Introduction
Development in Genetics
With the rapid development in genetics, the occurrence of active support for such direction in science was paralleled with corresponding opposition against the implementation of genetic technologies. The actions of such opposition were mainly directed toward driving the public opinion against the potential consequences of the genetics achievements. In that regard, it can be stated that the core of the controversy surrounding genetics and genetic researches was revolving around public opinion, whose information is lacking or confused between the polar opinions of support and opposition. A particular field in genetics, which controversy is taking the main focus recently, is embryonic stem cell researches, a biological discovery that revolutionized biology, and at the same time “stirred debates in law, ethics, and public policy” (Scott and Reijo R3).
The Purpose of the Paper
In the light of the aforementioned, this paper addresses the aspects of genetics and genetics researches in general, as well as outlining the topic of stem cells researches, in terms of the different sides of the debate, stating that the research in such field is an important step for science, which nevertheless, requires strict regulation and policies assessing and governing the results of such researches.
Genetics
Overview
Answering the question of what genetic engineering is, Susan Allender- Hagedorn and Charles Hagedorn define genetic engineering as “the manipulation of an organism’s genetic endowment introducing or eliminating genes through modern molecular biology techniques” (Allender-Hagedorn and Hagedorn ). The same authors provided “a broad definition of genetic engineering”, which included selective breeding and other means of artificial selection” (Allender-Hagedorn and Hagedorn). It should be noted that genetics is a relatively new science, the stir of which, specifically within the society, can be said to begin with the announcement of embryologist Ian Wilmut and his colleagues the success of cloning a sheep named Dolly in 1997 (Wilmut). In that regard, it can be stated that the potential benefits of such a breakthrough were overlooked, largely because of the great focus of the mass media and the public opinion on the possible adverse effects of such a breakthrough and its ethical aspects.
Pros
One of the main advantages of genetics and genetic engineering is the possibility of finding treatments for illnesses, which cannot be treated by ordinary drugs, e.g. genetic diseases. It was discovered that an average person carries around eight defective genes. These genes determine the diseases, which human immune systems are unable to resist. Genetic engineering gives a possibility to extract these genes from the DNA, thus, there is a great chance that incurable diseases might be genetically removed once and for all. Accordingly, scientists will be able to detect human’s “weak points”, where illnesses could be prevented by identifying the points, which are prone to hereditary diseases. In that regard, with such spots identified people will be aware of the potential risks, which they should avoid (Kent 1).
It should be noted that genetics is not only concerned with researches concerned solely with humans, where genetic engineering in agriculture is also a subject of constant scientific developments. Such developments also could not avoid controversy, where the concerns regarding the impact of biotechnology on the environment were opposed to the initial aims of making agriculture “safer, more efficient and more profitable” (A and Beth). The common beneficial implementation of genetics in agriculture can be seen through modifying plants so they are resistant to infectious diseases, infusing genes that are blocking the development of viral and fungous diseases. Additionally, such plants are capable of surviving under tough conditions as well as being stored for a long period (Perzigian).
A similar aspect can be paralleled to the livestock sector, where there are many countries in the world today experiencing a drastic shortage of food. Genetic engineering has the potential to provide the solution to such a burning issue, where transgenic animal farms can be seen as the results of the genetic developments in that direction. In such farms animals are resistant to diseases, grow faster and reproduce more efficiently. For instance, transgenic cows give milk of higher quality, and the same can be said regarding their meat as well. At present, farmers breed transgenic salmon successfully. This fish grows larger and at faster rates. So, such genetic “know how” can provide the means to feed the millions of hungry people around the globe. “Transgenic animals, like cows and sheep, have been engineered to produce large amounts of complex human proteins in their milk” (Persian). It should be noted that the aforementioned accomplishment is frequently overlooked in the debates concerning the negative sides of genetic engineering, where the usage of selective arguments shifts public opinion toward potential risks, rather than potential benefits. The latter does not necessarily mean that such potential risks do not exist.
Cons
With genetics turning into reality, the negative aspects perceived by the society were mainly related to that people were not ready for such an invention, because it was no longer an element of a fiction book (Wilmut 47). In addition to the latter, it is no doubt that there are risks related to the implementation of the results of genetic researches. Mainly, the negative consequences can be seen as a result of the lack of expertise in that field, combined with the possibility of unexpected results occurring. In the field of agriculture, such risks can be seen through the potential of transferring the genes resistant to chemicals to undesirable plants and weeds, which might annihilate the advantages gained from creating plants resistant to herbicides (Chiras 358). The latter might result in the cycle, breaking of which might be very difficult, specifically considering that the occurrence of organisms with changed genes complicates the biological struggle with the weeds.
Other negative aspects might be seen through the risks associated with the misuse of the findings of genetic research. In that regard, taking such aspects as biological weapons, the moratorium letter addressed by Paul Berg, an American biochemist, as far as 1974, pointed out the great risks of injecting specific genes, such as a toxin, drug-resistant, and cancer genes, into E. coli. In that regard, merely experimenting with such genetic manipulation might have very dangerous consequences, not to say about getting the results into the wrong hands. In that regard, some areas of research can be seen as too risky to even consider experimenting with the outcomes, and thus the governmental control can be seen as a strict requirement.
