Genetic Engineering – Good or Bad?

Posted on by Opher

As a Biologist I like Genetic Engineering.

We now have the technology to insert genes. We can take a gene from any organism and insert it into another. We have successfully inserted luminescence genes from jellyfish into pigs who ended up with luminescent noses.

Just think – we could take a chloroplast producing gene, paste it into all animals and they would produce their own food, absorb carbon dioxide and give out oxygen. Well actually they wouldn’t. But they would reduce their food needs and give out less carbon dioxide.

We can replace defective human genes and replace them with working genes and thus eradicate all those horrendous genetic diseases.

We can put genes into crops that enable them to grow in arid conditions.

We can introduce genes that hugely increase the crop yield.

We can put in genes into crops that give resistance to disease and pests and thus no longer need expensive, dangerous pesticide sprays or herbicides. That would save our beleaguered insects. At the moment our bees, butterflies and flying insects are being massacred.

We could bring back to life extinct animals. Jurassic Park is becoming possible.

Of course there are many health and ethical issues to consider. We now have the power to engineer the perfect children. We could select for intelligence, looks and height as well as gender. But would that ever be desirable? Do we want designer babies?

Then there are the other considerations. Would the genes were engineer in be spread to other plants around? Would the chemicals produced in our crops to give them immunity have health risks for humans?

What are the risks?

Every time there is a new development there is a knee-jerk reaction against it. We don’t like change. And scientists, or at least the companies that employ them, do not do themselves any favours. They cut corners, lie, deny any wrong-doing and cover up their disasters. The nuclear industry is a good example. It undermines trust. People do not believe them.

GM is a good example too. Is it being rushed out too quickly? Is it safe? Are the huge companies just looking at the profit line?

Well, for me, I think GM is the future. We need a full and open debate about safety and ethics. But I am excited by the prospects it opens up. I think it is the start of a revolution that could be extremely beneficial for us and for nature.

25 thoughts on “Genetic Engineering – Good or Bad?”

  1. I’m in favor of swapping out defective genes for working genes in humans – in order to give those people better quality lives and save health care costs enormously. Of course, it would be so expensive that only the 1% could afford it. I don’t think designer babies serves anyone’s interest except vain parents. If it was under government control we might have fewer disasters because private companies cut corners to appease their stockholders. What do you mean by GM?

    1. GM is Genetically Modified crops John . I think the price of these techniques is coming down. It may well be in reach of most.
      This is an industry that is just beginning to take off. I think the sky is the limit. Why drill for oil or make plastic when you can grow it in a vat by adding a gene to a bacterium? Why harvest insulin and other hormones/drugs when they can be grown?
      It seems to me that the sky is the limit once we have sorted the ethical issues and safety.

  2. You could also insert genes to make everyone docile like the happy pills in Fahrenheit 451… Of course it would depend on who was spearheading that. With every new discovery also comes the potential for abuse… Isn’t that where the dilemma is?

    1. It’s one of them. A scheming nation could select its best soldiers and scientists and clone a whole bunch of them.

      3. I saw it there. Then it disappeared. You attract some extreme right-wingers and trolling on Writerbeat but it’s fun.

      6. I’ve never had a fatal error come up on Writerbeat before. I’d click on your profile and have a look at the post from there and put it out again. It was definitely there. I commented on it and so did a couple of others.

  3. Have you heard about Three-parent babies? I mean, if defective mitochondrial DNA is found in mom (as you know mitochondrial DNA get’s inherited only from mom), it’s possible now to take an egg from different woman, swap the nucleus-insert in other egg it from mom, meaning mom’s defective mitochondria is left behind? All the ethical issues coming along with it?
    And then also, have you heard this Charlie Gard’s case in UK?
    In terms of genetic engineering, I’m really glad this progress has been made. If there is a way we can prevent disease incompatible with life or prolong life, increase quality of life for a person, why would we not do it? 🙂

    1. Yes I am familiar with the technique of using the nucleus from one ovum and the cytoplasm from another. Seems to work fine.
      I also followed the Charlie Gard case. A tragedy.
      I am all in favour of eradicating defective genes. Genetic disease is a terrible misery for all concerned. We now have the means to get rid of them from the whole gene pool.
      Why would we not do it indeed?

      1. I assume because those ethical issues come in. And also say, religions, as an example. As soon we go into genetics, there are always ethical and moral aspects.

      2. And those ethical issues are very profound. We need to establish some firm ethical guidelines and enforce them and that needs to be done globally I believe.

      3. Easier to say than to get done! Remember, what is ethical and what is not , differs not only from community to community, culture to culture but even individual to individual. As for ethical guideline to be accepted majority needs to agree that is good. What will be ethical in Iceland, will be not in Australia… So to some extent, I think it is utopian idea that they would be accepted globally. Even things like in vitro and contraception would be denied by catholic community, in some parts it’s agreed to be ethical to do three parent babies… Long way to go.

      4. You are right. But what is the alternative? I think that without guidelines there will be no limit to what is done.

      5. Well, I guess as it is now, there are certain guidelines set globally now, but mostly what controls practises are ethical principles in countries separately that’s why some things are being done in one, but not allowed in another. Sure as hell, it causes trouble in terms of if person doesn’t agree with them and seeks to go to different country for their different practises. We still have very long way to go. We can only hope that once after some time we will be more unified and would find some global agreements.

      6. Biomedgal – I totally agree with all the points you make. The universal guidelines do, I think, help but there are always maverick places that will not abide by them. Until we have a really global system with proper enforcement I don’t see what else we can do.
        Genetic engineering is here to stay whether we like it or not. It is going to cause a major revolution. If it is unchecked I fear there will be some bad things coming out of it.

  4. I agree with most of your ideas. As a student in Biology and Genetics, I have done several researches regarding to the genetic treatments of diseases. I do agree with you than GM provides human with more possibilities in the future and ability to feed the growing population with some setbacks.
    How do you view the use of stem cells in diseases treatments?

    1. Hanna – from what I understand it is good. Stem cells hold lots of possibility. I think we have to embrace new technologies but apply ethics and morals to the possibilities.
      Genetics is the future.

Comments are closed.