In this blog post, we will examine the ethical and social issues surrounding the advancement of life science technologies, such as viruses, cloning, and genetic recombination, and consider what should be allowed and what should be prohibited.
You believe you are a survivor of large-scale environmental pollution on Earth, but when you leave the facility where you have been living, you discover that you are actually a cloned human being produced for a specific purpose. This is the plot of the movie “The Island.” In addition, if we were to name the most frequently used scientific technology in movies and novels, it would be life science technology. Even if it is a bit fictional and exaggerated that a single virus created in a laboratory could destroy all of humanity, as in the novel, life science technology has tremendous potential that can be frightening to humans. How can we utilize this potential to greatly benefit humanity while at the same time making it a technology that is not dangerous? This is precisely the challenge that life science must solve. In this article, we will explore the dangers of life science technologies that people fear and look at possible solutions.
First, there is life science technology related to viruses. According to the Life Science Dictionary, a virus is the smallest living organism that has either DNA or RNA as its genome and is an infectious microstructure that parasitizes living cells and multiplies only within infected cells. Viruses are highly contagious and have historically been a major disaster for humanity. The Black Death caused by the plague bacterium in the 14th century claimed the lives of more than 20 million people, and the Spanish flu in 1918 killed 25 million people. The swine flu, which caused widespread anxiety until a few years ago, is also an infectious disease caused by a virus. In addition, viruses mutate very easily, making it difficult to develop vaccines.
However, while some viruses are deadly, others are actually beneficial to medicine. For example, artificial viruses that target only cancer cells are giving hope to cancer patients. Viruses are a double-edged sword: they can cause a devastating pandemic if they fall into the wrong hands, but they can also offer hope for curing incurable diseases. Therefore, a cautious and careful approach is necessary when researching viruses. In particular, it is most important to isolate the laboratory from the outside world. This can be achieved to a certain extent by ensuring that each researcher strictly follows safety rules when entering and leaving the laboratory and by installing devices to shut down the laboratory in the event of an accident. In addition, it is important to ensure transparency in virus research and to disclose relevant research results to the public to alleviate excessive anxiety.
The second is cloning technology. From its inception, cloning technology has been controversial due to its many conflicts with human ethics. In particular, human cloning raises many moral issues in that it destroys the dignity of life and can lead to the loss of human identity. If human cloning technology is misused, it could lead to serious problems, such as people selectively having babies with the genes they want or cloning other people’s genes to impersonate them. However, stem cells, which are at the core of life cloning technology, can grow into all types of human cells and are being researched for many purposes, such as organ transplants and the treatment of incurable diseases.
In the case of this cloning technology, the moral boundaries are quite vague. If we say that human cloning should be completely prohibited, the question of what constitutes a human being becomes a major point of contention. The embryo, which is the core of cloning technology, refers to the early stage of development from the moment the zygote begins cell division at least once until it becomes a complete individual. Here, the point at which it becomes a complete individual is not clear. In humans, the first eight weeks of pregnancy are generally considered to be the embryonic stage, and the rest is considered to be the fetal stage. So, should we consider embryos to be human beings or just a mass of cells? If embryos are human beings, then embryo cloning research to save other people is morally wrong. However, if embryos are just a mass of cells, then embryo cloning research is a morally acceptable and wonderful biotechnology that offers great hope to patients with incurable diseases. The issue of embryos ultimately leads to profound questions about the definition of life itself. Therefore, research on cloning technology should be postponed until these moral issues are completely resolved. However, even if the moral debate is completely resolved, embryo cloning research cannot be conducted freely. In this field of life science technology in particular, discussions on the moral implications of embryo cloning technology must continue as the technology advances.
The third is genetic recombination technology. According to the Food Science and Technology Encyclopedia, genetic recombination refers to the technology of combining DNA fragments from different organisms into a single molecule. This technology can be used to create genetically modified crops such as GMOs, which increase agricultural efficiency and produce products that are convenient for humans. In addition, hormones necessary for humans can be transplanted into E. coli through genetic recombination to produce them. This genetic recombination technology is particularly controversial regarding the safety of GMOs. The goal of using GMOs to increase grain production and provide food to poor people in the developing world is commendable. However, the effects of GMO foods on the human body are still unknown. During the process of genetic recombination, other genes may be altered, causing crops to suddenly become toxic, and the genetic recombination of livestock may result in the creation of severely deformed and horrific animals. In the past, asbestos was used as a miracle building material that did not burn, and mercury was used for medicinal purposes. At that time, it was thought that new substances would make life more convenient for humans and would not harm the human body, but after many years, humanity realized their dangers. The same is true for GMOs. As a newly developed technology, GMOs have not yet been sufficiently tested for safety. This verification will take many years. However, as we cannot consume unproven and uncertain foods, long-term, continuous research on the effects of GMOs on the human body is inevitable. Therefore, until the safety of GMOs is properly verified, their use in food for human consumption should be prohibited.
GMOs also pose a risk to the environment. GMO plants have a different genetic structure from existing plants and are highly fertile, which means they have the potential to destroy the ecosystem. As can be seen from the example of the yellow-spotted frog, which has reduced the population of native frogs in Korea, it is very easy for highly fertile and resilient organisms to destroy the ecosystem. Therefore, the impact on the environment must be thoroughly considered in the process of researching and developing GMOs, and regulations and policies must be put in place to prevent this.
Biotechnology can be said to be the engineering field closest to humans because it is related to human life, the food we eat, and the environment. For this reason, it often conflicts with religion and morality and can pose a direct or indirect threat to humans. There are technologies that can cause great harm to humans, such as viruses and genetic recombination, and technologies that cause major ethical and moral conflicts, such as embryo cloning and genetic cloning. However, biotechnology has as much potential as it has risks. Through life science technology, we can create a future where everyone can live happily and healthily by extending human life and curing diseases that have been enemies of humanity, such as cancer, AIDS, and genetic diseases.
With such significant advantages and disadvantages, life science technology can truly be described as a double-edged sword. Therefore, the future of life science technology must be directed toward minimizing threats to humanity and resolving moral and religious issues. To achieve this, it is essential that each individual establish their own moral standards regarding biotechnology, and that the development of biotechnology be made transparent so that many people can understand it.
Furthermore, rather than pursuing only immediate convenience, all of humanity must take a long-term view so that the destruction of humanity, which has only appeared in novels and movies, does not actually happen. The development of biotechnology must be accompanied by caution and responsibility, and scientists, policymakers, and the general public must engage in ongoing discussion to ensure that it moves in a safe and ethical direction.