Stem Cells Research
Review
The significance of stem cells research is largely driven by the unique characteristics of such cells. One important characteristic is the capability of cells of self-renewal, “ensuring a lifetime supply of ancestors for replenishment or repair” (Scott and Reijo R4). Additionally, these cells might differentiate into two types of cells, i.e. intermediate and downstream, specific to the organ or the tissue they are derived from. Such qualities of stem cells open several possibilities for scientists for a successful implementation of the results of their researches in medicine. There are several subtypes of stem cells, the revision of which can indicate the origin of the controversy and the moral and ethical dilemmas in question. The types are:
- Somatic Cells – These cells can be found in almost every part of the human body, even in dental pulp or hair follicles. Among the characteristic so such cells are that they are not rejected by the organisms.
- Embryonic cells – Such cells can be turned into any type of organ or tissue, where they are generally derived “by removing and then culturing a few dozen cells from the interior of a blastocyst” (Scott and Reijo R4). The main characteristic of such types of cells is also known as pluripotency, i.e. the capability of differentiating into different types of cells. The pluripotency of human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESC), as a characteristic, was confirmed by scientists, where the derivation process approximately 10% of the time will result in a self-renewing, pluripotent cell line, “with potential to differentiate into all of the cell and tissue types of the adult animal, including downstream stem and progenitor cells” (Scott and Reijo R4).
- Fetal cells – also called adult or tissue- or organ-specific cells. Such cells appear during fetal development, and they are limited in their potential. Such cells are usually derived from abortive materials, which despite common belief usually do not contain stem cells. The ethical and the moral aspects in the usage of such cells stir wide controversy, for logical reasons.
Each of the aforementioned stem cells varies in their level of controversy and the parties involved in raising the issue in society. Even the somatic cells, which might be derived from materials left on a comb, draw the attention of the public, and generally were responsible for the cloning topic emerging in the media. The method responsible for the occurrence of Dolly, the cloned sheep, partly involved somatic cells. This method is called somatic cells nuclear transfer (SCNT), the theoretical foundation of which puts the possibility of making a cloned line of human cells with a “near genetic match” to any person (Scott and Reijo R5).
As soon as cloning emerged, the pictures drawn by public opinion were very pessimistic, sometimes reaching the level of absurd, where claims that genetic engineering will be used to clone thousands of Hitlers and Einsteins are just examples of such views. Additional controversy might arise from a religious perspective, where “[r]eligious leaders from all sides of the spectrum of theological opinion hastened to declare human cloning ethically unacceptable” (Green 112). In that regard, the arguments used might vary from taking the role of God to the aforementioned possibilities of reproducing historical figures.
In terms of fetal cells, as stated earlier, the origin of the controversy is understood, where the nature of the materials is controversial in itself, not to say that the status of abortion, its legality, and ethical and moral context is still debatable in many developed countries. Accordingly, several complications are likely to occur due to the possible existence of infections, which require strict clinical control.
Although there might be other areas of controversy, it can be seen that most of them take a pessimistic approach in predicting the worst consequences rather than analyzing a lot of opportunities that the success of the researches might provide. It should be noted that the controversy over such issues had negative consequences in terms of funding, where the abolition of governmental funding for such researches might have worse consequences than those controlled by the government. Such consequences might have a degree of potential, considering that going into the private sector, as stated by the liberal sides of the political opinion, might give a possibility for “misguided use and commercial exploitation of genetic science” (Green 61). The latter is partly true, where there are many commercial structures, which promise to reverse the aging process and provide “youth elixir” through injecting stem cells into the body (Bio-Stem). It cannot be said that such exploitation of the results of genetic research is a representation of misguided use, but on the other hand, it can be seen that the initial areas of benefits, which stem cells research might provide, are substantially larger than that.
Areas of implementation
The main argument that can be used against the opposition of stem cells researches can be seen through the absence of sufficient knowledge regarding the issue is not enough to discontinue the research. In that regard, there is a human tendency to be attached to controversial aspects, overlooking the good sides, and/or the arguments that refute the unconstructive opposition.
One of the potential benefits can be seen through the findings that were revealed by scientists related to adult stem cells. “Scientists have shown that certain adult stem cells – neural, mesenchymal, and endothelial stem cells – have an uncanny ability to home to cancer cells and tumors, even moving through large areas of the body” (Vicki 414) Such findings were mainly based on the similar characteristics of adult stem cells and brain tumor cells, where experiments of implanting stem cells to treat brain tumor resulted in that stem cells migrate to the sites of the tumor, an ability the discovery of which might open up the potential of exploiting such attraction to “kill cancer by using the cells as Trojan horses to attach and deliver deadly payloads to cancer cells as an adjunct to other treatments” (Vicki 414). In that regard, it can be seen that such potential might be seen as a justification to the level of the controversy because as of 2005 there were 18,500 people diagnosed with brain cancer in the United States, of which 12,760, i.e. 68 percent were expected to die in the same year (The American Cancer Society).
