Playing God

Aarnav J. Rayamajhi

January **th, **23

Background

Isaac Asimov once said, “The advance of genetic engineering makes it quite conceivable that we will begin to design our own evolutionary progress.” Isaac Asimov's prediction may seem like science fiction, but recent developments in the field have made it clear that this future is closer than previously thought. As humanity stands on the cusp of this revolutionary technology, it is crucial that society as a whole consider the ethical implications and potential consequences of manipulating the genetic code.

Genetic engineering is a new and emerging technology, capable of revolutionizing medical technologies to cure diseases and alter human life in ways previously unheard of. The problems stem from the notion of unforeseen side effects and mutations brought on by experimentation and proposed therapies. Not to mention the idea of exploitation and its ethical ramifications that gradually emerge with the application of genetic technologies. Ideas of changing certain characteristics for physical appearance, height, eye color, and intellectual ability, are becoming more and more conceivable (Ball, 2017). The ethical and moral ramifications brought forth subjective factors such as ideas associated with why society should be able to change the genetic makeup of people, or why humans should be able to influence how humans evolve away from the natural courses of life. The Human Genome Project's completion of the mapping of the human genome may be credited by many as being the trigger for the possibility and discovery of genetic engineering. (Human Genome Project 2022). The potential to modify the human genome to add or remove undesired or desirable features was made possible by the discovery of the entire sequence of the human genome.

The cloning of Dolly the sheep was arguably the most significant scientific breakthrough because it led to a public debate about the potential abuse of cloning technology as well as the moral consequences of its application. (Fridovich-Keil, 2008). "Dolly's birth marked a milestone in science, disproving the long-held belief that adult mammals could be cloned and prompting a discussion about the numerous potentials uses and abuses of mammalian cloning.”

Scientists, experts and the American public were concerned about the moral ramifications of cloning, especially the potential use of it to manufacture human clones or change the genetic composition of humans or animals in unfavorable ways. Some people were worried about how cloning would affect the health and welfare of cloned animals as well as the environment. President Biden has issued Executive Order 14081, which is currently in effect. A, "whole-of-government strategy to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing towards creative solutions in health, climate change, energy, food security, agriculture, and national and economic security". (The White House 2022) The President's directive guarantees more research and financial commitments to biosecurity of innovation. This enables an increase in budgetary spending and an emphasis on advancing knowledge of genetic engineering. Given that the President passed the law, this is at the federal level of government. The President, who in this instance issued an Executive order, is one of the important participants, along with Congress. The American people would be one of the policy's key stakeholders as they would be directly affected by how the funding for the growth of creative solutions is used. An enhanced focus on expanding and improving biotechnology that supports best practices for secure invention, development, and use would have a positive social impact. The goal of expanding and developing the bioeconomy while maintaining American ideals and values fostering secure biotechnological research, innovation, development, and application is the policy's intended economic impact.

As the field of genetic engineering continues to advance, it is important for the U.S. Congress to consider the ethical implications and potential risks associated with its use. While the potential for genetic engineering to provide treatment for serious diseases is undeniable, the temptation to use it for the creation of "designer" traits or enhanced abilities poses a significant threat to society. Therefore, it is crucial that Congress pass legislation that strictly limits the use of genetic engineering to the treatment of serious diseases, while also establishing strict regulations and guidelines to ensure its safe use. By doing so, It can be ensured that the potential benefits of genetic engineering are ethically taken advantage of while also preventing its potential abuse.

Social Evaluation

The use of genetic engineering has the potential to bring numerous social benefits, including the treatment and prevention of serious diseases, the advancement of medical innovation, and the promotion of safety and regulation. One of the primary social benefits of using genetic engineering for the treatment of serious diseases is the potential to cure or significantly improve the lives of individuals suffering from conditions such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, hemophilia, and AIDS. (Mayo Clinic, 2017). Gene therapy, which involves replacing a faulty gene or adding a new gene to improve the body's ability to fight disease, holds great promise for treating these and other diseases.

The United States is a leader in medical innovation and technological advancements. Investing in the development of genetic engineering technologies and techniques can help the country achieve its societal goals and improve the health and well-being of its citizens. Another social benefit of using genetic engineering for the treatment of serious diseases is the potential for advances in medical technology and biomanufacturing. (The White House, 2022). By investing in foundational scientific capabilities and promoting the commercialization of innovative technologies and products, the United States can lead the way in the development of treatments and cures for a wide range of diseases. Additionally, the U.S. has a strong track record of safety and regulation when it comes to new and emerging technologies, investing in biosafety and biosecurity can ensure that biotechnology is developed and deployed in ways that align with American values and international best practices.

