I’m sure you have all heard “I’d be that pretty too if I were that rich!”. In class we have been discussing the ethics of human genetic engineering but what about the ethics of cosmetic enhancement? Now I understand that there is a VAST difference between genetic engineering and cosmetic enhancement, however, the individualistic support of cosmetic enhancement has often been the rudimentary reasoning for genetic engineering.
Could cosmetic enhancement be opening a door to a support system for those who wish to engage in groundbreaking genetic engineering? Could those who support “anti aging” surgeries, and other beauty enhancement come to blindly support genetic engineering? Studies shows that from 1997 from 2005 cosmetic surgeries increased 725% . This means more and more people are supporting and normalizing the adherence to beauty standards.
While some may not agree with gene therapy being conducted to fetuses could there be a possibility in the future to receive gene therapy as an adult? Of course what would then be the implications for your children, would they receive your “original” set of genes or would they inherit the “new” genes.
I always think about the funny *false* story that was circulating the internet a while back about a Chinese man who sued his wife after their baby was born ugly. The story claimed he sued his wife (and won) for not disclaiming the amount of cosmetic surgeries she had.
This false story went viral and sure enough created enough talk between those who support and those who don’t. So my question is, if it became available to receive gene therapy as an adult although we didn’t completely understand the full implication of it, generations to come, should we create laws against it?
Depends of course on how we define "cosmetic," but if we mean any intervention not directly addressing health and the sustenance of an individual life I suppose I'd prefer to resist coercive legislation. Once changes alter the germ line, it's a different story.
ReplyDeleteBut, in general I'd discourage the legislative approach. In the Internet Age the power of social sanction to deter inappropriate behavior will often suffice.
As a geneticist that is heavily against this, I think the law is a good way to maintain public health and defense. In the future I could advocate for this kind of modification for payment or inclusion after injury but at the level of ability we are at now, there are too many risks to the individual's health. We barely understand cancer and the whole world is researching it. The only thing we can give to patients is probability. (https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics) When we work with model organisms and introduce new cells or modifications it is because we value human life over the potentiality of a spontaneous discovery. We need more tests before we make a procedure that could change the biochemistry of the body for good.
ReplyDelete