In this blog post, we will look at various examples to explain why ethical guidelines are essential in this era of rapid advances in genetic engineering.
In April 1953, biologists James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA. This was a great discovery that marked the beginning of genetic engineering. Since then, Dolly, a cloned sheep with identical DNA, was created by cloning mature somatic cells, and with the success of the Genome Project, which decoded all the information in the human genome, we have now reached the technological level where we can cut and paste the genes we want. Through these genetic engineering technologies, we are seeing the benefits of genetic engineering, such as the mass production of insulin by attaching the insulin gene to E. coli. However, just as strong sunlight casts deep shadows, the development of genetic engineering has brought many benefits to humanity, but at the same time, it has created new contradictions and conflicts. The birth of a cloned sheep in the late 1990s was an event that sounded an alarm bell for bioethics, as the cloning process was not as difficult as expected, and it sparked much debate on ethical issues. However, even after more than a decade, there are still no clear guidelines on the direction of genetic engineering, and there are many issues that need to be discussed, as different sectors of society have different views on ethical issues.
Those who argue that genetic engineering technology has not yet reached a level that warrants concern and that research support should be prioritized over discussions on bioethical issues tend to be insensitive to the potential side effects of genetic technology, focusing instead on its benefits. However, as technology advances, we must recognize that there are side effects as well as benefits, and in order to ensure that these side effects do not outweigh the benefits of genetic technology, it is necessary to establish ethical guidelines through sufficient discussion. Therefore, this paper will discuss new ethical issues arising from the development of genetic engineering in terms of personal information protection, gene therapy, and human cloning.
First, there is the issue of personal information protection. When attempting to treat diseases or disabilities through genetic engineering, it is necessary to analyze the human genome, but since only a small portion of the functions of individual genes are known, the information that can be obtained through genetic analysis is limited, and current technology cannot identify all genetic factors. Diseases arise from the interaction of genetic, environmental, and social factors, so even if two individuals have the same genes, the likelihood of a disease trait manifesting depends on the environment in which they live. Therefore, the presence of a genetic factor that causes a disease does not necessarily mean that the disease will develop, but even inaccurate genetic information can lead to social discrimination. For example, a company may discriminate against an employee who has an 80% chance of developing a disease in terms of employment and promotion, and insurance coverage may also be affected. Therefore, when predicting the occurrence of disease in individuals or conducting genetic analysis for related purposes, the protection of personal genetic information obtained during the genetic testing process must be prioritized. In fact, with the introduction of the Genetic Discrimination Act in the United States in 2008, companies and insurance companies are no longer allowed to access personal genetic information, but in the future, it will be possible to easily analyze anyone’s genes with just a single strand of hair, so specific measures for the protection of personal information are necessary.
Second, ethical issues may arise in relation to gene therapy. Gene therapy refers to the manipulation of human DNA to alleviate the symptoms of diseases caused by genetic factors or to eliminate their causes. Gene therapy is classified into two types according to the target and purpose of treatment. Depending on the target of treatment, it is divided into somatic cell gene therapy and germ cell gene therapy, and depending on the purpose of treatment, it is divided into gene therapy for disease prevention or treatment (passive eugenics) and gene therapy for the cultivation of abilities or qualities (active eugenics).
In somatic cell gene therapy, only the genetic traits of the patient being treated are altered, so the effects are limited to the patient and do not cause any particular problems. However, in germ cell gene therapy, the effects are not limited to the patient but also extend to future generations, and the effects are unpredictable, raising ethical issues. Do parents have the right to decide on gene therapy on behalf of their unborn children? If genetic abnormalities are found in future generations as a side effect of gene therapy, how will compensation be provided, and is it acceptable for babies to be born in the future with genes determined by others? Even if genetic manipulation can be completely controlled, it is difficult to accept that parents have the right to unilaterally determine the characteristics of a human being through genetic modification.
Furthermore, is genetic manipulation for the purpose of obtaining superior genetic traits for therapeutic purposes ethically acceptable? As the day approaches when genetic manipulation of individuals becomes freely available, genetic therapy will be used for eugenic purposes. People will seek to manipulate their genes to eliminate recessive traits and express dominant traits, and they will want their children to be born genetically superior. This will lead to the “manufacturing” of genetically manipulated humans. If we enter an era where humans are genetically engineered and manufactured, ethical issues will arise as humans become commodities and lose their dignity and value. In addition, the development of genetic engineering may raise issues of equity in the distribution of benefits from technological advances. In the movie “Gattaca,” the main character was born with a recessive gene, unlike other children who were genetically engineered. As a result, he suffered discrimination and neglect throughout his childhood due to his physical and learning abilities, which were inferior to those of others. However, through his own efforts and identity laundering, he overcomes his genetic limitations and achieves his dream. As we can see in the movie, genetic factors should not be the absolute standard for evaluating a person, but the unequal distribution of the benefits of genetic engineering technology can lead to social discrimination and a “genetic class.”
Finally, let’s look at the issue of human cloning, which is the biggest controversy surrounding genetic engineering technology. The purpose of human cloning technology is to create genetically identical humans and use them to treat diseases by transplanting damaged organs or abnormal body parts. However, is it right to transplant organs or body parts from cloned humans born for the purpose of treating diseases, regardless of their wishes? In the movie “The Island,” people commission a company to create clones of themselves in preparation for illness or old age, and these clones are raised in an isolated area called The Island. These clones are indoctrinated with ideas created by people outside The Island and live their lives believing that they will one day be selected to go to heaven. However, when their original parents become ill or need organ transplants, they are slaughtered and their blood, organs, and other necessary body parts are provided to their original parents. In the movie, the clones are shown to be conscious beings who can think and feel emotions just like their original parents. Can cloned humans, who are clearly individuals with personalities, be deprived of their dignity and rights as human beings simply because they are not originals? According to Kant’s ethics, in order for human dignity to be respected, humans must be recognized as ends in themselves and not as means to an end. Therefore, creating human clones solely for the purpose of obtaining spare cells is a clear violation of Kant’s principle of human dignity. If the logic of human cloning is to be established, our values regarding bioethics and morality as we currently understand them will have to be completely redefined. For example, if only humans born through natural reproduction are recognized as individuals, or if a society is established in which the uniqueness of individuals is ignored for the sake of the survival of the species and stable reproduction through cloning is considered reasonable, then bioethical issues caused by cloned humans may no longer arise. However, I do not believe that the morality and ethics that have developed since the Paleolithic era, when humans first formed communities, are wrong. Current bioethics and morality have developed over a long period of time in a direction that is most suitable for humans. From the perspective of Laozi’s Taoism and various religions, basic moral ethics are based on the dignity of human beings, which is rooted in their natural existence and uniqueness. Therefore, even if a new bioethics is established, I believe that the birth of cloned humans is not right in terms of bioethics and morality for any reason.
At first glance, bioethical issues in genetic engineering research may seem like a hindrance to the progress of research. However, without sufficient social debate on bioethics, genetic engineering could become a double-edged sword like nuclear technology, which currently threatens humanity, and we may find ourselves crossing a river of no return. Although it is necessary to refrain from restricting all genetic engineering research due to the ethical issues it may raise, there needs to be sufficient social discussion on the ethical issues that may arise from genetic engineering research, such as the protection of personal genetic information, the limits of gene therapy, and the ethics of human cloning, and guidelines for research need to be established. Based on these discussions, if standards for bioethics are established through legal mechanisms and systems, the direction of genetic engineering research will become clearer, enabling more effective research support than is currently available. Therefore, now is the time to take one step back in order to take two steps forward.