Despite these potential benefits, there are also social costs to consider when it comes to the use of genetic engineering. Researchers currently do not have a complete understanding of the human genome and the potential consequences of altering it, which means that attempting to repair or modify the existing design could lead to unknown risks and unintended consequences. Conflicting values and ethical concerns surrounding the alteration of human biology, with some arguing that humans should not be allowed to alter their own chemistry and that the human genome should be left alone. (Ball, 2017). As of 2014, many countries have banned or discouraged research on germline editing due to ethical and safety concerns. The United States, United Kingdom, and China have formed the International Summit on Human Gene Editing to address these concerns and establish a consistent approach to the use of genome editing technologies. However, the ethical, safety, and regulatory issues surrounding genetic modification and editing are still being debated. (NIH, 2017). Another prominent social cost is the use of technologies that aim to alter the human germline, or the DNA passed down from one generation to the next. This has sparked a significant debate among scientists, physicians, and the general public. Another social cost stated in a report by the United States House of Representatives, “Research that attempts to alter the human germline raises important issues in so many different ways about safety, risk, social, economic, ethical, and regulatory considerations.” (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Serial No. 114–24 JUNE 16, 2015). Experts further argue that with further research comes further issues regarding safety to economic issues.

The manifest outcome of allocating research and legislation strictly on genetic engineering towards the treatment of serious diseases would be that the technology would be used primarily for the betterment of society, curing diseases and furthering medical innovation. While preventing the exploitation of the technology for the creation of designer babies and enhancement of physical traits. This regulatory type of public policy would aim to regulate the use of genetic engineering for the safety of the common good, prevent exploitation of the emerging technology, and ban the use of gene therapy on humans with the goal of eliminating designer traits and enhanced abilities.

Despite these potential drawbacks, the U.S. Congress should still pass legislation on the use of genetic engineering for the treatment of serious diseases. By establishing strict guidelines and regulations, the government can ensure the safety and effectiveness of gene therapy while also preventing the exploitation of the technology for designer traits and enhanced abilities. While it is important to consider the potential social costs of genetic engineering, the potential benefits of using this technology to cure and prevent serious diseases far outweigh the potential risks. Therefore, the U.S. Congress should take action to regulate the use of genetic engineering for the betterment of society and the health of its citizens and future generations yet to come.

Economic Evaluation

When it comes to new and emerging technology, The United States often takes the lead. The United States has consistently grasped and led in new developing technology alongside further continued economic development (The White House, 2022). Prominent examples of Economic benefits include increased economic wealth, including job growth and a lowered unemployment rate, increased productive efficiency and full employment. “ The fields have also had the very positive spillover effect of building a powerful science- and technology-based economic sector for the U.S.—a sector that supports 850,263 jobs across the nation and generates $265.4 billion in economic output.” (Tripp & Grueber 2021) This highlights the significant economic benefits of genetic engineering technologies and their potential to drive economic growth and further competitiveness. In order to fully realize the potential for economic benefit of these technologies, it is crucial to consider these benefits while debating the usage and regulation of these technologies.

The manifest outcome of increasing research and development in genetic engineering technologies would be the increase of economic wealth, including increased job growth and a lowered unemployment rate. This is because investing in and supporting the advancement of these technologies can lead to the creation of new jobs and industries, while also boosting the productivity and efficiency of already-existing ones. Additionally, the increased focus on research and development in this field can lead to technological advancements and innovations that have the potential to drive economic growth and competitiveness Including the potential of treating diseases long thought to be incurable. According to AdvaMed “Economists also found that the medical tech field is responsible for the creation of nearly 2 million jobs in the U.S. economy.” (AdvaMed, 2021).

People's choices often involve costs, and the decision to invest in and further medical technology is no different. While the goal of researching and developing new technologies is often to save lives and improve healthcare outcomes, there are often tradeoffs to be considered. In the case of genetic engineering technologies, one potential tradeoff is the risk of patients experiencing unwanted mutations or errors as a result of the technology. Additionally, there is the potential for the abuse of these technologies, such as the creation of designer traits or enhanced abilities, which could have ethical implications and lead to further inequalities in society.

Productive efficiency & full employment, a prominent idea presented by President Biden's policy to increase research and investments in the biosafety and biosecurity of innovation allows for increased spending and focus on furthering the advancement and understanding of genetic engineering. This has the potential to increase productive efficiency and full employment in the industry, as more resources and attention are dedicated to research and development in this field. This can lead to technological advancements and innovations that can drive economic growth and competitiveness. Overall, this policy has the potential to have significant economic benefits and contribute to the advancement of genetic engineering technologies, ultimately benefiting the U.S financially.

Despite the potential economic benefits of genetic engineering, economic costs occur, due to the high cost of these sought after technologies, can lead to a widening of the socioeconomic gap. Those with financial resources may be able to access and afford genetic modifications for themselves and their children, while those without such resources may not have the same opportunities (Sherman, 2017).

This could result in further inequality and disparities in society. According to (Smith, 2018) Genetic engineering allows A future in which rich people are able to make themselves more entrepreneurial, smarter, more socially adept or more charismatic than other people could lead to exacerbation of the recent trends of falling economic mobility and increasing inequality. That could lead to the kind of hereditary caste system seen in dystopian novels -- money buying advantages that allow the earning of even more money.

