The Pros And Cons Of Genetic Engineering

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED KIDS
Founded in 2006, the organization Intelligence Squared US brings respected experts with polarized views to extensively debate the ethics, benefits and harms of controversial issues; in September 15th, 2014, it was the turn of genetic engineering to take the stage. The way the program works is: in the beginning of the debate, the public – composed by a big and diverse group, from school teachers to Nobel winners – is asked to vote if we should or should not prohibit genetically engineered babies; in the middle of the debate – composed of two parts – they are asked again, and once again in the end of the debate. The side that relatively flipped more votes is then considered the winner.
The reason why I took a whole

paragraph to explain the dynamics of the debate – which is majorly focused on bioethics – is because I wanted to illustrate the power of information to make people understand how important the research on GMO is. One of the against-prohibition debaters, Dr. Nia Farahany, talks exactly about the extreme regress it would be a ban on research. In her debate, she defends how DNA edition can give many women who suffer mitochondrial diseases the chance of carrying healthy pregnancies. She flipped 17% of the pro-prohibition votes and won the debate by convincing people that even through mitochondrial disease affects only 1% of the female population, the difference of utility in a world with those genetically engineered babies from a world without them is tremendous. The same is true for a world with vs. without golden rice, or a world with vs. without insulin. GMOs bring opportunities for smart-medication, diseases eradication, and more. If any sort of ban on research is done – as the anti-GMO groups propose – we will never if those promises were real. So, what if, instead of bans, we started asking for more and careful research? That is where activist groups money and energy should be at.

FAIL, LEARN, IMPROVE
The Homo sapiens is a distinct animal; we can overcome primitive instincts, we can cheat the natural course of things, and once that cannot be avoided, we should learn how to use, wisely, the intelligence that guarantees us the power to create and modify species. According to Landry (2015), the diversity surrounding us nowadays is a result not just of evolution, but the processes of selective breeding that humans have been doing in the past thousands of years. And GMOs can be a game changer to save many species – our own included – when we live in a world that undergoes constant transformations. In other words, we can modify with the intention of saving ourselves and other living and non-living things – just like we did, decades ago, when we created a bacterium that would clean-up our messes while being fed. But that depends on research, research that might not happen if some groups keep fighting for bans on GMOs.
Scientists are also to blame for how the greater good for all species is not treated as a priority sometimes; the way that the scientific community treats all those who do not understand science is what the problem is. When scientists have this obnoxious attitude of saying “it is for your own good” and “I know better,” it creates an abysm for the proper development of GMO to advance. Instead of trying to listen and create a dialogue with a worried mom holding a dubious internet article, a pro-GMO scientist will simply ignore. Stopping and listening to the opposition’s argument instead of thinking in a way to fight back is what this particular issue is missing, pushing us farther from that desired maximum utility. A solution that is good for everyone might come when Scientists stop laughing at worried moms and worried moms start thinking about kids who are not their own.