Bursic, 2:00
L14
CONSIDERING ETHICS IN GENETIC ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
Eileen Burke (eileenb@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION: THE DEBATE OF
GENETIC ENGINEERING
One of the largest ongoing debates in the biomedical
engineering field today deals with the ethical and moral
aspects of genetic engineering. While the inventions of new
technologies today are typically renowned and celebrated,
the overall consensus on genetic engineering technologies is
undecided due its controversial nature dealing with human
nature directly. Some critics of genetic engineering argue
that it is morally wrong to alter the human species as it can
violate an individual’s free will and ultimately lead to less
diversity, causing a collapse of humanity. Proponents of the
technologies, myself included, believe that when used
properly genetic engineering can help save the human race
in the long run. I believe ultimately it is ethical to use these
technologies in certain cases, such as altering cells and
DNA to reduce diseases or helping to promote genetic
diversity to continue the evolution of the human race. As a
prospective pediatric geneticist, I support the use of genetic
technologies to a certain extent, specifically to combat
genetic disorders, but I also believe that ethics play an
important role in knowing how far is too far with genetic
engineering.
HUMAN GENETIC ENGINEERING AND
BIOETHICS
As defined by the Association of Reproductive Health
Professionals, human genetic engineering is altering the
genes within a cell of a living human. The term is further
defined as being divided into two categories: somatic and
germline. Somatic genetic engineering “targets the genes in
specific organs and tissues of the body… without affecting
genes in their eggs or sperm.” [1] On the contrary, germline
genetic engineering “targets the genes in the eggs, sperm, or
early embryos.” [1] When considering the social context of
our society today, it is not surprising that the concepts of
morality and ethics are introduced in the debate over genetic
engineering. Is it ethically correct as society for scientists to
alter human nature by editing genetics? Is it moral for an
engineer to “play God” in the eyes of some and determine
which genes will be passed on to the next generation?
Bioethics, a critical part of any medical field, is likewise
crucial in genetic engineering, specifically germline
engineering because it deals with sex cells and embryos. To
consider whether genetic engineering meets bioethical
standards, I believe it is necessary to weigh the positives and
negative of the technology in this field.
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
October 9, 2012
REDUCING DISEASE
According to Michael Sandel in his essay “The Case
Against Perfection: What’s Wrong with Designer Children,
Bionic Athletes, and Genetic Engineering,” genetic
engineering can diverge into two separate subcategories:
medical and non-medical. Medical genetic engineering deals
directly with diseases and would reduce the chance of
passing on genetic disorders to offspring [5]. Ethically, I
believe it makes sense for us as a society to pursue research
in this specific sub-area. By using science and engineering
to create and implant technologies that would prevent
diseases and genetic disorders, such as cancer, Down’s
Syndrome, or Huntington’s Disease, engineers would be
benefiting society and helping future generations. At the
University of Pennsylvania, doctors and researchers
genetically modified lymphocytes (T-cells) of cancer
patients in order to create a “road-map” for chemotherapy to
attack tumors. The research produced successful results, as
the cells became ‘serial killer T-cells’ that destroyed
cancerous tumors [6]. In this respect, I believe it would be
morally irresponsibly to not pursue genetic engineering.
Through my own experiences doing research with
preeclampsia in a biomedical laboratory, I personally see
much value in the experimentation and research fields of
genetic engineering. Without research and experimentation,
science would never advance and cures for diseases would
never be discovered. If a new technology is invented that
can help save thousands, then ultimately it is morally right
to pursue such a technology.
FREEDOM, RESPONSIBILITY, AND
GENETICS
While I see much benefit to genetic engineering, it is
incorrect to only highlight the positive attributes while
disguising the negatives. When genetic engineering is not
used appropriately and responsibly, it threatens society as a
whole. It is my opinion that when humans are allowed to
choose traits for their offspring, genetic engineering will no
longer be a respected and useful tool to help society. As
stated by Jürgen Habermas, we, as humans, understand
ourselves to be free and independent entities, controlling
ourselves with free will. Therefore, when a parent decides to
choose the traits of his child, it gives the child an unfair
place in life, unable to be treated with “equal dignity” [4].
While it is argued that these “genetically engineered” babies
are not ethical because they could not take part in the
Eileen Burke
decisions of altering their genes, I believe that it ultimately
makes little difference in the outcome of the child. No
human ever has control over his or her genes, regardless of
genetic engineering. If genetic engineering would be
implemented so parents could alter their child’s genetics,
then it would be the parents’ responsibility to alter the genes
appropriately. Thus, the morals and ethics of the parents
must be sound in order to participate in such an act.