However, it is important to note that the current high cost of genetic engineering technology is due to the market not being fully developed and utilized at this stage of technological advancement. The recent signing of the Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy bill by President Biden indicates that the use of this technology will be accessible to all Americans in a manner that benefits the entire community (The White House). This suggests that the cost of genetic engineering may become more affordable or even free in the future as the market becomes more developed, eliminating the idea of exploitation by the rich and its related implications.

Given the potential economic benefits and ethical concerns surrounding genetic engineering and its technologies, it is important that the U.S. Congress pass legislation on their use. Such legislation should strictly limit the use of genetic engineering to the treatment of serious diseases, while establishing safe regulations and guidelines to prevent the misuse of these technologies. This includes the idea of banning and eliminating designer traits and enhanced abilities, which have the potential to create inequalities and ethical concerns. By passing this legislation and properly regulating the use of genetic engineering technologies, the U.S. can ensure that these technologies are used responsibly and ethically, while also gaining their potential for economic and benefit.

Conclusion

The recent focus on boosting spending and research on genetic engineering as well as the general trend of new medical technology give rise to the notion that there is a real likelihood that this legislation will pass, this also has the potential to appeal to those who wish to further U.S medical technology and cure common illnesses, while also ensuring that the technology is not misused. This legislation, which aims to solely use the specific technology to focus on treating serious diseases / illness, rather than focusing on unethical uses such as, designer traits and enhanced abilities, will lead to the discovery and implementation as a result of the recent executive order signed by President Biden that allocates spending and focuses on furthering the advancement and understanding of genetic engineering. An initiative to expand research and spending on furthering research has already been launched as a result of the Executive Order signed by President Biden (The White House). It is very likely that this legislation will succeed since it implements a policy that will be supported by the vast majority, if not the entire population, and sets regulation to avoid abuses of the existing state of genetic engineering as a technology.

Legislators, scientists, and members of the public should all participate in talks and negotiations in order for the legislation on genetic engineering regulation to pass. For instance, knowledge from each member's potential field should be introduced into this process. Researchers should make their case for the new legislation and its advantages. After this process is completed, changes should be made to create regulations that are plausible and attractive to future policymakers. It is crucial to prepare and submit legislation to the US Congress after creating regulations. The U.S. Congress would then examine, tweak, and finally vote on the law after taking all necessary steps.

Overall, the proposed legislation's passage will have a big impact on the field and society as a whole regarding the use of genetic engineering for the treatment of serious diseases. The usage of this technology would be governed by strict guidelines, ensuring that it is done so responsibly and safely. Additionally, it would support equity and access while making sure that everyone, not just the wealthy, benefits from genetic engineering. The adoption of this legislation is a significant step in ensuring that genetic engineering is utilized for the benefit of people and the environment. By passing this legislation, an important step towards ensuring that genetic engineering is used for the betterment of humanity and the natural world. It is in the best interest of humanity that the proposed legislation will be passed into law, and that it will help to advance the field of genetic engineering in a way that is safe, responsible, and ethical, while also being accessed by all

References

AdvaMed. (2021, July 29). New Data Finds Medical Technology Industry Continues to Create High-Paying Jobs at Small Businesses Throughout COVID-19 Pandemic. AdvaMed. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.advamed.org/industry-updates/news/new-data-finds-medical-technology-industry-continues-to-create-high-paying-jobs-at-small-businesses-throughout-covid-19-pandemic/

Ball, P. (2017, January 8). Designer babies: an ethical horror waiting to happen? The Guardian. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/08/designer-babies-ethical-horror-waiting-to-happen

Biden, J. R. (2022, September 12). Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy. The White House. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/09/12/executive-order-on-advancing-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-innovation-for-a-sustainable-safe-and-secure-american-bioeconomy/

Fridovich, J. L., & Rogers, K. (2023, January 1). Dolly cloned sheep Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dolly-cloned-sheep

Loria, K. (2015, August 4). Why We Should Allow Designer Babies. Business Insider. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.businessinsider.com/why-we-should-allow-designer-babies-2015-8

Mayo Clinic. (2017, December 29). Gene therapy. Mayo Clinic. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/gene-therapy/about/pac-20384619

MayoClinic. (2017, December 29). Gene therapy. Mayo Clinic. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/gene-therapy/about/pac-20384619

Minchin, S. (2019, August 11). The Pros and Cons Of Having a Designer Baby. Explore Biotech. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://explorebiotech.com/pros-cons-designer-baby/

NIH. (2017, August 3). What are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing? National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns

Pizzigati, S. (2019, August 2). Can the Wealthy Hardwire Inequality into Our DNA? Inequality.org. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://inequality.org/great-divide/can-inequality-be-hardwired-into-our-dna/

Sherman, E. (2023, January 6). Genetic Engineering Will Make Income Inequality Much Worse. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/08/20/genetic-engineering-will-make-income-inequality-much-worse/?sh=21e3234f3d75

Smith, N. (2018, January 25). Gene Editing Needs to Be Available to Everyone. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-25/gene-editing-needs-to-be-available-to-everyone

Synthego. (2023, January 11). History of Genetic Engineering and the Rise of Genome Editing Tools. Synthego. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.synthego.com/learn/genome-engineering-history

Contact this candidate