Consider the use of genetic modification, for example, to modify genes not for life-saving procedures but for aesthetic changes. Remember that when one alters the DNA of a human being, even for a supposedly benign but necessary fashion, like making a short child taller, this DNA will be passed down to future generations of that child. This calls into question the ownership of the child's DNA. (Bereano, 1995) Modifying a child's gene to save his or her life, without a very young child's consent, might be considered within ethical guidelines, like providing resuscitation to an unconscious person who cannot give consent, but non-necessary procedures are far more questionable. What if the short child wished to become a jockey, or a gymnast? How can a parent determine what the child finds aesthetically pleasing, or even how society will define such constructs as beauty, good character, or intelligence, when that child is an adult. Permitting too much modification will give parents control over their child's destiny and free will in a way that makes current control mechanisms like schooling, finances, and discipline seem like, no pun intended, child's play.
Furthermore, focusing research efforts and publicity on non-life saving genetic modifications, perhaps most damningly, has proved to be a powerful distraction from the real, life-saving potential of innovations in the technology. Because of fears of cloning, or building a super race, research into the abuse of some of the potentially life-sustaining ways genetic engineering can be used has come under question. To end such potential abuses, scientists conducting research into this technology should set voluntary ethical guidelines for themselves. There is certainly a precedent for this...
Scientists dealing with the dangers and the benefits of modifying the genetic code should construct a similar oath for themselves, before the less knowledgeable governing bodies of the nations of the world attempt to do it for them, and limit all genetic engineering research out of fear.
Works Cited
Anders Aberg, "Bridging the Gap between Model Systems and Human
Biology." Originally published in Genetic Engineering News. Nov 1, 2005. Vol. 25, No. 19. [6 Nov 2006]
http://www.genengnews.com/articles/chitem.aspx?aid=878
Bereano, Phillip L. "Body and Soul: The price of biotech." Seattle Times. 20 Aug 1995:
B5.
Dinham, Philip. "Is genetic engineering good or bad for humanity?" Originally published
In Jamaica News Weekly. Health Section. 2005. [6 Nov 2006] http://www.jamaicans.com/articles/primecomments/geneticengine.shtml
Epstein, Ron. "Redesigning the World." Originally published in Primitivism Journal.
2005. [6 Nov 2006] http://www.primitivism.com/genetic-engineering.
Heaf, David. "List of Pros and Cons." Originally published in If Gene Journal. 21 Apr 2001. [6 Nov 2006] http://www.ifgene.org/proscons.htm
New Ways of Moving Genes." The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry
Website. 2006. [6 Nov 2006] http://www.abpischools.org.uk/resources/poster-series/geneng/moving.asp
Rosenwald, Michael S. "Intronn Aims to Cure Diseases by Repairing Genetic Defects."
Originally published in The Washington Post. 10 Jan 2005: E05 [6 Nov 2006] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61870-2005Jan9.html
