Martinez 1

Melissa Martinez
Mr. Rogers
Government 4
15 October 2016
Selective Gene Editing
Muscular Dystrophy. Muscular Dystrophy is a genetic disease that affects 1 in every
3,500 male births every year. Its inherited and involves a mutation in one of the thousands of
genes that program proteins that are critical to muscle integrity. The mutation makes it so the
bodys cells dont work properly causing muscles to weaken, the inability to walk, breathing
problems, a curved spin, heart issues, and issues in regards to swallowing (U.S. National Library
of Medicine ). This disease and countless others can be prevented by the science of genome
editing. With genome editing we can isolate the cause and manipulates them, preventing them
showing up. Like Crispr, there are many different organizations attempting use genome editing in
this regard. The only thing is is there is no code of ethics put forth at this time to prevent excess
unethical experiments from happening. So we should provide funding to The U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) to create a code of ethics because it would prevent excess
animal modification, nonmedical uses of genetic knowledge, and other forms of research already
has a code of ethics in place.
The past decade has experienced a revolution in the development of methods that permit
the introduction of specific alterations to complex genomes. Where some see genetic disease
potential others see the potential to genetically modify our animals for our benefit. Genetically
modifying our animals means a plethora things for our society some good and some very bad, as
it goes with all things. Logically there is potential benefit, through genetic modification it would

Martinez 2

be simply faster, more reliable, and cheaper than conventional breeding to modify genes (Telugu)
. But there is also potential risks in doing this as well. Logically it runs the possibility of
reducing genetic diversity in genome edited herds and the potential spread of edited genetic
material into non-target or closely related populations. Not only that but it opens the door for
genetically modifying animals for entertainment purposes, micropigs being one example. There
is a quote by Benedict Lambert, a famous geneticist once said that Of course we all know that
God has opted for the easy way out. He has decided on chance.... You mayselect two of the
four normal embryos and send them over to the clinic for implantation orselect the four
achondroplastic, the four stunted little beingsand send them over insteador refuse to usurp
the powers of God and choose instead to become as helpless as Heby choosing one normal
embryo and one achondroplastic and leaving the result to blind and careless chance (Mawer).
We have the power to play God in a sense but where can we draw a line. At this point there is
no clear cut line for us to stop. This could be a change that reverberates down through the
generations that increases concern about unintended effects whose disadvantages might
grossly outweigh any advantages that genome editing confers. Which is why putting a code of
ethics in place right now is critical. There has to be a line in regards to this not only because it
would be detrimental to the rights of animals, it would be detrimental to society as a whole.
In normal situations risk- takers are the person the experiment is being done to, but in
this case those being put at risk, the babies, have no choice in the matter. The responsibility then
falls on the parents to make the decision and inevitably have the power to determine that person's
genetic make up. Unless there are laws in place whats from stopping them, other then the
doctors morals themselves, to pick and choose physical characteristics that they find
aesthetically pleasing. The form of self-interest and self-protection, is removed (Carroll).

Martinez 3

Scientists have been able to sucessfully, through gene mutation, change the color of a rat. The
successful changes of rat coat color suggest the possibility that a naturally occurring variant
could be copied to induce a pigmentation change in humans via the same process (Ishii). Which
means that this could become a lot bigger than us. If there are no rules in place it could easily
become a process driven by social norms at the time. If this technology was readily available
before the civil rights act then whos to say that we wouldnt be living in a all white world or
even in the sense of Hitler. Either way this technology in the wrong hands in the wrong situation
could leave drastic changes to the diversity of our society. Not only that but it would split up our
nation in more ways than it already is. If you look at society, no matter what the time period
there is a clear sign of haves and have-nots. Whether you have white skin or not, whether
youre skinny or not, whether your hair is straight or not. We as a people are used to following
something, when were born its our parents, then its teachers, then our boss, and then society.
Time and time again because of the social cues of the mainstream we tend to alienate anything
thats different. With genetic engineering of a child the parents wouldnt know anything going
into it. Nothing for sure that is. So when they go into genetically modify their child it turns into
somewhat of an insurance policy, an expensive insurance policy at that. It would cost around
100,000 dollars to go through with this process (Lehmann-Haupt). Thus its pretty safe to assume
that only those in the upper class will be able to do this, that is until we find a way to make it
more accessible for the general public but I digress. It would quickly become a society that looks
up to the genetically modified and those who can afford it. Not only that but many other different
forms of research already has codes of ethics in place meaning that it would be simply illogical
for this to not.

Martinez 4

A code of ethics is put into place by organizations to draw a line so ethically they dont
do anything wrong. When one of these is not put into play then it is easy for the lines to
become blurred because the terms right and wrong tend to be very subjective. Like germline
therapy says, Because people who would be affected by germline gene therapy are not yet born,
they cant choose whether to have the treatment (GHR) . Just like germline therapy the patient
has no idea that the process is happening thus it is unethical for nothing but the absolute
necessity to be done. In regards to this many other forms of research like this already have codes
of ethics in place for medicinal research, laboratory experiments, etc. So its natural to propose a
code of ethics for this branch of research.
Though some may disagree, saying that its for the advancement of science or logically
animal modification would make it easier for mankind in general its important to understand the
context of the two. Ethics in many cases is very subjective, subjective in the sense where people
have different viewpoints on where exactly the line is. Though it may be for human advancement
as a whole, for the general public having that much power would turn everything to mass chaos
(Carroll). Not only that but these changes are being done without the subjects choice in the
matter making physical modifications unjustifiable. In regards to animal modification, we as a
nation are already taking short cuts as it is, modifying livestock to not have horns or cats to be
declawed is very wrong according to many animal rights activists.
In conclusion the genome editing bill should be put into place to stop animal
modification, prevent nonmedical uses of genetic information, and have the same guidelines as
the rest of the sciences. Genome editing has a chance to change medical technology as we know
it, but at the same time we need to have rules in place to prevent this information from getting in
the wrong hands. It could benefit future generations as a permanent solution. If this isn't put in

Martinez 5

place the harm and detrimental possibilities that it could have on society is endless, so not only is
it logical it's necessary to put a code of ethics into place. If these arent put into place soon then
society as we know it may change for the worst.

Citations
Carroll, Dana. "The Societal Opportunities and Challenges of Genome Editing." Genome
Biology. Carroll and Charo, 5 Nov. 2015. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
GHR "Ethical Issues Surrounding Gene Therapy ..." Genetic Home. US National Library of
Medicine, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.

Martinez 6

Mawer S. Mendels dwarf. New York: Harmony Publishing; 1998.

"Muscular Dystrophy: Hope Through Research." U.S National Library of Medicine. U.S.
National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
Ishii, Tetsuya. "Germ line genome editing in clinics: the approaches, objectives and global
society." Briefings in functional genomics(2015): elv 053.
Staff, By Mayo Clinic. "Muscular Dystrophy." Complications. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
Telugu, Bhanu. "Responsible Oversight Strategies for Genome Editing Technology in
Agricultural Animals in the Unites States." As Sites. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.