Mary's+Essay

My sophomore year, I began to take yoga lessons at the Y. I was a stressed out little sophomore, and needed a bit of "decompression" time. Each class, during the fifteen-minute meditation period, the instructor would offer us some unique observations or advice. One day, a substitute presented this view: “Medicine- it’s poison! Take too much, and it can kill you!” I was absolutely floored. Well, thanks Captain Obvious! Chugging the kool-aid is probably carcinogenic as well. Though her logic is inherently flawed, her statement does have some application to genetic science. Where is the line between harmless research, beneficial alteration for medical purposes, and cosmetic “gene doping”? Should parents be able to choose their child from a host of possibilities (and possible embryos)? Are genetically modified foods safe? Is stem cell technology really the miracle cure we are hoping for? Where is the right of self-determination in all this? These questions are without clear, cut-and-dry answers. While some positive outcomes are immediately apparent, careful consideration of scientific consequences and ethical paradoxes must be carefully examined.
 * TEXT OF ESSAY**

It is a reality that the technology to alter ourselves and our progeny at the most basic (and by basic I mean adenine and thymine) levels. The scenario described by Professor Lee Silver honestly frightens me. Parents choose from a spectrum of embryos, alter them with “bottle genes” and live happily ever after with their flawless offspring? Pre- Dr. Spock, it was commonly believed that a child could be molded to suit a parent’s tastes. It seems that where upbringing has failed, parents will instead extend their control to the genetic level. Society and genetics both influence a child, but random occurrences of people with less than desirable characteristics in otherwise normal families prove that even the best genetic backgrounds and upbringing can only go so far. In my own, a certain relative has had the good fortune to come from a loving, supportive, and generally healthy family. Yet this person possesses some of least favorable behaviors known to man. This person is a drinker, emotionally abusive, anti-education, and does not care for his or her children. Even with a healthy background, success is no guarantee. As for the genetic preferences of the parents, shouldn’t they love whatever they have? In some nations, abortions based on gender are not as uncommon as they should be. Is genetic selection of a child so different? My mother has told me that one of the joys of parenthood is the random mix of genes. She said, in reference to my brothers and I, “Who would have imagined three such different and wonderful children?” My view is, if you are unwilling to accept that your child might not be exactly the blue-eyed bouncing cherub you wish for, then you should not be having children. A parent must be able to love unconditionally.

When it comes to the potential for curing ailments with genetic roots, like trisomy 13, I am in favor of genetic alteration. When we have the ability to alleviate suffering and improve basic quality of life, it seems cruel to deny the available treatment to anyone. Yet this area does give me cause for concern. What is a disease? Should a person’s genes be altered if there is a 90% chance of a disease? What about 50%? 30%? What of a predisposition to alcoholism? Myopia? Depression? Where there is great potential for benefit, there is always great potential for abuse. As I have previously stated, it is impossible to genetically alter someone into “perfection”. Our small quirks and foibles are what makes us individuals. Another danger is the development of a class system, based on those who will first be able to afford genetic alteration. If this technology is first available to the wealthy, perhaps an eventual “GATTACA” type of reality could exist. The marginalized will, as they have in the past and are in the present, be left suffering while the rich thrive. Though the risks are great, the potential benefit is even greater. With strict regulation, this technology could be made available.

In a similar vein, stem cell research has become as controversial a topic as abortion in recent years. The idea of the destruction of embryos is utterly distasteful to some, who believe that life begins at conception. While I respect those opinions, I feel that a life that exists, the life of one who is suffering, takes precedent over potential life. Life and potential life are two very different things. Yes, an embryo has unique DNA, and the ability to become a human. This is a reality that must be acknowledged. But a definite complex being, capable of love, hate, joy and suffering is more valuable than a possibility. Every year, fertilized eggs unused in IVF are destroyed. These eggs have the potential to heal the bodies and minds of paralytics, diabetics, and ALF patients. My grandmother has Alzheimer’s, and though she is relatively alert now, it is a reality that one day soon she will look at my mother and fail to recognize her daughter. My grandmother is a vibrant, intelligent, caring individual. I wish I could give my mother her mother back, but it is impossible now. But perhaps, with stem cell research, therapeutic cloning, and other technologies, other families will be able to have a loved one for a few years longer.

Though modifying ourselves is a technology of the near future, modifying our food is nothing new. GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, have been on the market for nearly a decade. Americans consume food products from these plants and animals daily. Yet most, when asked, do not believe that they have consumed any genetically modified products. Many are alarmed to find that such products have been on the open market for almost a decade. There is such a principle as lying by omission, and the trust of the public has been betrayed. Though I believe that the technology itself is positive, the effects that these organisms, and the companies that own them, could possibly have should be considered carefully. It is an acknowledged fact that even an ecosystem heavily influenced by man, such as cornfields, have complex interactions between other organisms, interactions that we are still learning about. GMOs introduce genes into these delicate systems that never existed before. Perhaps those Monsanto products with built-in “pesticide” will cause resistant caterpillars to develop. Perhaps these caterpillars or other pests will decimate crops, ultimately leading to the use of more chemical pesticides. Monoculture is an issue as well. Diversity within a population is essential for the genetic health of the species. Diversity within an ecosystem is equally important to the health of that ecosystem. Growing identical crops across the nation, as we are beginning to do, could lead to disaster. If these crops have one susceptibility, to disease, to pests, there is nothing in the way of preventing total annihilation. Safety of GMOs is also a concern. These foods have not undergone long term tests in humans, and thusly we do not know any, if there are, ill effects that could result from a lifetime of consumption of these foods. I am entirely for labeling of products containing GMOs. All people deserve to know what exactly they are putting into their bodies. As with calories and trans fat contents, consumers should have the right to choose whether or not to eat a “Franken-fruit”. I personally doubt that there will be enormously harmful effects on humans from the eating of this food. One of my primary criticisms, however, is directed toward the companies who create GMOs. To be sure, they have invested millions in research into these products, and deserve compensation for their discoveries. But when Monsanto seizes a farmer’s crops because of cross-pollination, I fear for the future of agriculture. Monopolizing genes, and monopolizing food supplies, is dangerous. If golden rice were to be made available to poor nations, they may become reliant upon Monsanto products. It is true that the product itself would save the sight- and the lives- of malnourished children living in areas where so-called “sustainable” farming simply cannot exist. These people are entitled to proper nutrition and a life as free from disease and famine as possible. But still, should a company have a nation dependent upon it for something as basic as food? Prosperous nations, like the US, have trouble coping with high oil prices. Imagine that sort of reality for the impoverished around the world. Tomorrow’s OPEC could be a genetic engineering company. Genetically modified foods and the companies that produce them must be subject to some form of regulation, so that all can benefit from this technology.

President Lincoln once stated, "You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today". The question we, the human race, faces is not one of "Can it be done?" or "Will it be done?" The technologies we are developing will inevitably alter our world, and ourselves. What is in question is to what extent are we willing to change what has been unchanged for the entire span of history. Though I believe that cautious optimism is the name of the game, only time will tell where the people are willing to go.

**Audio File**

media type="file" key="for_professor_lee_silver_mary_bioethics.mp3"