Category Archives: Human Genetic Engineering

By Maria Alejandra Ruiz, an EconomicsFinance and LSM Global Perspectives double major.

As we slide deeper into the twenty-first century, the idea of a perfect designer baby has gone from Hollywood-style science fiction to an impending reality.

The eradication of fatal and nonfatal diseases and the possible enhancement of basic and infinitely complex human traits are at the center of an ongoing bioethical debate. Given the numerous enhancements and possibilities in human genetic engineering, is it ethical to genetically modify and/ or enhance human babies?

The Bentley University Honors Program requires its senior members to develop an individual capstone research project as a culminating experience before graduation. During each fall and spring semester, senior students and their advisers are hard at work researching, either independently or through a small-themed seminar course. As a senior, in the fall of 2015 I chose to enroll in the seminar course due to the invaluable structure and deadlines set by Professor Johannes Eijmberts, as well as the interesting topics that would be covered.

The general theme of the course was business, science, and technology. Professor Eijmberts encouraged students to select a current, relevant issue or topic that did not necessarily fall within their major or area of study. As an Economics-Finance major, I had considered developing my research paper based on financial modeling or monetary economics. The course, however, encouraged me to go beyond finance or economics and to consider research topics such as NASA exploration, fracking, climate change, immunotherapy and human genetic engineering.

I chose to embark on a research paper regarding human genetic engineering and the ethical implications of creating so-called designer babies. The recent developments in biotechnology and genetic engineering and the ongoing bioethical debate on human gene editing led me to the fundamental question that was central to my honors capstone project: Given the numerous advancements and possibilities in human genetic engineering, is it ethical to genetically modify and/or enhance human babies?

Human genetic engineering consists of introducing foreign DNA into a human in order to specifically alter its genetic structure. That can range from preventing or curing a disease, to enhancing basic human traits such as eye color, sex, intelligence, and even voice pitch. Those who oppose any tampering with the human genome fear that human genetic engineering is going a step too far, and that it might lead us to medical catastrophes and an unequal world in which designer babies are perceived as superior to genetically weak individuals. On the other hand, simply tweaking the genetic structure of unborn babies can also lead to healthier, longer, and more productive human lives.

Human genetic engineering is becoming increasingly feasible and possible due to recent developments in the biotechnology field. A new gene-editing technology known as CRISPR/Cas9 can precisely snip out a diseased mutation and replace it with healthy DNA. The United Kingdom recently approved mitochondrial replacement, a technique that transfers the nucleus, where the genetic instructions for making a person are stored, from the egg of a woman with mutant mitochondria to a donor egg containing healthy mitochondria. About one in 5,000 babies worldwide are born with mitochondrial DNA mutations that cause disease in vital organs such as the muscles, the heart and the brain. Scientists believe that we are merely decades, if not years, away from successfully genetically modifying babies, curing and preventing not just mitochondrial diseases, but a wide range of genetic diseases.

The main goal of my honors capstone project was to answer the question of whether most Americans support human genetic modification to eradicate, cure and/orprevent disease. Driven by the assumption that public and scientific opinion constitutes an important factor in the regulation and control of clinical research in the United States, I attempted to predict the future of human genetic engineering policy by analyzing the public outlook. I gathered sample data by distributing a survey to Bentley University undergraduates in November 2015.

Qualitative, quantitative and correlational analysis of the survey and from external data sources led to the following conclusion: Most Americans do support human genetic modification for the purposes of eradicating, curing and/or preventing hereditary diseases but firmly reject human genetic enhancement for designer babiessignaling a clear distinction between the two for future policy. Historically, scientific and public outlook have had a strong influence on the regulation of medical techniques and research in the United States. Hence, the government is most likely to allow strictly regulated human genetic engineering research and to approve the clinical use of mitochondrial replacement techniques in the near future.

The semester-long capstone project led me to develop an educated opinion on the timely and controversial topic of human genetic engineering. I found the Honors Programs culminating project to be a uniquely fulfilling experience that demanded my full commitment and dedication while promoting excellence and academic growth.

A version of this article first appeared in the Fall 2015 issue of Columnas, the Bentley University honors program newsletter.

Originally posted here:
Designer Babies: The Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering

Human genetic enhancement or human genetic engineering refers to human enhancement by means of a genetic modification. This could be done in order to cure diseases (gene therapy), prevent the possibility of getting a particular disease[1] (similarly to vaccines), to improve athlete performance in sporting events (gene doping), or to change physical appearance, metabolism, and even improve physical capabilities and mental faculties such as memory and intelligence.These genetic enhancements may or may not be done in such a way that the change is heritable (which has raised concerns within the scientific community).[2]

Genetic modification in order to cure genetic diseases is referred to as gene therapy. Many such gene therapies are available, made it through all phases of clinical research and are approved by the FDA. Between 1989 and December 2018, over 2,900 clinical trials were conducted, with more than half of them in phase I.[3] As of 2017, Spark Therapeutics' Luxturna (RPE65 mutation-induced blindness) and Novartis' Kymriah (Chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy) are the FDA's first approved gene therapies to enter the market. Since that time, drugs such as Novartis' Zolgensma and Alnylam's Patisiran have also received FDA approval, in addition to other companies' gene therapy drugs. Most of these approaches utilize adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) and lentiviruses for performing gene insertions, in vivo and ex vivo, respectively. ASO / siRNA approaches such as those conducted by Alnylam and Ionis Pharmaceuticals require non-viral delivery systems, and utilize alternative mechanisms for trafficking to liver cells by way of GalNAc transporters.

Some people are immunocompromised and their bodies are hence much less capable of fending off and defeating diseases (i.e. influenza, ...). In some cases this is due to genetic flaws[clarification needed] or even genetic diseases such as SCID. Some gene therapies have already been developed or are being developed to correct these genetic flaws/diseases, hereby making these people less susceptible to catching additional diseases (i.e. influenza, ...).[4]

In November 2018, Lulu and Nana were created.[5] By using clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)-Cas9, a gene editing technique, they disabled a gene called CCR5 in the embryos, aiming to close the protein doorway that allows HIV to enter a cell and make the subjects immune to the HIV virus.

Athletes might adopt gene therapy technologies to improve their performance.[6] Gene doping is not known to occur, but multiple gene therapies may have such effects. Kayser et al. argue that gene doping could level the playing field if all athletes receive equal access. Critics claim that any therapeutic intervention for non-therapeutic/enhancement purposes compromises the ethical foundations of medicine and sports.[7]

Other hypothetical gene therapies could include changes to physical appearance, metabolism, mental faculties such as memory and intelligence.

