Introduction
There has been a remarkable breakthrough in molecular biology over the last ten years. Already today, it is possible to read the genetic code of a person and to predict what diseases it will inherit. With the help of gene technology, scientists clone animals, attempt to create children “on request,” and conduct other experiments with reproduction. The next task of genetics is to grow new human organs to replace them.
The genetic interventions create the controversy between ethics, theological views, biology, and the social sciences due to the lack of evidence and thoughts on whether the genetic manipulations comply with children’s rights to live, or humankind can lose its right to be unique and diverse. Therefore, the right to intervene in the human genome should be reviewed through multiple perspectives, as the future of parenthood and social institutions will be highly dependent on agreements made toward genetics and DNA changes.
Current Developments in Genetics
The development of molecular diagnostics allows people to investigate the greatest mysteries of human life. The most significant success is that now medicine can read the genetic code and predict specific biological processes in humans and thousands of other organisms. However, the threats lie in carrying out genetic modifications. Thanks to the invention of technology, CRISPR/Cas9 can not only diagnose diseases but also “edit DNA,” that is, to make changes in the human genome, cut and insert the necessary parts of the genome and replace the defective gene with a healthy one (Connor, 2017).
In early 2013, several groups of scientists found that it is incredibly possible to change the wrong gene sequence and treat inherited diseases. They work on experiments to modify human embryos. Fertilized eggs are grown in test tubes, having the modified different genes, and breed embryos according to the “ordered” physiological or intellectual characteristics they wish to see in a future baby. Then such an embryo is implanted in surrogate mothers, and so-called “design babies” are born. So far, scientists have been cautious about conducting such experiments being afraid to provoke harmful changes in the human genome that could be passed on to future generations with unknown consequences.
The modification of human embryos is under the watchful eye of the governments of many developed countries, which is linked to the moral and ethical dilemmas that this opportunity delivers. According to Connor (2017), a popular science magazine from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, the staff of this university were the first who conducted a similar procedure to prove that they can effectively advance human DNA.
The scientific journal that accepted the article was not disclosed. According to experimental data published by Chinese scientists, they have already managed to do something similar, but their results were not so encouraging (Zhai et al., 2016). Given the possible resonance in society, Shoukhrat Mitalipov, who led the study, has not allowed a genetically modified embryo to live for more than a few days (Connor, 2017). According to an interview with the leading scientist, this is the first genuinely successful modification of embryo genes, which opens up great opportunities for the prevention of many hereditary diseases.
If scientists change the DNA code of a human embryo, they can remove or improve genes that cause, an inherited disease, such as beta-thalassemia. This process is referred to in the English scientific literature as “germline engineering” because any genetically modified child will then transmit the changes to the next generations through their germ cells (sperm/oocytes) (Connor, 2017). Critics of this approach have argued that this could lead to fundamental changes in society and, for example, a phenomenon such as “designing children.” This is due to the problems, which DNA change and gene reading cause. Parents can select almost all parameters of their future children and construct an individual, who they want on demand.
The main feature of the study is not even the fact that genetic modification of the human embryo has been carried out but the degree of control of this process. Thus, according to the work of Chinese scientists, the changes in DNA, provoked artificially, were not perceived by all the cells of the embryo, but only by some, that is, most of the cells remained unmodified (Zhai et al., 2016). This led to criticism that such procedures could not be safe. Thus, scientists have proved that it is quite possible to carry out safe gene modification of the embryo.
Advantages of Genetic Intervention
Increasing the capacity and availability of genetic technologies may soon allow parents to modify their unborn children, thus eliminating their inherited diseases. Embryos are being scanned before the artificial insemination procedure to select the one that is least likely to be at serious risk of severe conditions. It is also possible to influence the DNA of a future baby through certain operations, such as transferring mitochondrial DNA from another donor woman (Krishan et al., 2015). Theoretically, everyone will be able to program their child in such a way that only healthy, tall, kind people with a high level of intelligence are born (Derringer, 2018).
