Argumentative Essay: The Genetic Engineering Debate

Modification or alteration of deoxyribonucleic acid found in the chromosomes of a cell, otherwise known as genetic engineering, is beginning to grip more ground in the realm of scientific research and could possibly become a cornerstone for a completely technological future. With the growing curiosity and experimentation surrounding genetic engineering, there is also controversy sparking about the issue: should the government limit the research and abilities of genetic engineering?
Not only has genetic engineering proven itself beneficial in the past, the results of experimental research studies reveal a promising future for gene splicing, gene therapy, and other forms of genetic modification. Despite the opinions and arguments of rather close-minded individuals, genetic engineering has evinced its true ability and need for limitless research allowed by the government. Of course, bigots will protest that genetic engineering is simply

designing babies, which is incorrect and only gives genetic engineering a villainous and displeasing reputation. Although genetic engineering may one day have the ability to completely ‘design’ infants by choosing which dominant and recessive genes will pass on to the child, the science is currently limited to choosing only the baby’s gender. According to “Designer Babies and the Pro-Choice Movement” by Rebecca Tuhus-Debrow, the Johns Hopkins University in Maryland conducted a study of in vitro fertilization clinics through the school’s Genetics and Public Policy Center. Of all 137 clinics surveyed, about 58 admitted to allowing expecting parents to select their baby’s gender. This study was conducted in 2006, and the number of clinics allowing genetic modification of sperm and eggs for the sole purpose of selecting gender has soared in the past decade. However, although the process of gender selection can be beneficial to parents, genetic engineering is used for far more than selecting the gender of a fetus.
In Genetic Engineering: A Natural Science, the Monsanto Company writes about the abilities and benefits of genetic engineering for medical purposes. “It is providing new ways to treat human diseases, manufacture chemicals and eliminate wastes” (Monsanto Company 18). Hereditary illness genes can be removed from germ cells so that the unborn child nor their descendants will inherit the disease. Therefore, the genetic modification of embryos potentially eliminate hereditary diseases in a family; it can also help scientists to easily and efficiently identify and prevent these diseases from occurring altogether.
Genetic modification stretches not only to unborn humans but also to living people who agree to take part in the research of a type of genetic engineering called gene therapy. Often, these test subjects are suffering from hereditary illnesses that could potentially be life threatening. Gene therapy would remove cells from the subject’s body and alter them so that they perform healthily and function correctly. The first case of successful gene therapy occurred in 1990 when doctors began to experiment with cell modification on a young girl named Ashanthi DeSilva, according to Linda Tagliaferro’s Genetic Engineering: Modern Progress or Future Peril?. Ashanthi suffered from an unpreventable disease that attacked her immune system and caused her to become ill easily. Cells were removed from Ashanthi’s body and altered genetically so that they would perform as normal, healthy, and properly functioning bodily cells. Along with the modified cells, doctors also engineered a virus that, once inside the cell, would attack the illness’s genes. The virus would then naturally multiply and infect other cells. The modified cells and virus were then inserted back into Ashanthi’s body, and though her disease is not completely cured, this miracle of gene therapy has greatly improved Ashanthi’s life and her health condition.
However, even with Ashanthi’s success, gene therapy research also resulted in tragedy. Jesse Gelsinger applied for gene therapy to aid his liver disease. Gelsinger suffered from ornithine transcarbamylase, a condition in which ammonia produced in his body is unable to be broken down properly by the liver. In this case, however, gene therapy researchers decided to experiment not with Jesse’s cells, but with a needle filled with the genetically modified virus. The virus was injected directly into Jesse’s bloodstream and traveled through an artery connected to his liver. This proved to be a mistake when Jesse Gelsinger died four days after treatment. Immediately, fingers pointed to the doctors who performed the experiment. A toxicology report on Jesse’s body showed dangerously high amounts of ammonia, which pushed the doctors to conclude “they should not have included him in the experiment. He was too sick to be a part of the clinical trial” (Tagliaferro 53). Doctors and scientists also neglected to inform Jesse and his family about the results of other experiments revolving around gene therapy and genetic modification: animals that had received the same form of treatment as Jesse had also died. However, the blame should fall upon shoddy and secretive scientists, not the actual research of gene therapy. A well-educated individual should realize that experiments are not always successful; Jesse Gelsinger gave his full consent to the trial with the cognizance that his life, health, or well-being were not guaranteed.
With the given details, it is simple to conclude both patients’ anecdotes prove that research in genetic engineering, though not mastered, has improved greatly and will continue to ameliorate if granted the needed permission from the government to perform limitless genetic experiments.
In summary, to counter-argue some of the main justifications against the practice of genetic engineering, one must simply learn the facts: the myth of genetic engineering producing genetically ‘perfect’ babies is completely false and easily debunked; genetic engineering is currently embryonic and highly limited, but it is most commonly being used to help parents with hereditary illnesses gain peace of mind knowing their child and his or her descendants will not inherit the disease; of course, like most experimentations, the research of many practices of genetic engineering is not going to be unreservedly successful, but it could potentially become fully reliable in the future with enough experiments conducted and executed; scientists learn from their own mistakes.

However, these trials and studies can only be legally performed if any limits put on genetic engineering are lifted by the government and permission is granted to research gene splicing, gene therapy, in vitro fertilization, and other genetic alterations without

restriction.

Works Cited
Dresser, Rebecca. “Designing Babies: Human Research Issues.” IRB Ethics & Human Research, vol.
26, no. 5, Sep/Oct2004, pp. 1-8. EBSCOhost, scsl.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=discus&url=
http://search.ebscohost.com.scsl.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rlh&AN=145573
86&site=eds-live. Discus.
Ferghal, Blaney. "Designer BABIES?." Daily Mail, 28 Feb. 2017, EBSCOhost,
scsl.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=discus&url=http://search.ebscohost.com.scsl.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=n5h&AN=121457672&site=eds-live. Discus.
Monsanto Company. “Genetic Engineering: A Natural Science.” 1989. Genetic Engineering:
Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley, David L. Bender, Bruno Leone. San Diego,
California. Greenhaven Press, 1990. 18-19. Print.
Sandel, Michael. "The Problem with Genetic Engineering." Tikkun, vol. 22, no. 5, Sep/Oct2007, pp.
40-85. EBSCOhost, scsl.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=discus&url=http://search.ebscohost.
com.scsl.idm.olc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=26557305&site=eds-live. Discus.
Tagliaferro, Linda. Genetic Engineering: Modern Progress or Future Peril?. Minneapolis.
Twenty-First Century Books, 2010. 51-56. Print.
Tuhus-Debrow, Rebecca. “Designer Babies and the Pro-Choice Movement.” Dissen (00123846), vol.
54, no. 3, Summer 2007, p. 37. EBSCOhost, scsl.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=discus&url=
http://searc.ebscohost.comscsl.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=25622
652&site=eds-live. Discus.