Cao 1
Asbury Cao
Prof Moberly
WRI 10 18
12 December 2014
Research Proposal
Abstract:
In my research proposal I introduce a way to avoid unfair distribution of genetic
modification by allowing equal access to reasonably affordable treatments. I support my
proposal through examples of unfair pricing and giving alternative ways to access the new
technology. The purpose of this proposal is to persuade genetic modification distributors to allow
the general public to access their technology in order for the world to continue to slowly move
forward in the cosmetic and medical field.
Background/Problem:
Society has come to the point where being better is everything. Genetic modification
opens doors to those people who go about their lives with physical disadvantages and as
technology continues to take over, researchers are continually seeking out ways to perform
medical procedures that were believed to be impossible in the past. Although, amazing it sounds,
the sad fact remains that its price makes it very difficult to supply to those with average income
(Billman). In one case, eleven-year-old, Marco Oriti, suffered from dwarfism, being four foot
Cao 2
one, which was four inches shorter than average and was projected to eventually top out at five
foot four. His parents sought out medical treatments that would supposedly rid him of his
dwarfism but required a six-day-a-week HGH (Human Growth Hormone) regimen which would
cost over $150,000 over the next four years (Mckibben). It consisted of three to five shots a week
and was mostly administered to children at a young age. The mother of Marco stated that, “You
want to give your child the edge no matter what,” displaying the desperation that genetic
modification has led to. These children, however young they may be, are receiving treatments to
live lives through a technology that has opened new doors. No matter the cost, everyone wants
access.
While these treatments are creating new opportunities for those with disabilities, there are
potential “quality of life” interventions that raise ethical concerns. However, restraints on the
development of cosmetic neurology are not likely. According to Anjan Chatterjee, a professor of
Neurology in the School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, “Neurologists and other
clinicians are likely to encounter patient-consumers who view physicians as gatekeepers in their
own pursuit of happiness (Chatterjee). This means that although enhancements may seem
unnatural to some, those who truly aspire to change who they are will pursue it whatever the
cost. They see that the only thing standing in their way is the distributors. The only problem is
that treatments to enhance normal abilities are likely to be paid privately and many psychiatrists
in private practice only accept personal payments for conditions that fall well into the “disease”
category (Chatterjee). With these restraints, only the wealthy could afford those treatments.
Knowing that these treatments are far beyond the reach of most citizens, there is still
hope to receive the medical attention they need, but as most companies are still currently in the
research and development phase, access will take time to be granted. “If social pressures
Cao 3
encourage wide use of medications to improve quality of life, then pharmaceutical companies
stand to make substantial profits and they are likely to encourage such pressures” (Chatterjee).
Patience is required for this technology to become available on the market but as it stands, the
people want access to it now not later.
A man named Ed Ayres, the editor of World Watch Magazine, had something very
important to say about the control of genetic enhancement and the dangers it possess if not
handled with care. He wrote an article reaching out to the public to agree that they should decide
how this technology is dealt with. “We are publishing this special issue because we don’t want to
lose the opportunity to decide openly and democratically how this rapidly developing technology
is used,” says Ayres. “This isn’t a fight about saving whales, or the last rain forests, or even the
health of people living today. The question is whether we can save ourselves from ourselves, to
know and respect what we do not know, and to put the brakes on potentially dangerous forms of
human genetic engineering” (Ayres).
Seeking out any means to become better or up to par with those beside us is what has
become the latest trend in this modern age. And the prices make it almost impossible for people
to get their hands on it. “Every time you turn your back this technology creeps a little closer.
Gallops, actually, growing and spreading as fast as the internet” (Mckibben). But as it currently
stands, only those who are more financially capable of affording these procedures are the only
ones who can access the treatment. Researcher David Masci, from the Pew Research Center in
Washington D.C, says that genetic modification is like technology, because eventually it will be
accessible to everyone but we cannot just sit here and wait while people’s lives are drastically
improving and worsening at the same time.
Cao 4
Solution:
With the increase in genetic enhancement demand, it is necessary for the government to
issue a policy of regulation so that we may avoid conflicts from unfair distribution. There are
two ways in which this could be done with the first approach calling for a complete ban.