Proponents of genetic manipulation, in turn, say that parents have the right to make sure their children are healthy. Doctors have already learned how to rescue unborn babies who would not have undergone natural selection under other circumstances (Rodriguez et al., 2019). If doctors do not intervene, embryos that have some abnormalities are rejected by a miscarriage mechanism, the scientist explains. However, millions of such children are born every year since pregnant women are put into the hospital for “safety.”
The genetic manipulations have been violating the laws of nature, saving lives for children who should not be born (Rodriguez et al., 2019). Lee Silver, a professor of medicine at Princeton University, believes that the concept of “mother nature” is a bad metaphor because the mechanism of inheritance is a large lottery (Silver, 2006). Most of these variations are insignificant and can cause fatal hereditary illnesses in children or grandchildren.
Today’s discussions mainly refer to mitochondrial DNA transfer technology, a landmark achievement of modern genetics. While most of the DNA is contained within cell nuclei, some of the genetic code is present in the energy resources of cells called mitochondria. Part of the DNA from mitochondria is transmitted from mother to child. In some cases, women who have mitochondrial DNA defects may inherit them, leading to severe illness in the child. For example, this is one of the most common causes of congenital muscular dystrophy.
Today, there is donor mitochondrial DNA transplant technology. Thus, three parents seem to be involved in the conception of the child. The fertilization occurs “in vitro.” From the sperm of the father and the mother’s egg, the nuclei containing the parent’s DNA are removed (the defective mitochondrial DNA of the mother is removed), and then the genetic material is placed in a healthy egg from another healthy woman from whom the nucleus was removed. The resulting embryo receives genetic information from its parents plus healthy mitochondrial DNA from another donor mother.
This method, which assumes that the baby will have one father and two mothers, has already been successfully tested in the UK, but immediately after its use, it was banned. Today, geneticists are trying to get the ban lifted. It is the only way to have a healthy baby for women who have a congenital disability in mitochondrial DNA, scientists say. Farahani suggests that any genetic engineering should be allowed without proper testing (Khadempar et al., 2019). She does not think society is ready for that. However, she suggests procedures that proved safe and productive during the experiments should be allowed. Replacing mitochondrial DNA would be among them.
Winston disagrees with this point of view, as mitochondrial DNA changes can be dangerous. By trying to prevent one genetic abnormality, scientists can provoke the appearance of others (Gopalakrishnan & Winston, 2019) According to Gopalakrishnan and Winston, a significant part of the current genetic disorders associated with the negative impact of the environment, bad habits, and unhealthy lifestyle (2019). One should first try to influence the health of the offspring by changing these factors, says the scientist, and only then go to unprecedented radical measures.
Disadvantages of Genetic Intervention
However, such experiments have specific threats. There are two sides to the medal, one of which is almost ignored. They mostly refer to the rights of parents who cannot have children naturally. Besides, very little attention is paid to the child’s right to have a biological mom or dad, rather than being created in a test tube. There are conflicts with children’s rights. In the US, there was a case where one researcher removed some cells from an embryo (an unborn baby) and read the baby’s genetic code (Gopalakrishnan & Winston, 2019). Then there was a debate among the public about whether the researcher had the right to read the genetic information of the child without parental consent. It turns out that in the case of abortion, the rights of the child are ignored, and in the case of reading the genetic code of the unborn child – the public tries to protect them.
In general, there are many dangers. Although scientists assure that experiments with embryos will be conducted under targeted control and can prevent injury, among the modified embryonic cells, those that have no defects and are entirely healthy will be selected. This reduces the fertilized embryonic cell to a material object – parents can choose what they want to see in children, and what doesn’t fit the characteristics, they can eliminate.
At the same time, not all scientists can predict even if they read the gene of the embryo to be implanted. Mutations can occur after cell implementation (Gopalakrishnan & Winston, 2019). The problem is that the public does not know who will take responsibility if a child with congenital disabilities is born – doctors, researchers who created this embryo, or parents who want to have a child by artificial means (Krishan et al., 2015). There are already cloned cows, mice, rats, sheep. But the first cloned organism is often born with significant flaws and is killed.
