human decision and consent can be industrious, and the process for obtaining the same length. Thus, a concrete conclusion can be formed, stating that genetic engineering effects lean more on animals than humans due to inadequate representation and protection. Therefore, it can be concluded that the process is biased because most animal gene-editing therapies and cloning eventually benefit humans.
It is impossible to address the relationship between human and animal genetic engineering and its implications on society without the principle of justice. Similar to respect for autonomy, justice is a controversial topic that goes to the moral depth of the ethical nature of biomedical and genetic engineering. Varkey (2020) posits that justice is the equitable and fair pertinent treatment of patients. Justice is often a result of a refined thought process that gauges various parameters to qualify a specific candidate for a particular treatment. These metrics form the basis of distributive justice and include; equal share, based on need, based on effort, based on contribution, and based on merit (Varkey, 2020). Therefore, it becomes difficult to refine this entire process and metrics and balance to form a workable and coherent solution that is fair and beneficial to the patient. Thus, scientists must remain fair while conducting their experiments, despite an existing conflict of interests.
Rewriting animals and the human genome during this CRSPR era poses whether human and animal rights should be rewritten (Van Beers, 2020). The difficulty of addressing animal needs, such as their rights and dignity, has been demonstrated with respect for autonomy. CRPSR has revolutionized genetic engineering by allowing the copying and pasting of DNA. This DNA copy-paste process, intended to create a new species through germline modifications, is already at odds with legal frameworks. For example, Arizona banned genetic modifications under their jurisdiction, among many other states. Indeed, germline modification, in most legal orders, is either forbidden or severely impeded (Van Beers, 2020). Kim (2017) similarly identifies ethical and social concerns raised on CRISPR-Cas9, a third-generation gene scissor. Through examining the Bio Act and the Korean Pharmacopoeia Act, Kim outlines an example of a country with stringent policies on regulating gene therapy products and genetic editing processes.
The advancements in medicine and technology have promoted enhanced research and medical interventions in bringing the fictional context of Dr. Moreau’s experiments into reality. However, these human and animal genetic engineering and biomedical investigations do not just exist without consequences. The consequences of genetic and germline modifications are multiple, particularly in the pharmaceutic industry. Despite scores of positives, distinct perspectives impede or support the advancements in this significant area of medicine. These perspectives include informed consent, economic, social, and political points of view, legal framework outlook, and medical principles approaches. These standpoints’ description displays genetic engineering processes’ influence on society, politics, and the economy.
References
Ganguly, P. (2020). As genome-editing trials become more common, informed consent is changing. Genome.gov.
Jonlin, E. C. (2020). Informed consent for human embryo genome editing. Stem Cell Reports, 14(4), 530-537.
Kahn, J. (2008). Informed consent in human gene transfer clinical trials. Human Gene Therapy, 19(1), 7-8.
Kim, N. (2017). Gene-editing: Interpretation of current law and legal policy. Development & Reproduction, 21(3), 343-349.
Page, K. (2012). The four principles: Can they be measured, and do they predict ethical decision-making? BMC Medical Ethics, 13(1).
Schröder-Bäck, P., Duncan, P., Sherlaw, W., Brall, C., & Czabanowska, K. (2014). Teaching seven principles for public health ethics: Towards a curriculum for a short course on ethics in public health programs. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(1).
Van Beers, B. C. (2020). Rewriting the human genome, rewriting human rights law? Human rights, human dignity, and human germline modification in the CRISPR era. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1).
Varkey, B. (2020). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice.
Wells, H. G. (1896). The island of Dr. Moreau.