Some congenital disorders (such as those affecting the muscoskeletal system) may affect physical appearance, and in some cases may also cause physical discomfort. Modifying the genes causing these congenital diseases (on those diagnosed to have mutations of the gene known to cause these diseases) may prevent this.

Also changes in the mystatin gene[8] may alter appearance.

Behavior may also be modified by genetic intervention.[9] Some people may be aggressive, selfish, ... and may not be able to function well in society.[clarification needed] There is currently research ongoing on genes that are or may be (in part) responsible for selfishness (i.e. ruthlessness gene, aggression (i.e. warrior gene), altruism (i.e. OXTR, CD38, COMT, DRD4, DRD5, IGF2, GABRB2[10])

There is some research going on on the hypothetical treatment of psychiatric disorders by means of gene therapy. It is assumed that, with gene-transfer techniques, it is possible (in experimental settings using animal models) to alter CNS gene expression and thereby the intrinsic generation of molecules involved in neural plasticity and neural regeneration, and thereby modifying ultimately behaviour.[11]

In recent years, it was possible to modify ethanol intake in animal models. Specifically, this was done by targeting the expression of the aldehyde dehydrogenase gene (ALDH2), lead to a significantly altered alcohol-drinking behaviour.[12] Reduction of p11, a serotonin receptor binding protein, in the nucleus accumbens led to depression-like behaviour in rodents, while restoration of the p11 gene expression in this anatomical area reversed this behaviour.[13]

Recently, it was also shown that the gene transfer of CBP (CREB (c-AMP response element binding protein) binding protein) improves cognitive deficits in an animal model of Alzheimers dementia via increasing the expression of BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor).[14] The same authors were also able to show in this study that accumulation of amyloid- (A) interfered with CREB activity which is physiologically involved in memory formation.

In another study, it was shown that A deposition and plaque formation can be reduced by sustained expression of the neprilysin (an endopeptidase) gene which also led to improvements on the behavioural (i.e. cognitive) level.[15]

Similarly, the intracerebral gene transfer of ECE (endothelin-converting enzyme) via a virus vector stereotactically injected in the right anterior cortex and hippocampus, has also shown to reduce A deposits in a transgenic mouse model of Alzeimers dementia.[16]

There is also research going on on genoeconomics, a protoscience that is based on the idea that a person's financial behavior could be traced to their DNA and that genes are related to economic behavior. As of 2015, the results have been inconclusive. Some minor correlations have been identified.[17][18]

George Church has compiled a list of potential genetic modifications based on scientific studies for possibly advantageous traits such as less need for sleep, cognition-related changes that protect against Alzheimer's disease, disease resistances, higher lean muscle mass and enhanced learning abilities along with some of the associated studies and potential negative effects.[19][20]

Excerpt from:
Human genetic enhancement - Wikipedia

There are some challenging ethical questions that scientists, philosophers, and even politicians face throughout their careers. One of the most difficult subjects that will require decisions in the near future is the scientific processes that allow for human genetic engineering. Should we develop technologies that allow us to alter the genetic codes of future generations?

The worlds leading gene-editing experts meet annually (and sometimes more often) with attorneys, ethicists, and even members of the general public to get their take on this subject. It isnt a technology that is new by any means. The first tools that permitted the editing of genes were invented in 1975. It is the recent developments in this field that make it seem that ideas from the science-fiction genre have a chance to become reality.

In April 2015, Chinese scientists announced experiments that would remove the genes of inheritable disease from human embryos. This work damaged the cells so that they could not develop into babies, but the results spoke for themselves. The elimination of the unwanted genes from the germline could 100% eliminate diseases by a single mutation like Tay-Sachs, Huntingtons disease, or cystic fibrosis.

Thats why we must start examining the advantages and disadvantages of human genetic engineering today. It will not be long before this technology is available for use.

1. Genetic engineering could further human lifespans.It usually takes multiple generations to generate evolutionary movement within a species. As the environment changes, so must the physical traits of humans. Genetic engineering gives us a faster path forward that we can use to ensure the survival of our species. Altering our cells through this practice to make them more resilient to the natural aging process could extend our lifespan to levels previously thought to be impossible. We can feel better as we age too if we take care of our bodies, especially if we can program resilience against particularly dangerous diseases.

2. We could rid of hereditary disease.There are numerous diseases that require a genetic predisposition for their existence. That means a persons risk for developing cancer, Alzheimers disease, and other problems can be reduced because of this technology. When they exist on a single mutation, then we could eliminate them immediately before it impacts the development of a babys system. Even smaller issues, such as eczema, could be resolved because of this proactive intervention. It could lead to treatments for people who are born without them as well.

I predict we will abolish suffering throughout the living world, David Pearce commented. Our descendants will be animated by gradients of genetically pre-programmed wellbeing that are orders of magnitude richer than todays peak experiences.

3. Every child would have a chance to be born healthy.There are several diseases that we can already detect during the fetal development process. Human genetic engineering can stop illness or disease before the child is born. Parents face a difficult choice when their doctor tells them that their child could face chronic pain, a lifetime of disabilities, or other health issues. Knowing that your baby would suffer for a few months only to die means youre taking a gamble on their quality of life. The technology behind the engineering process could eliminate this issue, virtually guaranteeing that every child could be born healthy. Anything disease that comes from a potential carrier would slowly work its way out of the human experience.

4. Food requirements could be changed through human genetic engineering.Humans need specific foods to ensure their survival. You must receive a particular nutrient profile to ensure that you maintain healthy energy levels. This technology could help us to solve the looming food insecurity problems as our population grows because we could engineer profiles that have fewer food requirements. We could reduce our destruction of natural habitats, stop overgrazing, and even make the items we eat healthier because of how the food interacts at a cellular level.

5. This technology could eliminate fertility issues for couples.Human genetic engineering could also make it possible for couples to have children when they would struggle at it naturally. We wouldnt need to worry about infertility because any sperm and egg combination could be edited to match the profile of the parents. This technology would make it possible to maintain population levels without going overboard on family size. It is a necessary advantage to consider since the average fertility rate in the top 30 developed countries has declined by 50% in just 60 years. If a country does not have a birth rate of 2.1 per family, then population shrinkage occurs. At 1.7, the United Kingdom is already there.

6. Human genetic editing could lead to medical advancements.The processes behind human genetic editing would undoubtedly encourage advances in medical research over time. We would get the opportunity to share genetic material that could prevent disease, cure illnesses, or eliminate the risk of certain cancers. There would be new avenues of research to consider because of our knowledge of human systems. This advantage could be the next wave of medicine that equals or exceeds the impact of antibiotics.

Since 2015, there have been HIV therapy trials that became possible because of gene editing. When researchers destroyed the gene for CCR5, then they could raise a persons resistance to the virus. The goal is to create a functional cure that could apply to sickle cell disease and other benefits.

