As genetic research and our overall understanding of the
human genome progresses, fanatics are heralding the days as the dawn of the
post-human, suggesting that we are on the threshold of a drastic change in our
species as we know it. Based off of gene editing methods such as TALENs, ZFNs,
and most recently CRISPR, some people are convinced that we are about to
transcend the era of disease and enter into a time where cancer, malaria, and
multiple sclerosis are things of the past, and genetic imperfections in
bloodlines are resolved for good. However, it is far less common knowledge that
the technology is nowhere close to reaching the ability to live up to its
recent expectations. Genetic research and its potential is without a doubt
being overhyped by the media and general population, and needs to be approached
with an attitude of caution as opposed to eagerness.
There are a number of factors that have led to the
sensationalization of genetic science. The first of these is simple curiosity.
It's in our nature. The same little voice in our brain that asked our ancestors
"What's out there?" when they gazed at the stars a thousand years ago
is once again prodding us about what's behind that next genetic door. However,
while simple instinct is pushing the interest of some, that of others is fueled
by the almighty dollar. Biotechnology was the second highest funded sector in
the United States economy in 2015, followed only by software companies.
Businesses are willing to do the research, and if they have someone whose money
they are relying on, then it is in their best interest to push their findings
as much as possible, particularly in the favor of the investors' interests. In
addition, bioengineering appeals to the common crowd through scientists'
promises of a healthier future. The idea of removal of diseases and improving
lifespan is going to sound good to anybody who hears about it. Although the
technology for us to do so is very primitive, people still set staggeringly
high expectations for gene editing technology to reach before the end of the
week. Finally, biomedical technologies generally have a reckless exemption to
caution of the industry. To the public, the potential benefits outweigh the
alternative outcomes and possible side effects, no matter what they be.
Approaching genetics with this sort of wide-eyed childish
interest is not the right way to go into things. Extensive research must be
completed in order for gene editing technology to be regularly used on the
general public, if at all. No matter what publishers and journals may lead you
to believe, genetic editing is still nowhere close to perfect. The process can
cause damage to the edited cells, causing them to replicate damaged genes or
even become cancerous. The people's tendency to avoid due consideration of new,
powerful technologies have had less than ideal results in the past, such as
meltdowns from previously cleared nuclear reactors, and plane crashes due to
unforeseen circumstances. Genetic editing has the potential to become yet
another statistic in that trend. Also, we need to approach the day in age where
the human genome can be exploited for economic benefit very slowly. If this
type of technology is privatized, capitalism takes over, and it drives a stake
further in the ground between the upper and lower class. Those that can afford
to could have their genomes tailored to their desires, while the poor remain
with their inferior genetics. This type of divide is not something to be taken
lightly, and any catalyst for such a scenario should be approached with
caution.
The future of genetic engineering and biotechnology is
bright. It really is. There have been mosquitoes designed to no longer carry
malaria, plants engineered to produce more full crops, and livestock tailored
to produce larger calves, and thus more meat and resources. Genetic editing
certainly has its appeal, and has the potential for countless applications.
However, with the future of genetically engineered humans far in the distance,
it only seems reasonable for the crazed genetic advocates to dial back a bit,
and instead focus their efforts on whether or not we should actually be doing
what we are doing. Progress is progress, but not all progress yields overall
beneficial results. For that reason, it is necessary for us to approach
advancements in the field of genetics with a hesitant attitude and a sense of
caution.
Questions:
What does James Watson describe as the actual desire of the
public?
What do Athanasiou and Darnovsky say that the techno-eugenic
vision urges us to forget about?
In what kind of cells did Eric Olson find CRISPR to be safer
to use?
How much money was invested into biotechnology in 2015?
What tools were used to do gene editing before CRISPR was
developed?
What are some things in the movie clip that the doctor
mentioned being able to manipulate?
What similarity is drawn between the development of genetic
science and nuclear energy?
What does Silver describe as “the ultimate legacy of
unfettered global capitalism?”
What mutations have scientists already applied to
animals/humans that make people believe that others will be possible?
What are some reasons genetic science is overhyped?
No comments:
Post a Comment