Genetic Engineering
In case you were not sure, we donÕt live in a
perfect world. Millions of people die every year. Two
significant causes of death are hunger and disease (I am
aware that there are more causes such as war and crime,
but they are irrelevant to this essay). There are about
5.6 billion people on earth; all of whom need to eat.
However, only a certain amount of food (less that what
everyone needs) can be produced. With the use of
pesticides, much of the food that is produced is not as
nutritional as it could be. Food production costs are
also inordinately high due to the cropÕs weaknesses to
pests, pesticides, and weather fluctuations. On an
ascetic level, tomatoes are tasteless. They have little
nutritional value because farmers must pick them when
they are still green so they wonÕt be too soft by the
time they get to the consumers. On a global scale,
millions of people die of starvation every year in third
world countries. The worst famine in India killed 3
million people in 1770. Over 100,000 people have
perished so far in the current famine going on in
Ethiopia and Somalia (Wallace 1065). Disease is the
other killer. I need not waste time talking about how
many people die of disease because it is extremely
common knowledge.
There is hope. Every living organism has
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). It is the genetic code
which determines what the organism will be. Recently,
scientists have been able to alter an organismÕs genome
to come up with desired characteristics. This is known
as Genetic Engineering (GE). GE is the process of
altering biological systems by the purposeful
manipulation of DNA. For example, removing the gene
which causes rotting in tomatoes will make the tomato
stay firm for ten days longer that usual. Simply put,
GE is the solution to hunger and disease.
GE can come pretty close to ending hunger. The
goal here is to improve the quantity of food from
plants and improve the amount of milk and meat that
cattle produce. There are three ways in which
Òagricultural engineeringÓ can be done. Scientists can
mass produce the bacteria that plants need for nitrogen
fixation. Another method of agricultural engineering
entails the growing of individual plant cells in
cultures in order to screen for genetically superior
traits. A third method, and perhaps the most efficient,
pertains to splicing new genes into plants and animals
themselves (Weintraub 156). With respect to the third
approach of plant engineering, scientists are working on
splicing the genes needed for the production of 1-
lysine, an amino acid which has nutritional value for
humans. By enhancing the nutritional value of corn in
some Third World countries, an expansion of food
supplies would be unnecessary (Ellis 153). Other
possibilities of gene engineering that evolve from gene
splicing is the manipulation of a plantÕs genes that
regulates photosynthesis, which increase plant
productivity. As a direct consequence of higher yield
in plants, the demand for fertilizer will diminish
(Weintraub 158). The last use of GE in plants is to
make plants that produce natural pesticides. Natural
pesticides would cut food production cost an eliminate a
major health hazard and cause of pollution. With all
the types of GE on plants we can make plants that will
grow and produce the exact elements we want. From a
utilitarian standpoint, this situation is ideal.
Utility is being promoted by helping impoverished
countries with this newfound technology, while
disutility, the act of wealthy nations diminishing their
own food supply, is reduced.
Yes, it is true. I know it is hard to believe,
but, through Genetic Engineering, scientists and/or
doctors have the ability to cure many diseases. For
example, cancer has three methods of treatment:
surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. These cure about
50 percent of patients afflicted. They are risky
treatments because they rely on cutting open the body or
putting radio active isotopes in to the body. Many
people die because the procedures werenÕt effective and
the cancer killed them, or the procedure themselves,
doing more harm than good, killed them. Cancerous cells
are not identified as foreign invaders by our immune
system. They are ÒinvisibleÓ. Scientists, however,
are trying to change the cancerÕs genes so that they
become ÒvisibleÓ. Our own natural immune system then
destroys the tumor and everybody is happy (Merz 63).
Other cures for diseases like Hemophilia and ParkinsonÕs
are not far off. For both of those it is simply a
matter of identifying the gene that is responsible for
clotting blood in the case of Hemophilia or producing
dopamine in the case of ParkinsonÕs and then inserting
it in to the patients DNA (Merz 68). True, these are
only experiments and far too premature to declare them
cures, but this next example is a big score for GE. In
September of 1990 a Cleveland girl underwent gene
therapy. She had a rare disease called adenosine
deaminase (ADA) deficiency. It is an immune system that
leaves the person extremely susceptible to other
diseases. Doctors extracted some of her blood cells
and infused them with a good copy of the bad gene. They
then reinserted them into her body. With in a year her
immune system was functioning normally and she enrolled
in public schools. That is an indisputable success.
And itÕs not a fluke. Another young girl had the same
treatment and is now back in school (Merz 63). That
is cold hard proof that Genetic Engineering can and will
eventually eliminate disease.
There are those like W. French Anderson who have
reservations about the whole GE thing. The opposition
says: First, it could be medically hazardous (harms
more than heals). Second, it would be morally
precarious (too many moral and ethical questions to be
answered). Third, regarding the food, the means is not
justified if someone or something (meaning the animals
experimented on to come up with great milk and meat) is
hurt. To refute the first one, there is no scientific
evidence that would the afore mentioned medical
treatments could hinder someoneÕs at survival. All the
evidence points in favor of gene therapy. As for II,
what the hell kind of moral reservations could anyone
have about healing the sick? I am certain Anderson was
talking about Eugenics; the use of GE to choose your
childÕs characteristics: looks, intelligence, physical
features, etc. That part of GE is for another time,
another argument, another essay. And finally III, it
is appalling to think that someone would be concerned
about a few cows while entire nations of our fellow
human beings are starving. With this in mind, Genetic
Engineering is not justifiable, but essential from a
theological as well as a philosophical viewpoint.
The alternative solutions are not bad ideas.
Regarding hunger, GE wouldnÕt even replace the original
plan, rather enhance it. Nations were sending food to
Somalia. With GE they would simply be sending better
food. And, as far as medicine and disease goes, the
alternative would be to continue doing what weÕve been
doing. I have no dispute with that, but I canÕt see why
anyone wouldnÕt want to try something new if they have a
terminal disease like cancer and they will most likely
die anyway. And if after this whole essay, you, the
reader, are still do not agree with this solution, then
donÕt partake in it. The good thing about every thing I
have detailed in this essay is that they are most
definitely not all or nothing. If you donÕt like
genetically engineered food, just donÕt eat it. I also
propose that it become law that companies indicate on
the package weather their products are GEÕd or not. If
you donÕt want any genetic engineering methods used to
help save your life, should it be in danger, then none
will be. It will ultimately be your loss, but you will
always have a choice. In closing, I want to make a
request. I only ask that we all get along. That we
work together with science, the genome, and each other
to provide a better place for generations to come; from
now and forever.....
Bibliography
About the Author
Back to The Full Cup
Send comments to:
lincoln1@imap2.asu.edu