Additionally, the potential and existent benefits of the findings of stem cells research were largely connected to the success of bone marrow transplants. In that regard, hematopoietic stem cells collected from HLA-matched siblings are used in treating diseases like leukemia and lymphoma (Meyer). There are also potential benefits, where the term potential might imply varying degrees of success, from successful implementation on experimental animals to successes that need further study and investigation. Such potential benefits include mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) improving cardiac functions, a study which has been tested on rats with myocardial infarction, therapeutic improvements, through human (MSCs) and Ang-1 gene-modified human MSCs, and stem cells with pluripotent flexibility taken from umbilical cord blood and the placenta, also tested on animals, reporting benefits in such cases as spinal cord injuries, stroke, and Parkinson’s disease (Jun-ichiro et al.; Meyer; Onda et al.).
In the case of the latter, i.e. Parkinson’s disease, it can be stated that the success in the development of treatment can be considered as a giant step forward in defeating a disease that is affecting millions of lives, which caused by the loss of nerve cells in the brain. Other neurological diseases, which might benefit from stem cell research, might include ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease), multiple sclerosis, Huntington disease, and Alzheimer’s disease (Stem Cell Institute). It should be noted that despite the apparent success in the direction of finding a cure, there are years between experimental success and wide implementation, a period, which is as long as the barriers put before genetics in general, and stem cells research in particular.
Ethical Considerations Revisited
The significance of ethics as a barrier in stem cell researches can be seen through the fact that there were many attempts made, to find solutions for human cell research that are ethically acceptable. In that matter, such solutions might include revising the human embryo as an entity, to shift public opinion. Other solutions might be seen through the emphasis on using the cells of the patients individually, without having to destroy human embryos. The main point is that such attempts are being made, and looking at the results of the polls, in which, despite the opposition, “48–73% of Americans approve of the creation of hESC lines for research and therapeutic use, even if it involves the destruction of surplus IVF embryos” (Melissa, Wayne and Amy 1188), it can be stated that these attempts were fruitful.
Conclusion
It can be seen that one of the steps toward the successful integration of genetic science is the development of rules and policies, which will govern the developments in such areas. In that regard, in case governmental funding will not be granted, private investments should be controlled through the same rules and policies. There are many methods to avoid the areas of controversy, and in that regard, many of these areas might require further clarification for the public. Such clarification would serve as a bridge between the scientific community and the society, in which the findings of the studies would be available for the public and used as supporting arguments, rather than old selective facts containing half of the truth.
Genetic engineering has a great potential to help humanity, in which the gradual elimination of the barriers will facilitate their rapid implementation. Nevertheless, the latter does not necessarily mean that some of the barriers do not require further examination and consideration in the future. Looking at the long list of the diseases that might be treated, it can be stated with confidence that such examination and consideration are worth the wait.
Works Cited
A, Frompovicz, and Holly Beth. “Growing Controversy: Genetic Engineering in Agriculture”. 2006. Hein Online. Web.
Allender-Hagedorn, Susan and Charles Hagedorn. “Genetic Engineering”. Bio Tech Online Dictionary. 2009. Web.
Bio-Stem. “Anti-Ageing Treatment”. 2009. International Center of Biotechnology. Web.
Chiras, Daniel D. Human Biology. 5th ed. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2005. Print.
Green, Ronald Michael. The Human Embryo Research Debates : Bioethics in the Vortex of Controversy. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.
Jun-ichiro, Jo, et al. “Transplantation of Genetically Engineered Mesenchymal Stem Cells Improves Cardiac Function in Rats with Myocardial Infarction: Benefit of a Novel Nonviral Vector, Cationized Dextran.” Tissue Engineering 13 2 (2007): 313. Print.
Kent, Saul. “DON’T Let The U.S. Government Ban Therapeutic Cloning.” LE Magazine. Life Extension Foundation, 2002. Web.
Melissa, Little, Hall Wayne, and Orlandi Amy. “Delivering on the Promise of Human Stem-Cell Research. What Are the Real Barriers?” EMBO Reports 7 12 (2006): 1188. Print.
Finding Ethically Acceptable Solutions for Therapeutic Human Stem Cell Research. 2008.
Onda, T., et al. “Therapeutic Benefits by Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells (Hmscs) and Ang-1 Gene-Modified Hmscs after Cerebral Ischemia.” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 28 2 (2008): 329. Print.
Perzigian, Andrew B. “Genetic Engineering and Animals: A Short Summary of the Legal Terrain and Ethical Implications.” 2009. Web.
Scott, and Pera Reijo. “The Road to Pluripotence: The Research Response to the Embryonic Stem Cell Debate.” Human Molecular Genetics 17 R1 (2008): R3. Print.
Stem Cell Institute. “The Promise of Stem Cells: Parkinson’s Disease”. 2009. University of Minnesota. Web.
The American Cancer Society. “Brain Cancer Statistics: An Overview”. 2005. Clinaero. Web.
Vicki, Brower. “Search and Destroy: Recent Research Exploits Adult Stem Cells’ Attraction to Cancer.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 97 6 (2005): 414. Print.
Wilmut, Ian. “After Dolly: The Uses and Misuses of Human Cloning.” NY: Norton, 2006.