However, it is when the parents’ believe they have the
“power and responsibility to produce the perfect offspring”
and turn to genetic engineering to alter traits that I believe
crosses the boundaries of bioethics. As stated by Sandel,
this type of engineering is “cosmetic surgery,” only to
satisfy parents by giving their child optimal traits (in their
opinion), such as being of a certain height, having a certain
athletic or musical talent, or even increasing their
intelligence [5]. I openly believe this type of engineering is
selfish and harmful to humanity because it promotes one
single member of society, not society as a whole. Where as
reducing diseases via genetic engineering helps the future of
the human race, having “designer children” or “bionic
athletes” will ultimately lead to two subspecies of humans: a
super-race of humans who were altered by their parents, and
a race of natural humans [5]. This “super-race” would have
an advantage athletically, mentally, musically, and most
likely financially, as they would be successful and thus have
the financial ability to continue to genetically alter their
offspring [4]. The gene pool would be divided, possibly
hurting the survival of humans, as they would be unable to
adapt and survive due to lack of genetic variability.
to alter the genetics of their child to give him an upper hand
athletically, intellectually, etc. Ethically, it is not a
scientist’s position to alter the gene pool, unless it would be
to eliminate a disease or genetic disorder. I agree with
Glover, who states that it is immoral for parents “not to
safeguard their children against debilitating disease” when
there is the technology to do so [5]. However, a debilitating
disease must not be openly defined as what it is- a lifealtering or life-threatening condition. It is our duty, as a
society, to limit the boundaries for genetic engineering in
order to maintain its purpose: to prevent the passing on of
diseases and disorders.
ENGINEERING ETHICS WITH RESPECT
TO GENETIC ENGINEERING
Bioethics is vitally important to the field of genetic
engineering, as the topic is of a controversial nature. Every
engineer must follow the Code of Ethics for Engineers, as
stated by the National Society of Professional Engineers.
The code binds engineers to the agreement to “hold
paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” with
their work, while only performing professional services in
their specialty field [3]. Thus, I believe genetic engineers
must only invent, construct, and use genetic engineering
technology if it is for the best of society. Additionally,
genetic engineers must conduct themselves “honorably,
responsibly, ethically, and lawfully” [3]. Therefore, in my
opinion, the work genetic engineers pursue cannot promote
a super-race of humans or “designer children” as the
repercussions would not be responsible or honorable when
considering society. A responsible engineer, working under
both the codes of ethics by the National Society of
Professional Engineers and the Biomedical Engineering
Society, must be able to determine at what point genetic
engineering technology will no longer benefit society. If an
engineer goes past such a point and continues to use genetic
engineering technology, he will violate the codes of ethics.
This includes not accepting any financial compensation by
outside influences to use genetic engineering technology
when unnecessary; for example, using this technology to
create “designer children” for those who can afford to chose
the genes for their offspring. If an engineer were to assist a
couple in creating a child with the ultimately characteristics,
it would give the child an unfair advantage over every other
member of society. Thus, the engineer would be violating
the codes of ethics he agreed to follow when becoming a
bioengineer. However, I believe it is cohesive with the
guidelines established by these codes of ethics for genetic
engineers for engineers to pursue projects that could help
eliminate diseases. As the codes of ethics stress the
importance of “considering the broader consequences of
[the engineer’s] work” [2], I agree that engineers must use
genetic engineering technology to look beyond any small,
short-term consequences and build upon the genetically
WILL GENETIC ENGINEERING
INFLUENCE GENETIC VARIATION?
Genetic variation allows the human race to adapt and
survive when catastrophe arises. Due to our widespread
gene pool, each person contains various differences in
genetics that allows the human race, collectively, to survive
through Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” model of
evolution. If genetic engineering were to become prominent
in society, I believe that it is ethical and moral to limit
genetic engineering in order to save the genetic variation we
have in our gene pool. With genetic engineering, humans
will become a “monoculture,” which is essentially “putting
all of [our] eggs in one genetic basket” [8]. According to
Powell, the gene pool will be altered with genetic variation,
unless it was a situation where every person cloned himself,
which is quite unlikely. However, he argues that, since most
of our DNA is not expressed openly, that genetic
engineering would hardly impact our phenotypes passed
down in the gene pool [8]. While I agree that our
phenotypes most likely may not be impacted by certain
genetic engineering, I think that most types of engineering
done to our DNA would be to the genes expressed
outwardly, especially if we are to consider those who want
2
Eileen Burke
possibilities of creating “perfect” offspring. We are still in
the experimental stage of gene therapy: somatic gene
therapy is relatively new and the market is small, while
germline gene therapy has not yet been intentionally used
[4]. While some see genetic engineering as “an over
controlling aspect of society,” I believe that limiting genetic
engineering to somatic and occasional germline engineering
is ethical. It is my opinion that somatic genetic engineering
is ethical because the research and experimentation can help
cure cancer or even other conditions like emphysema, where
tissue must be replaced. Germline engineering, in my
perspective, is a much more divisive topic; to consider if it
is ethical, I believe an engineer must consult the codes of
ethics relating to his work and apply such to the situation.