7. There could be mental health benefits to consider with human genetic engineering.Babies are not forced to go through a genetic lottery when this technology becomes available. It would become possible to work on mental health issues just as much as physical concerns with human genetic engineering. That means we could reduce the prevalence of schizophrenia, depression, and similar challenging diagnoses thanks to the pre-birth preparations that would occur.

These changes could even become heritable under the right gene editing conditions. It could weed out mutations in the mitochondria, create replacement therapies, and open an entirely new world of scientific discovery over time.

1. It would change how we would need to approach population control.Disease is one of the most effective methods of population control for the human race. If we use genetic engineering to extend the lifespan of everyone, then this influence would change our global culture. A longer life isnt always practical. We might open the doors to having more children, require higher levels of medical care for a longer time, and increase the economic costs of each family unit. There could be problems with job availability, economic disparity, and a lack of agricultural space to support everyone.

2. There will always be ethical questions to consider.Anyone who believes in the concept of God or a supernatural creator will have some level of ethical concern about the idea of humans genetically editing future generations. There could be some who would see the work as being blasphemous, which could eventually lead to higher levels of violence against specific groups. We already see this disadvantage to some extent in the abortion debate because of the implication that the choices being made are tantamount to playing God. Allowing for genetic editing would take this conversation to a whole new level.

The only thing we can try to do is to influence the direction scientists are taking, commented Yuval Noah Harari. Since we might soon be able to engineer our desires too, perhaps the real questions facing us is not What do we want to become?, but What do want to want?

3. It would create different societal classes around the world.New technologies are always expensive. Only the households that could afford to take advantage of this service would perform gene editing on their children. That means the initial population surge from human gene editing would involve the wealthiest people. It would create a severe divide between those with money and the people without it. We could find ourselves living in a world where different classifications of genetic purity could lead to individualized approaches to health care, employment, and education. It would become the next step for those with wealth to safeguard their societal status.

Ive always been suspicious of the assumption that great intelligence would be an unqualified benefit that the madness that so often accompanies it can be cavalierly dismissed, said Andrew M. Ryan. So, I asked the question: suppose there was an entire subpopulation of extreme geniuses, well beyond anything that would occur naturally. What would that really look like?

4. It would reduce the amount of genetic diversity in the world.If we start eliminating the potential diseases and illnesses that are currently part of our genome, then the amount of genetic diversity in the human race would slowly fade. Human genetic editing could help to delay the fade that would undoubtedly result over time, but it would not erase it entirely. After a handful of generations with this technology, the human genome might degrade to the point where it would be almost impossible to create offspring unless a parent without this evolutionary trait decides to have children with a partner from the same perspective.

5. It does not eliminate the risk of a mistake happening.There will always be the disadvantage of a mistake occurring when dealing with human genetic engineering. We are not a perfect people, no matter how smart the scientist happens to be. We have a general understanding of what our core makeup happens to be, but there is also the possibility that we dont have all of the pieces to the puzzle as of yet. Small changes to a growing baby could have a disruptive effect that we might be unable to predict with our current resources. Changing the genetic profile to eliminate disease might create miscarriages, birth defects, or a greater risk of stillbirth. Thats why a careful approach to this subject is absolutely necessary.

6. This technology would eventually allow for trait selection.Most people concur that the primary benefit of human genetic engineering is to create a process where every baby is healthy at birth. Once we reach this goal, then what is the next step? It would likely be the selection of specific traits that future generations would want their children to have. You might get the opportunity to choose hair color, eye color, or even gender. You would know what the child would look like at every age before they were born. Then we would need to create systems that would help to keep those with genetic advantages equal to the children who were born naturally because they didnt have enough wealth.

7. There could be unintended side effects that we do not know about today.One of the reasons why there is a ban on human cloning activities is because animals that come from this technological effort suffer from a variety of severe health problems. The birth rate when genetic modification is involved can be less than 1 in 100 embryos for some species. There are concerns for the health of the mother when there are changes to the genetic profile as well, including the option that the womans immune system might attack the growing fetus. It could even change the manner of gene expression in the body so that more harm than good occurs through this process.

8. This process could become the foundation of new weapons technologies.One of the frightening concerns about human genetic engineering is that military forces, terrorists, and others could develop biological weapons from it. You could produce weapons that seek out specific genetic profiles while leaving the rest of the general population untouched. This disadvantage could result in a surge of unhealthy nationalism, healthcare spending, and global death as each nation works to protect its own best interests. There is even the possibility that the organisms produced because of human genetic editing could reproduce much faster than normal, allowing for a new arms race to occur.

9. It could increase the risk of allergies.We already know that food allergens can transfer from one crop to another because of genetic engineering efforts. That means women who are pregnant and eating GMO foods could endanger their offspring by altering gene expression. One of the greatest concerns about human genetic editing is that many scientists fear that this process is a one-and-done effort. That means you would be unable to change the alterations you make after completing the work. We have a symbiotic relationship with the world around us, a structure that Neil Tyson deGrasse describes as everything being made from stardust.

Making immediate evolutionary changes could have a devastating effect on ourselves and the entire planet because the allergic reactions may develop spontaneously.

Conclusion

The advantages and disadvantages of human genetic engineering allow us to explore the possibility of improving our species without waiting for evolution to do it for us. That means the potential results are extremely compelling. We could provide future generations with several benefits that are not possible today with this technology.

It is also essential to remember that there is no system of genetic modification that will provide consistent results every time. The potential for an error occurring is massive. If scientists can ever crack the code so that it becomes an efficient process, then well still need to deal with opportunity issues that would make this option more available to the wealthy than anyone else.

The advantages are convincing and hopeful. The disadvantages can be downright terrifying. That is why if we ever get to the point where genetic alterations to humans is possible, we must proceed with caution to limit the potential issues that may develop with this technology.

---

Continued here:
16 Advantages and Disadvantages of Human Genetic Engineering

In the mid-1980s, several members of the American scientific community began lobbying for a federally funded effort to sequence the entire human genome. Such a project would sequence and document the tens of thousands of genes that make up the human DNA. In the inceptive conference for the effort, then president of UC Santa Cruz Robert Sinsheimer declared, For the first time in all time, a living creature understands its origin and can undertake to design its future. Emphasizing the religious importance of this monumental scientific project, he insisted, Throughout history, some have sought to live in contact with the eternal. In an earlier era, they sought such through a religion and lived as monks and nuns in continual contemplation of a stagnant divinity. Today, they seek such a contact through science, through the search for understanding of the laws and structure of the universe and the long quest back through time and evolution of our own origins. Perhaps this urge is a riposte to fate, a nay to human mortality.

