Ethical Implications Of Genomic Research

magine, 20 years from now, sitting in a cold doctor's office deciding the genes of your unborn baby, what color hair, eyes, speed of metabolism, height would you even know what to pick? Impossible you might say but in this day and age technology is growing ever so rapidly that picking the genetic makeup of your baby is closer than you might think. The technology is called CRISPR. This technology doesn't only have the ability to change physical traits, but genetic traits specifically genetic abnormalities and diseases. 20 years ago, no one would have ever thought we would have the answer to, in theory, cure every genetic disease from sickle cell anemia to cystic fibrosis. However, with great scientific breakthroughs comes questioning and

Identified as LRRK2, this gene mutation only accounts for one to two percent of all cases of Parkinson’s disease. (Michael J. Fox Foundation)

An Enhanced Genotype: Ethical Issues Involved with Genetic Engineering and their Impact as Revealed by Brave New World

Human genetic engineering and eugenics have been a largely controversial topic over the past decades. Eugenics can be popularly defined as the science of improving and enhancing a human population or person through manipulating the human genes, selective breeding, and sterilization. The end goal and desired result of eugenics is to basically create a human race or people with more desirable biological, physical, or psychological traits. Eugenics and genetic modification is a current, pressing subject; in April 2015, a group of Chinese researchers, used a new gene-editing technology, called CRISPR to “[tinker] with the genomes of human embryos” (Adams). Presently, according to CQ Researcher, “New genetic technologies allow scientists to delete a mutant gene and insert a healthy one, which…has the potential to eliminate inherited diseases, such as cystic fibrosis.” However, these techniques have only been used on embryos belonging to laboratory animals. The big question here is whether or not science and technology are crossing an ethical boundary by using these techniques and performing genetic modification on human embryos. Do humans have the right to “play God” and alter nature?

The Goal of the Human Genome Project is to obtain genetic mapping information and to determine the complete sequence of all human DNA by the year of 2005. The project started in 1990 and 180 million dollars are being spent on it annually. This adds up to a total of over 2 billion dollars for the 15 year budget. Of this 2 billion dollars budgeted, 5% is spent annually on the ethical, legal and social issues. This report focused on some of these issues.

Fast forwards two hundred years and the science (or lack thereof) depicted is almost indistinguishable, a revolutionary new process called CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) is allowing science to edit the human genome almost at will. With the announcement of US scientists creating the first genetically modified embryo, an outburst of ethical debate has arisen. While they are certainly not the first (a Chinese division won the achievement in 2015), this achievement was created through the CRISPR process.

Therefore, people should consider not only the cost and attainability, but also the possible negative results and impacts on the genes. Despite some noble intentions on the part of a parent as it relates to preventing genetic defects, consideration of the negative impacts of gene manipulation are necessary. Gene editing should not be used to accomplish desirable physical traits. Furthermore, while the benefits to gene modification certainly seem attractive, there is risk associated with the practice. At this stage, it can be argued that the application of an imprecise technology that is not well understood, has the potential to create unintended generational edits. “Given the unlikely success of creating a “perfect” (i.e. presumably genetically error-free) baby, the high risk of collateral damage makes CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing ultimately unethical” (Sas et al, 2017, p. 1). Thus, while gene editing has the potential for positive results, the outcome may ultimately prove to be

This could be illustrated in the Human Genome Project, which mapped all human genes in order to eventually understand the effect of each gene in human behaviour. Wallace (2004) claims that the Human Genome Project is perhaps not ethically neutral. Misuse of ethically sensible data was already seen in Nazi Germany and the eugenic policies in many modern societies with practices such as sterilization of individuals thought to be inferior. This should serve as a warning to modern geneticists. First of all genetic research is by nature correlational, which means that it is not possible to state a clear cause-effect relationship between genes and disorders like depression. Secondly, researchers are far from being able to determine the specific role of genes in psychiatric disorders.

Imagine a world where we can control genetics. What if we had the opportunity to eliminate all genetic diseases in just a few steps. Imagine a society where anyone could flip through a catalog to shop for traits to “design” their child. This may seem a little far fetched, however this imagined world may soon become possible through the rapid advancing development of genetic engineering. New and advanced technology has finally made it possible to access and hack the human genome. New gene editing technology called CRISPR Cas-9 has completely transformed the biomedical field. CRISPR Cas-9 is cheap, precise, efficient and ultimately works on all living organisms. Advanced genetic technology that have allowed us to genetically modify our food and clone sheep, may one day give parents the option to modify their own children. However the idea of one day creating “designer babies” sparks great controversy.

Parkinson’s Disease (PD) exhibits this pattern, with the vast majority of PD cases being idiopathic, likely the result of combined genetic and

Genetic testing is becoming more common as different types of genetic tests become available to the public. There are diagnostic tests, predictive tests, carrier tests and prenatal tests just to name a few. However, there are many ethical and social issues revolving around genetic testing. There are ethical issues involving the limitations of testing, the restriction of treatments available and the unknown implications of early prevention. There are also the social issues of potential for discrimination and the emotional impact of the test results.

While saving lives is an attractive prospect, several ethical objections have been raised. Firstly, it may be wrong to make major changes to human DNA at all, as it alters the innate nature of humanity. Secondly, the technology has the potential to be used for other, controversial purposes, such as manufacturing humans or enhancing traits. These ethical concerns must be weighed against the benefits of developing this

Since the beginning of our lives, humans are born with a specific set of chromosomes that contain the genetic information that will code for our personality, appearance and our biological functioning (Science Learning Hub, 2011). Inside those chromosomes, humans can develop a wide range of genetically-based diseases, such as sickle cell anemia, diabetes and some forms of cancers, due to mutations of the DNA structure (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2015). A new technique created by researchers called Restriction Nuclease Mediated Recombination, has the ability to successfully replace DNA sequences in order to eliminate genetic-based diseases. Initially, this technology appears to one of the greatest scientific accomplishments, however

Technology is ever evolving, but developing in not always the most ethical of ways, though. Due to gene editing, many peoples’ eyes have been opened to these unethical forms of treatment with the creation of methods to select your child’s gender, the riding of offspring’s genetically linked diseases, and the manipulation of the human DNA of the unborn embryo.

To conclude the common neurodegenerative diseases are predominantly idiopathic disorder of unknown pathogenesis. Parkinson disease and Alzheimer demonstrate the genetic mapping and gene-isolation tools. The rate of identification of genes involved in the rare inherited forms of these diseases and are now being used to determine the genetic contributions. Pathogenesis is not only inherited forms of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson disease but also idiopathic variety. Causation and pathogenesis are helping to identify new treatment targets for these debilitating