As I hope to study genetic disorders and plan on working in
the field of genetic engineering, I believe that germline
engineering is only morally sound and complies with the
codes of ethics when dealing with disorders and diseases
caused genetically. Any other excuse to modify an embryo’s
or fetus’s genetic make-up is immoral, selfish, and
inhumane. However, the debate of genetic engineering still
goes on, whether it is ethical or unethical, and until more
research is completed there will be no final say on where the
bioethics line is drawn for this field. In order to make such a
conclusion, however, it is necessary for the public to be
more educated on the topic of genetic engineering; with the
increased promotion of genetic engineering technology,
society can ultimately see for itself that when used
appropriately and ethically, genetic engineering technology
can benefit society as a whole.
modified lymphocytes created at the University of
Pennsylvania. By doing so, I believe that the field of genetic
engineering could rapidly grow to the benefit of society as a
whole, while abiding by the codes of ethics applicable.
EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF GENETIC
ENGINEERING
Because genetic engineering has become a political issue
to a certain extent, it is necessary for engineers and
scientists, along with the rest of society, to take a stance on
the topic. Therefore, educating the public of genetic
engineering and its repercussions is critical to the
development of the field and the role the field can play in
our everyday life. Due to the “distinct divide” between
Americans and members of other countries [7], I believe
that it is necessary to promote the education of genetic
engineering technology. By establishing the good attributes
of the field, like cells engineered to prevent diseases such as
cancer, as well as the bad attributes, like a super-human
race, the population of America can come to its own
conclusion about how necessary genetic engineering is. As a
prospective bioengineer with a strong interest in genetics, I
believe that with a greater emphasis placed upon the
education of the public on the topic of genetic engineering
technology, more people will be open to the idea of using
this field to advance the biomedical, ultimately creating a
healthier, stronger human race. However, I believe that it is
up to universities to use their engineering departments to
stress the importance of engineering leadership to promote
genetic engineering technology. If universities are to take
the initiative to introduce students to genetic engineering
technology and the positive outcomes of the world, then I
think that the rest of America will follow and the field will
increase exponentially. In my opinion, the first step in
taking such a leadership role is to have first year
engineering students complete a paper as I did, investigating
a topic and drawing conclusions on the best way to handle
the specific engineering problem that they have researched.
For example, if another student were to research genetic
engineering technology during his first year at a different
university, then he would draw conclusions on the ethical
values of genetic engineering. If students across the United
States acted similarly, then our country would be filled with
educated engineers ready to lead and tackle the discussion
of ethics in genetic engineering, thus making the conclusion
on the topic easier to draw.
REFERENCES
[1] Association of Reproductive Health Professionals.
(2012) “Human Cloning and Genetic Modification.”
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. (Online
brochure).
http://www.arhp.org/publications-andresources/patient-resources/printed-materials/cloning
[2] “Biomedical Engineering Society Code of Ethics.”
Biomedical
Engineering
Society.
(Online
PDF)
http://www.bmes.org/aws/BMES/asset_manager/get_file/39
579/bmes_code_of_ethics.pdf?ver=1541
[3] “Code of Ethics of Engineers.” National Society of
Professional
Engineers.
(Online
PDF)
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[4] M. Häyry. (2012). “Protecting Humanity.” Cambridge
Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. (Online article). DOI:
10.1017/S0963180111000715
LIMITING THE BOUNDARIES OF
GENETIC ENGINEERING
[5] M. Sandel. (2012) “The Case Against Perfection: What’s
Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic Athletes, and
Genetic Engineering.” Bioethics. (Essay). p426-440
Scientists, engineers, and doctors must come together to
limit the boundaries of genetic engineering due to the ethical
violations some may make when considering the
3
Eileen Burke
[4] Penn Medicine (2011). “Genetically Modified ‘Serial
Killer’ T Cells Obliterate Tumors in Patients with Chronic
Lymphocytic Leukemia, Penn Researchers Report.” Penn
Medicine
News.
(Online
article)
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2011/08/t
-cells/
[7] R. Graham. (2009). “Engineering Leadership Education:
A Snapshot Review of International Good Practice.” MIT
Engineering Leadership Program. (Online article)
http://web.mit.edu/gordonelp/elewhitepaper.pdf
[8] R. Powell. (2010) “The Evolutionary Biological
Implications of Human Genetic Engineering.” The Journal
of Medicine and Philosophy. (Online article).
DOI:
10.1093.jmp/jhq004
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Judy Brink, the librarian at the
Swanson School of Engineering, for assisting me with
research for this article. Additionally, I would like to thank
Dr. Robin Gandley at the Magee-Women’s Research
Institute of UPMC for giving the opportunity to participate
in scientific research, allowing me to gain experience in the
biomedical field while proving how critical these types of
research are to the further advancement of our society.
4