Modern Eugenics or Medical Breakthrough

Somatic and germinal cell research, more frequently germinal, has often been seen as futuristic and unrealistic. Yet, with the completion of the mapping of the human genome in the last year the option of somatic and germinal cell modification is becoming more attainable, although with these recent technological breakthroughs many ethical dilemmas rise to the surface. Many people are beginning to question whether or not we should, rather than can we. The impact germinal choice technology (GCT) could possibly have on the world’s population is being examined and the controversy between the effects of nature and nurture on individual human development is continuously brought up. Several countries, including the United States, have placed different types of bans or restrictions on the extent of the research and/or usage of GCT. Gregory Stock, in his article entitled “Targets of Design”, explores the impacts that germinal choice technology could have on the population and whether the technology and usages will advance, regardless of the numerous bans and ethical dilemmas that may arise with the continual advancement of GCT. 

Long before the completion of the human genome map researchers were finding other ways in which to determine the effects the human genetic makeup had on daily lives. The most prevalent experiments and easily the most discussed in recent years involved identical and fraternal twins. Easily the largest and most horrific eugenics movement in history, the Nazi extermination of Jewish Europeans, involved thousands of identical twin studies. Josef Mengele, the leading doctor at the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland was himself fascinated with identical twins. It is estimated that “approximately three thousand twins passed through Auschwitz during WWII” enduring all sorts of terrific acts such as “experimental surgeries performed without anesthesia, transfusions of blood from one twin to another, isolation endurance,…injections with lethal germs, sex change operations,
The identical genetic makeup that identical twins share seem ideal for such experiments because one of the twins can always be used as the control group whilst the other twin undergoes the different types of experimentation. Stock points out though that “genes tell us much about ourselves, but they only channel our fates, they do not engrave them indelibly” (Stock 103). Stock is saying that although a good amount of who we become or how we react to the environment surrounding us has its foundations resting in our individual genetic makeup, nurture is still shown to play a significant part. “Twin studies have shown the importance of our genes, but they’ve also shown the influences of our life experiences and the role of chance” (Stock 111). 

Germinal choice technology may be capable of altering several factors of a person’s developmental genetic foundation, but it can do very little when it comes to affecting the environment with which the newly altered genes will interact. “Genetic factors generally account for between 35 and 75 percent of variation among people in traits we think of as significant. Environmental influences and random factors that are unique to each individual account for most of the rest” (Stock 100). This means that on average, the different environments with which we interact control approximately half of our variation. 

Stock makes the statement that “however important genetic manipulation proves to be in shaping our children, more familiar tools such as education, mentoring, religion, parenting, and pharmaceuticals will continue to play their roles” (Stock 111). In fact, as Robert Wachbroit argues in his article entitled “Human Enhancement Uses of Biotechnology” for some genetic enhancements to be successful it may be necessary “that enhancing certain traits requires not only genetic modifications but also certain alterations in the individual’s environment” (Wachbroit 1). For example, if a couple selected a musically talented gene for their future child, yet never encouraged that child during its development to become involved with anything musically related or to explore this added talent they bought him, then the altered gene could very well never surface or be expressed in the child. 

Although germinal cell modification, which is the modification of genes present in the gametes and is then therefore passed on to future generations through fertilization, is currently not very common, if there is a presence at all, somatic cell modification, which is the alteration of genes present in any cells other then the gametes and therefore the alterations to these genes do not get inherited by the future generations, is becoming more widely practiced. “Health conditions targeted in clinical trials of somatic gene modification includes cystic fibrosis, lung cancer, malignant melanoma, breast cancer, brain cancer, and muscular dystrophy” (Council 6). 

As somatic cell modification becomes more prevalent and germinal cell modification becomes safer and more realistic the governments of several countries are beginning to place bans and restrictions on what should ethically be achieved or practiced. The Council for Responsible Genetics is actually calling “for a permanent ban on germline gene modification” with one of their arguments being gene modification “will increase prejudices and discrimination in a society where too many such prejudices already exist” (Council 6). 

Stock, however, makes the argument that “the legal status of various procedures in various places may hasten or retard their arrival but will have little enduring impact, because…the genomic and reproductive technologies at the heart of GCT will arise from mainstream biomedical research that will proceed regardless” (Stock113). Stock continues his argument against the affectability of the restrictions by stating that “bans will determine not whether but where the technologies will be available, who profits from them, who shapes their development, and which parents will have early access to them” (Stock 113). 

Stock is arguing that if a country such as the United States restricts any further research or usage of germinal choice technology then the scientists and private funders of the modification research will simply move to a different location where the restrictions are not so high in number or simply do not exist. Also, as Stock points out, that if a couple decided that they wanted to have a child that had been genetically modified in some way prior to conception, the added price for traveling to a different country for them to be allowed to do so would be virtually insignificant in relation to the cost of the modification initially.
The procedures therefore would only be open to a small percentage of the population due to the costs associated with risks and the population that would have access to the technology could very easily overcome any restrictions placed on the procedures. Due to this limited attainability by the population, “any presumed beneficial effects of germline modification would affect only individual families and are not likely to yield a public health benefit unless accompanied by unacceptable compulsion” (Council 5). 

Regardless of whether germinal choice technology or any genetic modification is ethically right the technology exists and is being perfected every day. The chances of this technology being used as some type of revolutionary advancement seem slim and more of a post-WWII fear rather than a rational conclusion. Stock is correct in stating that genetic modification will never wholly determine the outcome of a child rendering outside factors such as parenting, mentoring, etc. obsolete. Also, government bans preventing the use or furtherance of this technology are unlikely to prevent genetic modification from occurring in the future as similar restrictions were unsuccessful in preventing things such as abortion and the consumption of alcohol when both of these things were banned in the United States. As James Watson points out “It seems obvious that germline therapy will be much more successful than somatic…The biggest ethical problem we have is not using our knowledge” (Stock 109).

Modern Eugenics or Medical Breakthrough<br><br> <a href="/article/83569/modern_eugenics_or_medical_breakthrough.html">/article/83569/modern_eugenics_or_medical_breakthrough.html</a> <br><br> Submit your original video, text, audio and images to Associated Content to gain exposure and even earn cash. <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/join.html">Get started</a>. <br><br> <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com"><img src="http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/siteimg/ac_horizontal.gif" border="0"></a>

Email Article To A Friend Social Bookmarking Tools close window

Modern Eugenics or Medical Breakthrough

Send to: (separate e-mails with commas) Your name: Your e-mail address:		Notes:

Promote this content by clicking on the bookmark icons below. Each will take you to a different third-party site where you can register and add this content to their database of bookmarks.
	Digg   Facebook   Myspace   Yahoo My Web		Del.icio.us   Technorati   Netscape   StumbleUpon		Slashdot   Reddit More Bookmarks »

Save For Later

close window

Modern Eugenics or Medical Breakthrough

Type in your e-mail address below to receive an automated reminder to come back and read this piece of content. Your e-mail address will not be used for anything other than the automated reminder.

Your email address:

 

Share

 

Save For Later

 

Publish Yours

 

Print