The Pros And Cons Of Genetic Engineering

In recent years, advancements in genetic engineering have moved human and animal enhancement from the realm of science fiction to that of a practical reality. With these advancements come an abundance of ethical questions and regulatory issues that will have to be considered in depth. The question is no longer “Is this possible?” but “Should we do it?”. Of course, there are a variety of uses for this sort of technology, each of which must be evaluated individually to avoid generalizations. The concept of creating superimmunity to biological and viral hazards is obviously a very different issue to the creation of a human-chimp chimera that exists to serve mankind freely and happily. One of the key questions that genetic engineers will be faced

Regarding somatic gene editing, such as improving the ability of immune cells to target cancer, the committee concluded that research for the prevention and treatment of diseases and disabilities should continue. The subject of germline (heritable) editing raised more concerns about safety and unintended effects because these genetic alterations would also be passed on to the next generation. Due to the more complex technical and societal deliberations that this technology would introduce as opposed to the individual-level somatic gene editing, the committee recommended a stringent oversight system to limit germline editing to research trials for compelling purposes of preventing or treating diseases or disabilities. The committee also differentiated between the use of human genome editing for “restorative treatment” and “enhancement”, the latter being the modification of physical abilities beyond those considered typical of a person with adequate health. They determined that genome editing for enhancement purposes should not proceed at this time due to fear of creating a eugenic-driven society or escalating social inequities. As this technology improves and policy is developed regarding its

From a Kantian point of view, we can question whether genetically engineering something for a specific purpose constitutes as using them as simply a means to an end. For example, in the future it may be possible to create some human-chimp chimera that, acting freely, would choose to serve humans. One might see this use of genetic engineering as some dark Promethean desire to manipulate nature to serve mankind. However, one of Kant’s main requirements for an action to be considered morally right is whether the action respects the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for one’s own purposes. If these human-chimp beings are acting as a sort of slave, but are genetically programmed to enjoy it, mankind’s use of their service could potentially be justified as helping the chimeras achieve their goal. Meanwhile, a utilitarian might argue that genetic alterations will provide a net happiness to society, therefore justifying the engineers’ actions. If these human-chimp hybrids are satisfied with their purpose to serve humans, and humans are happy to accept this service, then society’s net happiness will certainly be