The Human Genome Project was commissioned by the U.S government and went into formal operation in 1990. It was an international effort, with scientists from eighteen countries collaborating for thirteen years to decipher the human genetic code. As Noble observed, The establishment of the Human Genome Project, with its high-level political support, ample funding, central coordination, research centers throughout the country, a veritable army of coordinated researchers, and an extensive network for international collaboration, signaled as never before that the era of human genetic engineering had begun in earnest.

Throughout the dedicated study of the DNA, the zeal to not merely understand, but modify and augment human biology was prominent. At the time, the advance of genetic engineering was sustained by persistent ancient fantasies of birthing artificial human life. Tales of the golem and the elusive alchemical elixir of life, of magically bestowing life upon dead matter, were told and retold, while allusions to their modern scientific equivalent, Mary Shelleys Frankenstein, abounded.

Celebrating that special place occupied by men of science who endeavor to unite with the eternal, Sinsheimer remarked, I am a scientist, a member of a most fortunate species. The lives of most people are filled with ephemera. All too soon, much of humanity becomes mired in the tepid tracks of their short lives. But a happy few of us have the privilege to live with and explore the eternal, to feel the wind at the ever-advancing edge of human knowledge, and to peer into and progressively reveal the dim shapes of the unknown.

For Sinsheimer, understanding DNA was to peer into the magnificent work of God. The omniscient designer had left his imprints on our genetic code, and now a member of a most fortunate species would attain His divine knowledge. As he explained, From the time of the invention of writing, men have sought for the hidden tablet or papyrus on which would be inscribed the reason for our existence in this world, on this planet in this star-lit universe. How poetic that we now find the key inscribed in the nucleus of every cell of our body. Here in our genome is written in DNA letters the history, the evolution of our species over billions of yearsWhen Galileo discovered that he could describe the motions of objects with simple mathematical formulas, he felt that he had discovered the language in which God created the universe. Today we might say that we have discovered the language in which God created life.

Simultaneous efforts at artificial reproduction through techniques such as in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (techniques that later proved to be critical for germ-line editing research) further accentuated the religious significance of the field. According to the dominant Judeo-Christian male creation myth of divine descent, the male God created Adam and gave him life, unaided by either woman or sex. And God created Eve from Adam, not Adam from Eve (promoting and reflecting fantasies of masculine birth and the homunculus. And God created Christ through Mary but not of Mary (making her the first surrogate mother). Such myths of exclusively paternal, and divine, procreation inspired the earnest endeavors of (predominantly male) bioengineers, promising them not only a womb of their own, but divine powers of creation as well, noted Noble.

These myths werent simply spiritual motivators; indeed, they even informed scientific analysis. One sociologist who was a participant observer at a molecular biology lab at the time documented that allusions to the godliness of their work were common during laboratory discussions. God wouldnt have done that was a common response to arguments that seemed illogical or erroneous. They believed they had an inside track, privileged access to divine knowledge, which they identified with knowledge of DNA.

These religious currents split into a two-fold interpretation of the biotechnologists relationship with God. On one hand was the humble student and the interpreter, who was called upon by divine destiny to merely be a steward of Gods work. However, it was the second that set the stage for apotheosis the ascended human who would co-create with God. As historian C.E Trinkhaus observed, this current led to an important new conception of man as actor, creator, shaper of nature and history, all of which qualities he possesses for the very reason that he is made in [Gods] image-likeness. This echoed some fifteenth century Renaissance thinkers, like Giannozzo Manetti, who believed that mans ingenuity and inventiveness is so great that man himself should be regarded as a second creator of the human historical world that was superimposed on the original divine creation of the natural world. Italian Scholar Marsilio Ficino had expressed his irrepressible admiration for the works of human industry with which he was surrounded in Renaissance Florencehe cannot help seeing in mans mastery of the worldfurther evidence of mans similarity to God if not of his divinity itself.

Continue reading here:
Engineering Illusions Part I: Religion and Technology III - Medium

Over the past few years, the field of biotechnology has advanced at a very high rate that scientists can now edit plants and animals at the genomic level. Different genetic engineering or genome-editing techniques such aszinc fingernucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), meganucleases and theCRISPR/Cas9 system have aided scientists to alter genomes to create modified organisms.

Like in plants and animals, could genome-editing be performed in humans? Yes. But a bigger question arises here, should genome editing techniques be used to create designer babies, to remove heritable diseases or to enhance the human capabilities? It is one of the most controversial topics among scientists and hence it all comes down to ethics.

In a recent research, Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland reported successfully repairing a genetic mutation in human embryos bringing the idea of genetic engineering in humans closer to reality.

To understand the ethical implications of genetic engineering in humans, it is important to first understand the basics.

Genetic engineering is basically manipulating or changing the DNA to alter the organisms appearance in a particular way. The human body cells contain encoded information compiled into a form called genes, which are responsible for the bodys growth, structure and functioning. Human genetic engineering decodes this information and applies it to the welfare of mankind.

For example, all over the world, several scientists have reported the singing in mice. However, the frequencies at which they sing is not audible to humans. The Alstons brown mouse or Alstons singing mouse is a famous example. It would be interesting to hear these songs too.

Japanese geneticists at the University of Osaka were conducting a research to study the mutagenic effects in a strain of mice that were genetically engineered. Among many effects, the mutation may have caused the alteration in the vocalization in the mice giving birth to an offspring which could sing at a frequency audible to humans.This genetic modification (which was actually an accident) may help in studying the communication patterns in mice as well as in comparing of similarities and differences with other mammals. Some other examples of genetic engineering are GloFish, drug-producing chickens, cows that make human-like milk, diesel-producing bacteria, banana vaccines and disease-preventing mosquitoes.

Based on their type of cell, there are two types of genetic engineering;

Human genetic engineering can further be classified into two types;

In human genetic engineering, the genes or the DNA of a person is changed. This can be used to bring about structural changes in human beings. More importantly, it can be used to introduce the genes for certain positive and desirable traits in embryos. Genetic engineering in humans can result in finding a permanent cure for many diseases.

Some people are born with or acquire exceptional qualities. If the genes responsible for these qualities can be identified, they can be introduced in the early embryos. The embryo develops into a baby called Designer baby or customized baby. Human genetic engineering is advancing at an increasing rate and might evolve to such an extent discovering new genes and implanting them into human embryos will be possible.

Let us take an example of bacteria to understand how genetic engineering works. Insulin is aprotein produced in the pancreasthat helps in the regulation of the sugar levels in our blood. People with type 1diabetes eithercannot produce insulin or produce insufficient insulin in the body. They have to acquire insulin from external sources to control their blood sugar levels. In 1982, Genetic engineering was used to produce a type of insulin which is similar to the human insulin, called the Humulin frombacteria which was then approved and licensed for human use.