Completely prohibiting genetic enhancement would solve the problem of unfair pricing and
distribution by getting rid of the treatments completely however, it cannot be maintained.
According to William Gardner, “Both nations and parents have strong incentives to
defect from a ban on human genetic enhancement, because enhancements would help them in
competitions with other parents and nations. The ban on enhancement, moreover, is vulnerable to
even small defections because the disadvantages of defecting late will increase the incentives for
non-defectors to follow suit, causing defections to cascade” (Gardner). Gardner is saying that the
margin of error is so small it seems impossible to keep a ban from totally collapsing. He goes on
however, by saying that they can probably keep that defection from ever occurring if regulators
of genetic engineering are continuously monitoring the technology. This means surveillance of
every purchase made and type of genetic modification being distributed at all times. It is very
unrealistic to accomplish such a difficult task which is why Gardner believes that a ban is
completely impractical. This new technology has the potential to change the way scientists
conduct medical procedure. In order to continue to make progress and advance in technology, a
ban would be counterproductive and a waste of time and resources. Thankfully the second
solution allows just that.
The second possible and more viable solution to unfair distribution would be to only
allow access to treatments that are within reasonable price range for everyone. This means things
Cao 5
like small personal tweaks such as hair and eye color would be available until the price of more
serious procedures such as limb and face transplants lower over time (Bogdanoski). A professor
from the University of Calgary, Walter Glannon, states that genetic modification should mainly
focus on “maintaining or restoring mental and physical functions at or to normal levels.” But as
it currently stands, those procedures are only available to the wealthy. According to Alfred Lane,
the chair of the Department of Dermatology at Stanford University Medical Center, “Once we
begin a gene therapy treatment, the total cost per individual may be as high as $100,000 for the
first year. Because gene therapy is an experimental procedure, we do not expect to obtain
financial support through the patients' health insurance.” This demonstrates that this technology
is only beginning to be implemented to medical practices and is still far from being included in
the overall coverage of insurance companies. Until that time, it is necessary to still supply
modification so that people can begin to experience the new technology for themselves at a
reasonable price.
Stroma is a procedure currently in the research and development phase but is slowly
making its way on the U.S market. At an estimated price of $5000, patients will be able to
purchase eye treatment that will change their eye pigment to blue in thirty seconds (Stroma).
Procedures like this could indeed give people what they want, which is the access to the next big
thing but researchers are still a few years away to treating the patients with average income with
the more life-changing and serious procedures.
Although scientists are already beginning to administer genetic modification procedures
to patients, it is still beyond reach for the average income citizen at this early stage of
development. The right thing to do now is to give a taste of what genetic modification can do
while companies work on improving availability on more impactful procedures like implants and
Cao 6
cures to disease. This policy will eventually pave the way to allow medical procedures to
advance and save lives which is the original purpose of this technology. It is a more reasonable
alternative to a ban and it does not involve wasting years of research to avoid unfair distribution
and will provide equal access to smaller treatments.
If the rich are the only ones allowed to genetic enhancement, then a division will form
between the enhanced and unenhanced. Those who are concerned that genetically enhancing
children with specific traits will create a social division argue that it will be between those who
can and can’t afford it (Masci 425). “There is already a natural impulse to segregate ourselves,”
says Harry Yeide, a professor of religion at George Washington University. “This will accelerate
that in a very dangerous direction.” Yiede is saying that as long as prices are making genetic
enhancement procedures unreachable, society would not be treated the same and will segregate
between those who are rich and poor. Luckily, this policy will keep genetic modification from
creating a division between the two by allowing access to treatments that are universally
affordable.
These two possible proposals could be the key to avoiding unfair distribution and it all
depends on the support that it gains from the genetic enhancement suppliers and the public. Both
proposals will definitely receive a lot of opposition especially for those that seek enhancements
to not only sustain their lives but gain a competitive edge against others however this is the only
way to avoid unfair distribution as we all wait for the prices to drop to a reasonable level.
Sadly it is the inability to accept the diversity of human bodies, both our own and those of
others, which drives cosmetic industry as well as reproductive genetic testing (Bogdanoski 524).
We are all striving to be better and that is what is keeping the researchers of genetic modification
going in the process of making their product more available to everyone.
