Genetic Engineering-Applications and Ethics

Arguably, the most significant medical breakthrough of the past century has been the Human Genome Project, which achieved the mapping of the genetic make-up of the humankind. Consequently, it has led to a spurt in the field of genetic engineering, a leading area for bio-medical research in recent times.

Genetic engineering, or genetic modification, refers to the isolation, manipulation and reintroduction of DNA usually outside the organism’s normal reproductive process. The aim is to introduce new characteristics such as making a crop resistant to a herbicide, introducing a novel trait, or producing a new protein or enzyme. Examples include the production of human insulin through the use of modified bacteria, or the production of new types of experimental mice such as the OncoMouse (cancer mouse) for research, through genetic redesign. Such genetically modified organisms, which have foreign genes incorporated in them, are referred to as Transgenic Organisms.

One of the best known applications of genetic engineering is that of the creation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).There are potentially momentous biotechnological applications of GM, for example oral vaccines produced naturally in fruit, at very low cost. Other achievements include the production of long-lasting high -yield tomato varieties such as ‘Flavr Savr’, herbicide-resistant transgenic Bt Cotton, or ‘Restriction Endonucleases’ used in analysis of DNA.
However, applications of genetic engineering have raised considerable ethical debates.
Proponents of genetic engineering argue that the technology is safe, and that it is necessary in order to maintain food production that will continue to match population growth and help feed millions in Third World countries more effectively. Others argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the problem is food distribution, not production, so people should not be forced to eat food that may carry some degree of risk.

Others oppose genetic engineering on the grounds that genetic modifications might have unforeseen consequences, both in the initially modified organisms and their environments. For example, certain strains of maize have been developed that are toxic to plant eating insects. It has been alleged those strains cross-pollinated with other varieties of wild and domestic maize and passed on these genes with a putative impact on Maize biodiversity. It is well known that the results from the Polymerase Chain Reaction method of analyzing DNA can often be confounded by sample contamination and experimental artifacts.

Activists opposed to genetic engineering say that with current recombinant technology there is no way to ensure that genetically modified organisms will remain under control, and the use of this technology outside secure laboratory environments carries unacceptable risks for the future.

There is also a fear that certain types of genetically engineered crops will further reduce biodiversity in the cropland; herbicide-tolerant crops will for example be treated with the relevant herbicide to the extent that there are no wild plants ('weeds') able to survive, and plants toxic to insects will mean insect-free crops. This could result in declines in other wildlife (e.g. birds) which depend on weed seeds and/or insects for food resources.

Proponents of current genetic techniques as applied to food plants cite the benefits that the technology can have, for example, in the harsh agricultural conditions of Africa. They say that with modifications, existing crops would be able to thrive under the relatively hostile conditions providing much needed food to their people. Proponents also cite golden rice and golden rice 2, genetically engineered rice varieties (still under development) that contain elevated vitamin A levels. There is hope that this rice may alleviate vitamin A deficiency that contributes to the death of millions and permanent blindness of 500,000 annually.

Supporters of the technology say that genetically-engineered crops are not significantly different from those modified by nature or humans in the past, and are as safe or even safer than such methods. There is gene transfer between unicellular eukaryotes and prokaryotes. There have been no known genetic catastrophes as a result of this. They argue that animal husbandry and crop breeding are also forms of genetic engineering that use artificial selection instead of modern genetic modification techniques. It is politics, they argue, not economics or science, that causes their work to be closely investigated, and for different standards to apply to it than those applied to other forms of agricultural technology.

On the economic and political front, many opponents of current genetic engineering believe the increasing use of GM in major crops has caused a power shift in agriculture towards Biotechnology companies gaining excessive control over the production chain of crops and food, and over the farmers that use their products, as well. However, the proponents argue that it will lower pesticide usage and has brought higher yields and profitability to many farmers, including those of developing nations. A few GM licenses allow farmers in less economically developed countries to save seeds for next year's planting.

Another bone of contention is the usage of genetic engineering in humans. While supporters and experts believe that it will help remove defects and thereby improve the over-all quality of life, religious groups, psychologists and many other opponents argue that blind applications of this technology will raise serious ethical arguments in the future, which will disobey the Divine Plan of nature, and also pose a problem of identity crisis in genetically modified human beings. Yet other experts argue that the basic opposition to any technology that aims to modify gene pool is the fact that it will inevitably decrease variation in the human genome, a factor that may prove fatal to any species’ ability to adapt to adverse conditions, thereby leading to extinction.

It is therefore difficult to completely favour, or disregard any technology whose primary aim is the betterment of human life and surroundings. We, as the most intelligent living beings on earth, have a duty to safeguard the environment and other creatures. Hence, as in any other advancement in technology, genetic engineering also requires careful consideration of its pros and cons, and a sharp ability to discretion along with a clear conscience, before embarking on any new roads to modernization and development.


- Afrin Haque