Using this process, Chinese scientists have edited the genome of the human embryo for the first time. According to Nature News report, Researchers at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China, were partially successful in using a genetic engineering technique to modify a gene in non-viable human embryos which was responsible for the fatal blood disorder.

The technique used, called CRISPR (short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) technology involves an enzyme complex known as CRISPR/Cas9, originating in bacteria as a defence system. CRISPR is a short, repeated DNA sequence that matches the genetic sequence of interest to be modified by the researchers. CRISPR works along with the Cas9 enzyme that acts like molecular scissors and cuts the DNA at a specific site.

As explained by John Reidhaar-Olson, a biochemist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York First, in a simple explanation, the CRISPR/Cas9 complex navigates through the cells DNA, searching for the sequence that matches the CRISPR and binds to the sequence once found. The Cas9 then cuts the DNA which, in this case, is repaired by inserting a piece of DNA desired by the researcher.

Since 2013, CRISPR system has been to edit genes in adult human cells and animal embryos but for the first time has been used for modification in human embryos.

Junjiu Huang, a genetics researcher at Sun Yat-sen University, injected the CRISPR/Cas9 complex into human embryos with the aim of repairing a gene responsible for Beta thalassaemia which is a fatal blood disorder that reduces the production of haemoglobin. The non-viable embryos were obtained from local fertility clinics. These embryos would have been unable to survive independently after birth or develop properly as they had been fertilized by two sperms. The procedure was performed on 86 embryos and gene editing was allowed to take place in four days. Out of 86, 71 of the embryos survived and 54 of them were tested.

Splicing (removal of introns and joining of exonsineukaryotic mRNA) only occurred in 28 embryos successfully indicating the removal of faulty gene and the incorporation of the healthy gene in its place. However, in order for the technique to be used in viable human embryos, the success rate would need to be closer to 100%.

While partial success was achieved, certain worrisome mutations responsible for the detrimental effect on cells during gene-editing were also observed and at a much higher rate in mouse embryos or adult human cells undergoing the same procedure.

One of the most beneficial applications of genetic engineering is gene therapy. Gene therapy is one of the most important benefits of human genetic engineering. Over the last few years, gene therapy has successfully treated certain heart diseases. Driven by this success, researchers are working to find cures for all the genetic diseases. This will eventually lead to a healthier and more evolved human race.Inspired by the recent success of gene therapy trialsin human children and infants, researchers are now moving towards the treatment of genetic disorders before birth. The idea of using fetal gene therapy to treat genetic disorders that cant be treated after birth has generated hype among some of the scientists. Parents will be able to look forward to a healthy baby. Genetic engineering can be done in embryos prior to implantation into the mother.However, some are also questioning the feasibility and practicality of the therapy in humans.

While genetic engineering or modification may seem easy to cure diseases, it may produce certain side effects. While focusing on and treating one defect, there is a possibility it may cause another. A cell is responsible for various functions in the body and manipulating its genes without any counter effect or side effect may not be that easy.

Other than side effects, Cloning, for instance, can lead to an ethical disturbance among the humans risking the individuality and the diversity of human beings. Ironically, man will become just another man-made thing!

Among the social aspects of human genetic engineering, it can impose a heavy financial burden on the society, which may cause a rift between the rich and the poor in the society. Its feasibility and most importantly its affordability will also be a determinant of its popularity.

Human genetic engineering is a widely and rapidly advancing field. It can lead to miracles. But when assessing its benefits, its threats need to be assessed carefully too. Human genetic engineering can be beneficial to human beings and its potential advantages can come into reality only if it is handled with responsibility.

Like Loading...

Related

Go here to see the original:
Genetic Engineering in Humans - Curing Diseases and ...

Human Genetic Engineering - A Hot Issue!Human genetic engineering is a hot topic in the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government. Time will tell how committed the United States will be regarding the absolute ban on human cloning.

Human Genetic Engineering - Position of the U.S. GovernmentHuman genetic engineering has made its way to Capitol Hill. On July 31, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a bill which would ban human cloning, not only for reproduction, but for medical research purposes as well. The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, sponsored by Rep. Weldon (R-fL) and co-sponsored by over 100 Representatives, passed by a bipartisan vote of 265-to-162. The Act makes it unlawful to: "1) perform or attempt to perform human cloning, 2) participate in an attempt to perform cloning, or 3) ship or receive the product of human cloning for any purpose." The Act also imposes penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment and no less than $1,000,000 for breaking the law. The same bill, sponsored by Sen. Brownback (R-kS), is currently being debated in the Senate.

The White House also opposes "any and all attempts to clone a human being; [they] oppose the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning techniques either to assist human reproduction or to develop cell or tissue-based therapies."

Human Genetic Engineering - The ProblemsThere are many arguments against human genetic engineering, including the established safety issues, the loss of identity and individuality, and human diversity. With therapeutic cloning, not only do the above issues apply, but you add all the moral and religious issues related to the willful killing of human embryos. Maybe the greatest concern of all is that man would become simply another man-made thing. As with any other man-made thing, the designer "stands above [its design], not as an equal but as a superior, transcending it by his will and creative prowess." The cloned child will be dehumanized. (See, Leon Kass, Preventing a Brave New World: Why we should ban human cloning now, New Republic Online, May 21, 2001.)

Human Genetic Engineering - A Final ThoughtHuman genetic engineering leads to man usurping God as the almighty creator and designer of life. No longer will a child be considered a blessing from God, but rather, a product manufactured by a scientist. Man will be a created being of man. However, man was always intended to be a created being of God, in His absolute love, wisdom and glory.

Learn More Now!

What is your response?

Yes, I want to follow Jesus

I am a follower of Jesus

I still have questions

More:
Human Genetic Engineering - AllAboutPopularIssues.org

Although much has occurred in this field since this article was written in 2000, the questions addressed by Dr. Bohlin are still timely and relevant. Is manipulating our genetic code simply a tool or does it deal with deeper issues? Dealing with genetic engineering must be done within the context of the broader ethical and theological issues involved. In the article, Dr. Bohlin provides an excellent summary driven from his biblical worldview perspective.

Genetic technology harbors the potential to change the human species forever. The soon to be completed Human Genome Project will empower genetic scientists with a human biological instruction book. The genes in all our cells contain the code for proteins that provide the structure and function to all our tissues and organs. Knowing this complete code will open new horizons for treating and perhaps curing diseases that have remained mysteries for millennia. But along with the commendable and compassionate use of genetic technology comes the specter of both shadowy purposes and malevolent aims.