Cao 7
Conclusion:
As society becomes more and more dependent on technology, researchers are getting
closer to discovering ways in which they can use their findings to save lives more efficiently.
Unfortunately, this gives rise to unequal access to treatments due to its high prices and
unavailability to the average consumer. However society can still benefit from this as long as it is
controlled which is why banning a potential turning point in the way doctors conduct medical
procedures cannot be an option. Limiting the distribution of genetic modification is the most
reasonable approach in avoiding unfair distribution because it will give the public access to what
they want as they patiently wait for the more expensive procedures to lower to a reasonable
price.
Genetic modification should only be used for patients with disadvantages so that we live
in a world of equality and not division. However where researchers currently stand in the process
of making that possible, we are still a few years away. Having access to the same treatments
while prices become more reasonable at a later time will ensure equal treatment for everyone.
This proposal can avoid a potential future of division between the people by allowing access to
treatments that are of lower value and supplying the cures and implants at a later time. We
simply cannot wait for the prices of genetic modification to slowly die down but as of right now
there is no other choice. With all the money and resources put into this new technology to make
way for a future where people can access treatments to rid them of their disabilities there simply
is no going back. To ban such a potential turning point in our technology would be impractical.
With this policy, the public will be safe from unfair distribution and still allow researchers to
further advance their knowledge of genetic modification with hopes of making it eventually
available to all.
Cao 8
Work Cited
Major Sources:
Agar, Nicholas. "Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations." Actionbioscience. American Institute
of Biological Sciences, Apr.-May 2006. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
Baruch, S. Genetics & Public Policy Center || Publications & Resources || Center Reports ||
Human Germline Genetic Modification: Issues and Options for Policymakers -. N.p., n.d.
Web. 30 Oct. 2014.
Bogdanoski, Tony. "EVERY BODY IS DIFFERENT: Regulating The Use (And Non-Use) Of
Cosmetic Surgery, Body Modification And Reproductive Genetic Testing." Griffith Law
Review 18.2 (2009): 503-528. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
Chatterjee, Anjan. "Result Filters." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S.
National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.
Gardner, William. "Human Genetic Enhancement." CAN HUMAN GENETIC
ENHANCEMENT BE PROHIBITED? (n.d.): n. pag. Itp.nyu.edu. 4 July 2010. Web. 30
Oct. 2014.
Green, Ronald M. "Human Genetic Engineering Should Be Allowed." Genetic Engineering. Ed.
Noël Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from
"Building Baby from the Genes Up." Washington Post 13 Apr. 2008. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.
King, David. "Human Genetics Alert - The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering." Human
Genetics Alert - The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Oct.
2014.
Masci, David. "Designer Humans." CQ Researcher 18 May 2001: 425-40. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
Cao 9
Murphy, Timothy F. "Genetic Modifications For Personal Enhancement: A Defence." Journal Of
Medical Ethics 40.4 (2014): 242-245. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
Minor Sources:
Ayres, Ed. "Human Nature on Collision Course with Genetic Engineering." Human Nature on
Collision Course with Genetic Engineering. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.
Atteberry, Jonathan. "Could Genetic Enhancement Eventually Make Humanity Dumber?"
HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2014.
Billman, Keyna. "Human Gene Therapy." Human Gene Therapy. N.p., 1996. Web. 01 Dec.
"FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS." Stroma Medical FAQ. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.
Hills, Thomas. "Why Aren't We Smarter Already." Why Aren't We Smarter Already. SAGE
Jounals, n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2014.
Knapp, Alex. "Is Ethical Human Genetic Enhancement Possible?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d.
Web. 31 Oct. 2014.
Mckibben, Bill. "Designer Genes." Genetic Engineering for Parents. Orion Magazine, May-June
2003. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.
McPhersson, Jerry. "Effects of Genetic Engineering." Disabled World. N.p., 24 Aug. 2008. Web.
31 Oct. 2014.
Mensah, Virginia. "Genetic Enhancement: Distinctions and Regulation." (n.d.): n. pag. Print.
"The Inevitability of Genetic Enhancement Technologies." Françoise Baylis & Jason Scott
Robert,. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2014.
"What Are the Ethical Issues Surrounding Gene Therapy?" Genetics Home Reference. N.p., 27
Oct. 2014. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.