In terms of ethics, genetic manipulation is called “playing God.” The potential risk is that parents can utilize genetic manipulations to select a set of preferred qualities, while others will be removed from the embryo DNA. Such manipulations cause the deterministic perspective of individuals’ futures, as their character can be adjusted to the preferred parents’ career path. If such experiments become massive, they will, to some extent, limit the diversity of humankind. If the genetic makeup is limited, for example, by crossing the same organisms, then there are different physiological or anatomical defects in such bodies (Krishan et al., 2016).
Yes, psi-shepherds are a crossbreed. To get a pure race, breeders cross them with each other, but they are all born with an anatomic defect of the iliac bone. Older dogs have problems with arthritis. It is difficult for them to walk. Scientists have introduced a clean line of dog-shepherds, but they have an anatomical disease. Such severe consequences can happen to people, making unpredictable damages to an individual’s DNA.
No less important is the concept of death and biological immortality. Death is a complex physiological and biological concept; however, scientists are working on preventing diseases and genetic issues that increase death possibility. If medicine can use it to prevent a person’s death due to a genetic defect, then it will be a gradual process. If scientists can predict biological processes without the ability to influence them, then such doom is becoming a significant burden on an individual’s life and decisions. For example, if parents review the genome of a child that at 30-40 years of age will be physically weak, they will no longer invest in the development of his or her athletic ability.
If a child does not use these skills and does not become successful in this area, then there is no need to invest in these traits and abilities. So preventive genetic manipulations deprive a person of the chance to choose their path and generally develop in the fullness of their interests and desires (Krishan et al., 2015). This is contrary to the principles of ethics and ethics of other religions. If we restrict the child in this way, we reduce it to the state of the object but do not perceive it as a full-fledged personality.
Conclusion
In my opinion, it is challenging to define whether the parents should have the right to select children based on genetics. The risks and complications from genome changes outweigh the benefits, which can be achieved by replacing the embryo’s DNA.
The genetic intervention and change of children’s DNA or genome sequence becomes a controversial topic for a heated debate. While the opportunity to prevent chronic and severe diseases seems feasible and worth a risk, the unknown nature of all genetic changes and collaborations puts unborn children under significant threat. What is more, the opportunity to select a child as a product or service substantially disrupts the social and ethical values of the contemporary global community. Until these issues remain unsolved, genetic manipulations should be limited, and parents should apply such medical intervention with high awareness and due to the great need.
References
Connor, S. (2017). First human embryos edited in U.S. MIT Technology Review, 235(3137), 1–6. Web.
Derringer, J. (2018). Personality Genetics. Personality and Disease, 185–203. Web.
Gopalakrishnan, R., & Winston, F. (2019). Whole‐genome sequencing of yeast cells. Current protocols in molecular biology, 128(1), e103.
Khadempar, S., Familghadakchi, S., Motlagh, R. A., Farahani, N., Dashtiahangar, M., Rezaei, H., & Gheibi Hayat, S. M. (2019). CRISPR–Cas9 in genome editing: Its function and medical applications. Journal of Cellular Physiology, 234(5), 5751-5761.
Krishan, K., Kanchan, T., & Singh, B. (2015). Human genome editing and ethical considerations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(2), 597-599.
Rodriguez, J., Ren, G., Day, C. R., Zhao, K., Chow, C. C., & Larson, D. R. (2019). Intrinsic Dynamics of a Human Gene Reveal the Basis of Expression Heterogeneity. Cell, 176(1–2), 213-226.e18. Web.
Silver, L. M. (2006). Challenging nature: the clash of science and spirituality at the new frontiers of life. Ecco.
Zhai, X., Ng, V., & Lie, R. (2016). No ethical divide between China and the West in human embryo research. Developing World Bioethics, 16(2), 116-120.