For some, the potential for misuse is reason enough for closing the door completelythe benefits just arent worth the risks. In this article, Id like to explore the application of genetic technology to human beings and apply biblical wisdom to the eventual ethical quagmires that are not very far away. In this section well investigate the various ways humans can be engineered.

Since we have introduced foreign genes into the embryos of mice, cows, sheep, and pigs for years, theres no technological reason to suggest that it cant be done in humans too. Currently, there are two ways of pursuing gene transfer. One is simply to attempt to alleviate the symptoms of a genetic disease. This entails gene therapy, attempting to transfer the normal gene into only those tissues most affected by the disease. For instance, bronchial infections are the major cause of early death for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). The lungs of CF patients produce thick mucus that provides a great growth medium for bacteria and viruses. If the normal gene can be inserted in to the cells of the lungs, perhaps both the quality and quantity of their life can be enhanced. But this is not a complete cure and they will still pass the CF gene on to their children.

In order to cure a genetic illness, the defective gene must be replaced throughout the body. If the genetic defect is detected in an early embryo, its possible to add the gene at this stage, allowing the normal gene to be present in all tissues including reproductive tissues. This technique has been used to add foreign genes to mice, sheep, pigs, and cows.

However, at present, no laboratory is known to be attempting this well-developed technology in humans. Princeton molecular biologist Lee Silver offers two reasons.{1} First, even in animals, it only works 50% of the time. Second, even when successful, about 5% of the time, the new gene gets placed in the middle of an existing gene, creating a new mutation. Currently these odds are not acceptable to scientists and especially potential clients hoping for genetic engineering of their offspring. But these are only problems of technique. Its reasonable to assume that these difficulties can be overcome with further research.

The primary use for human genetic engineering concerns the curing of genetic disease. But even this should be approached cautiously. Certainly within a Christian worldview, relieving suffering wherever possible is to walk in Jesus footsteps. But what diseases? How far should our ability to interfere in life be allowed to go? So far gene therapy is primarily tested for debilitating and ultimately fatal diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

The first gene therapy trial in humans corrected a life-threatening immune disorder in a two-year-old girl who, now ten years later, is doing well. The gene therapy required dozens of applications but has saved the family from a $60,000 per year bill for necessary drug treatment without the gene therapy.{2} Recently, sixteen heart disease patients, who were literally waiting for death, received a solution containing copies of a gene that triggers blood vessel growth by injection straight into the heart. By growing new blood vessels around clogged arteries, all sixteen showed improvement and six were completely relieved of pain.

In each of these cases, gene therapy was performed as a last resort for a fatal condition. This seems to easily fall within the medical boundaries of seeking to cure while at the same time causing no harm. The problem will arise when gene therapy will be sought to alleviate a condition that is less than life-threatening and perhaps considered by some to simply be one of lifes inconveniences, such as a gene that may offer resistance to AIDS or may enhance memory. Such genes are known now and many are suggesting that these goals will and should be available for gene therapy.

The most troublesome aspect of gene therapy has been determining the best method of delivering the gene to the right cells and enticing them to incorporate the gene into the cells chromosomes. Most researchers have used crippled forms of viruses that naturally incorporate their genes into cells. The entire field of gene therapy was dealt a severe setback in September 1999 upon the death of Jesse Gelsinger who had undergone gene therapy for an inherited enzyme deficiency at the University of Pennsylvania.{3} Jesse apparently suffered a severe immune reaction and died four days after being injected with the engineered virus.

The same virus vector had been used safely in thousands of other trials, but in this case, after releasing stacks of clinical data and answering questions for two days, the researchers didnt fully understand what had gone wrong.{4} Other institutions were also found to have failed to file immediate reports as required of serious adverse events in their trials, prompting a congressional review.{5} All this should indicate that the answers to the technical problems of gene therapy have not been answered and progress will be slowed as guidelines and reporting procedures are studied and reevaluated.

The simple answer is no, at least for the foreseeable future. Gene therapy currently targets existing tissue in a existing child or adult. This may alleviate or eliminate symptoms in that individual, but will not affect future children. To accomplish a correction for future generations, gene therapy would need to target the germ cells, the sperm and egg. This poses numerous technical problems at the present time. There is also a very real concern about making genetic decisions for future generations without their consent.

Some would seek to get around these difficulties by performing gene therapy in early embryos before tissue differentiation has taken place. This would allow the new gene to be incorporated into all tissues, including reproductive organs. However, this process does nothing to alleviate the condition of those already suffering from genetic disease. Also, as mentioned earlier this week, this procedure would put embryos at unacceptable risk due to the inherent rate of failure and potential damage to the embryo.

Another way to affect germ line gene therapy would involve a combination of gene therapy and cloning.{6} An embryo, fertilized in vitro, from the sperm and egg of a couple at risk for sickle-cell anemia, for example, could be tested for the sickle-cell gene. If the embryo tests positive, cells could be removed from this early embryo and grown in culture. Then the normal hemoglobin gene would be added to these cultured cells.

If the technique for human cloning could be perfected, then one of these cells could be cloned to create a new individual. If the cloning were successful, the resulting baby would be an identical twin of the original embryo, only with the sickle-cell gene replaced with the normal hemoglobin gene. This would result in a normal healthy baby. Unfortunately, the initial embryo was sacrificed to allow the engineering of its identical twin, an ethically unacceptable trade-off.

So what we have seen, is that even human gene therapy is not a long-term solution, but a temporary and individual one. But even in condoning the use of gene therapy for therapeutic ends, we need to be careful that those for whom gene therapy is unavailable either for ethical or monetary reasons, dont get pushed aside. It would be easy to shun those with uncorrected defects as less than desirable or even less than human. There is, indeed, much to think about.

The possibility of someone or some government utilizing the new tools of genetic engineering to create a superior race of humans must at least be considered. We need to emphasize, however, that we simply do not know what genetic factors determine popularly desired traits such as athletic ability, intelligence, appearance and personality. For sure, each of these has a significant component that may be available for genetic manipulation, but its safe to say that our knowledge of each of these traits is in its infancy.

Even as knowledge of these areas grows, other genetic qualities may prevent their engineering. So far, few genes have only a single application in the body. Most genes are found to have multiple effects, sometimes in different tissues. Therefore, to engineer a gene for enhancement of a particular traitsay memorymay inadvertently cause increased susceptibility to drug addiction.

But what if in the next 50 to 100 years, many of these unknowns can be anticipated and engineering for advantageous traits becomes possible. What can we expect? Our concern is that without a redirection of the worldview of the culture, there will be a growing propensity to want to take over the evolution of the human species. The many people see it, we are simply upright, large-brained apes. There is no such thing as an independent mind. Our mind becomes simply a physical construct of the brain. While the brain is certainly complicated and our level of understanding of its intricate machinery grows daily, some hope that in the future we may comprehend enough to change who and what we are as a species in order to meet the future demands of survival.

Edward O. Wilson, a Harvard entomologist, believes that we will soon be faced with difficult genetic dilemmas. Because of expected advances in gene therapy, we will not only be able to eliminate or at least alleviate genetic disease, we may be able to enhance certain human abilities such as mathematics or verbal ability. He says, Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we wish to become.{7} As early as 1978, Wilson reflected on our eventual need to decide how human we wish to remain.{8}

Surprisingly, Wilson predicts that future generations will opt only for repair of disabling disease and stop short of genetic enhancements. His only rationale however, is a question. Why should a species give up the defining core of its existence, built by millions of years of biological trial and error?{9} Wilson is naively optimistic. There are loud voices already claiming that man can intentionally engineer our evolutionary future better than chance mutations and natural selection. The time to change the course of this slow train to destruction is now, not later.

Many of the questions surrounding the ethical use of genetic engineering practices are difficult to answer with a simple yes or no. This is one of them. The answer revolves around the method used to determine the sex selection and the timing of the selection itself.

For instance, if the sex of a fetus is determined and deemed undesirable, it can only be rectified by termination of the embryo or fetus, either in the lab or in the womb by abortion. There is every reason to prohibit this process. First, an innocent life has been sacrificed. The principle of the sanctity of human life demands that a new innocent life not be killed for any reason apart from saving the life of the mother. Second, even in this country where abortion is legal, one would hope that restrictions would be put in place to prevent the taking of a life simply because its the wrong sex.

However, procedures do exist that can separate sperm that carry the Y chromosome from those that carry the X chromosome. Eggs fertilized by sperm carrying the Y will be male, and eggs fertilized by sperm carrying the X will be female. If the sperm sample used to fertilize an egg has been selected for the Y chromosome, you simply increase the odds of having a boy (~90%) over a girl. So long as the couple is willing to accept either a boy or girl and will not discard the embryo or abort the baby if its the wrong sex, its difficult to say that such a procedure should be prohibited.

One reason to utilize this procedure is to reduce the risk of a sex-linked genetic disease. Color-blindness, hemophilia, and fragile X syndrome can be due to mutations on the X chromosome. Therefore, males (with only one X chromosome) are much more likely to suffer from these traits when either the mother is a carrier or the father is affected. (In females, the second X chromosome will usually carry the normal gene, masking the mutated gene on the other X chromosome.) Selecting for a girl by sperm selection greatly reduces the possibility of having a child with either of these genetic diseases. Again, its difficult to argue against the desire to reduce suffering when a life has not been forfeited.

But we must ask, is sex determination by sperm selection wise? A couple that already has a boy and simply wants a girl to balance their family, seems innocent enough. But why is this important? What fuels this desire? Its dangerous to take more and more control over our lives and leave the sovereignty of God far behind. This isnt a situation of life and death or even reducing suffering.

But while it may be difficult to find anything seriously wrong with sex selection, its also difficult to find anything good about it. Even when the purpose may be to avoid a sex-linked disease, we run the risk of communicating to others affected by these diseases that because they could have been avoided, their life is somehow less valuable. So while it may not be prudent to prohibit such practices, it certainly should not be approached casually either.

Notes

1. Lee Silver, Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World, New York, NY: Avon Books, p. 230-231. 2. Leon Jaroff, Success stories, Time, 11 January 1999, p. 72-73. 3. Sally Lehrman, Virus treatment questioned after gene therapy death, Nature Vol. 401 (7 October 1999): 517-518. 4. Eliot Marshall, Gene therapy death prompts review of adenovirus vector, Science Vol. 286 (17 December 1999): 2244-2245. 5. Meredith Wadman, NIH under fire over gene-therapy trials, Nature Vol. 403 (20 January 1999): 237. 6. Steve Mirsky and John Rennie, What cloning means for gene therapy, Scientific American, June 1997, p. 122-123. 7. Ibid., p. 277. 8. Edward Wilson, On Human Nature, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, p. 6. 9. E. Wilson, Consilience, p. 277.

2000 Probe Ministries

Post Views: 372

On January 8, 2007, the Associated Press reported that scientists from Wake Forest University and Harvard University discovered a new type of stem cell found in the amniotic fluid within

Kerby Anderson provides a biblical look at genetic engineering. Christians would be wise to distinguish between two types of research: genetic repair (acceptable) and the creation of new forms of

Go here to see the original:
Human Genetic Engineering Probe Ministries

Names of a lot of scientists come to notice whenever there are talks about Human Genetic Engineering Facts. Two scientists namely Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer discovered a technique for cloning using DNA. These two have contributed a lot in Human Genetic Engineering studies. This stage was the discovery of science for historians. It was also the beginning of advanced sciences.

Two other popular scientists involved in studying Human Genetic Engineering Facts were Cohen and Boyer. They made proper use of enzymes with the purpose of cutting bacteria plasmid in slices.

A different DNA strand was required for placing these slices. DNA strands can be obtained from that particular bacteria plasmid. Cohen and Boyer, together with their efforts, proved that it is quite possible to manipulate or mix the genes. DNA mapping has made it easier for the scientists to do the genes manipulation.

Human Genetic Engineering Facts have emerged a lot in this area of work. With the emergence of these facts it became possible for scientists to develop insulin that can be used in the treatment of patients that suffer from diabetes. The technique can also be used for creating insulin that can be given to patients suffering from ailments in their kidney.

The invention of genetic therapy also involves the use of this technique. White blood cells present in humans can be altered genetically. This is the situation in people that have defects in the immune system. Altered blood cells can easily be reinserted for improvements in the immune system.

Agricultural benefits of Human Genetic Engineering

Crops can be modified with the help of genetic engineering. This is an important advantage or factor contributing in the vast scope of Human Genetic Engineering Facts . Gene therapy will alter or change the genes, and this will keep the vegetable and fruits resistant from any kind of disease. Human Genetic Engineering Facts have inspired many scientists. Farmers have also been impressed with the effect that it lays on the growth of fruits and vegetables. Many additional benefits are there for using gene therapy in agricultural activities. It will increase the production by making minimum investment.

Many otherHuman Genetic Engineering Facts are there that can leave positive impact on agricultural development. This can be done in order to fulfill the demand of food items. It will also result in reducing the use of insecticides, and fertilizers at the same time convenient. All these factors will contribute together for reducing the amount of pollution caused from the fertilizers. It will also increase the level of health among people.

Other benefits

Human Genetic Engineering Facts can also lead to generate breeds that will bring diversity among the animals that have been modified genetically. It will keep animals away from any kind of danger. Gene therapy will increase the strength of the animals to a great extent. This will also enable them to cope with the ever changing environment. Animals that have genetically altered genes will stay away from deadly diseases.

Human Genetic Engineering Facts

1.86 (37.22%) 388 votes

Read the original:
Human Genetic Engineering Facts

(PHOTO)

Los Angeles Times (TNS)

The following editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times on Friday, Aug. 4:

-

In a process that can be likened to the creation of GMO crops, scientists have edited genes in human embryos in order to eliminate a mutation that causes thickening of the heart wall. The embryos were created solely for the scientists study and will not be implanted. Nonetheless, the research offers hope that in years ahead, science could prevent many serious genetic diseases at the stage in which people are a microscopic cluster of cells in a petri dish. Whats more, because those edited genes would be carried forth into new generations, the disease might eventually be eliminated altogether.

Is this a glorious new frontier or a troubling situation? Unequivocally, the answer is yes to both.

The research results by an international team of U.S., Chinese and South Korean scientists were enormously exciting medically. Beyond the technical achievement involved, the teams work hastened the arrival of a revolutionary form of treatment: removing genes that can lead inexorably to suffering and premature death.

Public policy and the field of bioethics have not caught up with the science of genetic intervention.

But there is also a great deal we still dont know about how minor issues might become major ones as people pass on edited DNA to their offspring, and as people who have had some genes altered reproduce with people who have had other genes altered. Weve seen how selectively breeding to produce one trait can unexpectedly produce other, less desirable outcomes. Remember how growers were able to create tomatoes that were more uniformly red, but in the process, they turned off the gene that gave tomatoes flavor?

Another major issue is the ethics of adjusting humans genetically to fit a favored outcome. Today its heritable disease, but what might be seen as undesirable traits in the future that people might want to eliminate? Short stature? Introverted personality? Klutziness?

To be sure, its not as though everyone is likely to line up for gene-edited offspring rather than just having babies, at least for the foreseeable future. The procedure can be performed only on in vitro embryos and requires precision timing.

But even with this early study, problematic issues already are evident. Gene editing isnt the only method to protect against certain hereditary conditions such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which was edited out in this study. Children stand a 50 percent chance of inheriting the condition; if a couple produces several embryos through in vitro fertilization, half of those already would theoretically be free of the mutation, and those are the ones that would be selected for implantation. Gene editing made the process more efficient, but it did not offer hope where there was none, Jennifer Doudna, a molecular and cell biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, observed.

In fact, six months ago, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine recommended that scientists involved in germline editing that is, making changes that would be passed down to future generations should limit their work to diseases for which there are no other reasonable treatments. The most recent embryo study began before that recommendation was delivered.

Thats emblematic of the real problem: Public policy and the field of bioethics have not caught up with the science of genetic intervention. Yes, federal money cant be spent on research involving human embryos even when they are still at the stage of a clump of undifferentiated cells. FDA approval would be needed for any actual human therapies, which would be years off.

Still, the technology is advancing more rapidly than societys discussions about human genetic engineering, the specter of eugenics and even the seemingly mundane topics of who will own the patents on customized genes and who will have access to gene editing once it is approved.

The answers arent easy, but the discussions have to take place and decisions need to be made, probably through an international convention that includes governments, researchers, physicians and consumer advocates. Taking the research to the next level should mean experimentation with animals rather than humans. They should then be followed for generations to see whether unexpected health issues arise. Gene editing on humans should be introduced one step at a time, starting with the most disastrous diseases and conditions that cannot be tackled in any other way, then tracked long term to ensure safety.

We all would love to eliminate disabling deformities, painful conditions that shorten lives or genetic mutations that predispose us to various fatal diseases. Although science has a long way to go before such miracles are achieved, research is moving fast. Its paramount that we get human gene editing right rather than just getting it soon.

-

)2017 Los Angeles Times

Visit the Los Angeles Times at http://www.latimes.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

-

PHOTO (for help with images, contact 312-222-4194):

Topics: t000026911,g000065558,g000362661,g000066164

AP-WF-08-04-17 0109GMT

Published Aug. 5, 2017, midnight

See original here:
The ethics of creating GMO humans | The Spokesman-Review - The Spokesman-Review

Many Human Genetic Engineering Cons are there that can stop a person from getting through the entire gene therapy. It is a process in which there is a modification or change in the genes of a human. The aim or objective of using Human Genetic Engineering is to choose newborn phenotype or to change or alter the existing phenotype of an adult or an already grown child. Human Genetic Engineering has shown a lot of promise for curing cystic fibrosis. It is a kind of genetic disease that exist in humans. It will increase the level of immunity in people. Increased immunity will make them resistant to several severe diseases.

There is also a speculation that Human Genetic Engineering can be used in other area of work. It can be used for making changes in the physical appearances. Metabolism may notice some improvements. Human Genetic Engineering Cons can be seen on the mental abilities of a human.

However, it can make certain improvements in the intelligence level. Human Genetic Engineering has made a lot of contributions in the field of advanced medical sciences. There is not much data about Human Genetic Engineering Cons . One can easily think of it as a successful invention in the field of medical science.

Gene therapy can be used for curing several deadly diseases. Many diseases are there that have no cure, so this is a helpful invention in this field. It can lead to various health benefits. Genetic engineering can also lead to population free from any diseases. However, some Human Genetic Engineering Cons are also there that can trouble human beings.

This is because of the complications involved in human genes. A person has multiple physical attributes that differ from each other, so chances are there that these attributes get controlled by only one gene sequence. This helps the scientists to make changes or alteration in only one gene at a time and the remaining multiple sequences of genes will automatically be altered.

Scientists involved in this alteration process also noticed that whenever a DNA strand gets a new gene, then it becomes difficult for the DNA strand to make a decision about where the new gene will be settled. It is one of the factors that contribute to Human Genetic Engineering Cons. With the help of genetic engineering scientists will find no difficulty at the time of altering a part of DNA in a human. This will keep them resistant or away from any genetic disease or effects. These effects might be there on the reproductive cells of a person.

For an instance, it these reproductive cells are there on parents that their children will automatically acquire the effects of genetics. Such Human Genetic Engineering Cons can cause few genetic diseases on humans. Chances of errors are always there in making use of genetic engineering for human cloning, agriculture, and in any other related field. Entire human generation can lead to mutation if these Human Genetic Engineering Cons do get removed at their earliest.

Human Genetic Engineering Cons

1.39 (27.87%) 6001 votes

Visit link:
Human Genetic Engineering Cons