Does Genetic Modification Bring About More Problems Than Solutions?
Essay Preview: Does Genetic Modification Bring About More Problems Than Solutions?
Report this essay
Ever since Watson and Crick unraveled the mysterious double-helical structure of DNA, the new and seminal fields of biotechnology and genetic modification have expanded with such alacrity that there seems to be no end to this new branch of science. Today we extract, splice, recombine and mutate genes at our will; by altering this Blueprint of Life, Man is able to sway the course of biological macrocosms, and ostensibly, life itself. Nevertheless, while genetic modification has been heralded as the messiah that would grant Man deliverance from his problems, it seems that as for now, it is posing as many problems as it is providing solutions.
The most jarring and obvious of problems, of course, are the technical mishaps and misadventures that would arise as a direct cause of genetic modification— mutated organisms, mauled and deformed, that have become synonymous with placing genes and DNA into places where they do not belong. Indeed, it is not hard to appreciate the grossness of giant mutant pigs that have been genetically pre-programmed to produce Human Growth Hormones, or flesh-eating bacteria that have had antibiotic-resistant genes accidentally inserted into them. The end result, simply put, is disastrous. So long as scientists have incomplete knowledge and mastery over the surgery of genes, which seems likely for some time to come, such �experimental failures’ would pose problems to mankind, even though they started out with noble intentions, as they lead to yet other problems; problems of disposal, problems of containment, problems such as Superweeds that are out-living and out-lasting useful crops, problems such as headless-mice deliberately produced for organ harvesting.
As such, it is not difficult to see how genetic modification turns ethics on its head— where exactly does enough become too much? Granted, Growth Hormones would result in higher yielding porcine meat, and the same flesh-eating bacteria have also been used to produce precious pharmaceutical products. But certain modifications, be it the creation of headless tadpoles or headless mice, like those at the University of Texas and the University of Bath, leave much to be desired. In this case, genetic modifications strike at a sensitive moral chord, one that resonates with the universal set of beliefs of what is considered right, or in this case, supposedly wrong. Animal activists criticize the lack of animal rights involved in bringing life into a doomed existence, and the deliberate birth/death of mice that have a flap of skin for a head can hardly be described as anything else other than perverse. The move to industrialize the �Football chicken’, too, has sparked heated debate— designing poultry that de-feather itself automatically by molting its feathers hours before being sent to the slaughterhouse would supposedly save producers millions, but it is not surprising that critics would once again cry foul over this distorted tampering of nature. Indeed, such problems are set to continue as people cannot reconcile what is considered morally right.
Hence, it is eminent that genetic modification would square off against religious beliefs; for a new and seminal field that deals with the quintessence of creationism and the sanctity of what constitutes a person, genetic modification has crossed many lines in the sub-fields of eugenics, cloning and gene selection. In a supposedly secular world, the GM juggernaut has marched onwards leaving religious leaders by the sidelines. After all, there has been no gospel in the Bible, Quran or Torah that specifically says �Thou shalt not clone.’ But of course, to many, tinkering with life is considered blasphemous, and playing God an ultimate insult to their beliefs. Perhaps they, along with non-believers and atheists, fear that potential atrocities would go unchecked, and the genetic surgeons and nurses of the day that will spiral out of hand. Genetic modification raises problems for which apprehension is justifiable— who is unafraid of the time when society begins raising headless humans in vats and disemboweling them for utilitarian purposes? Cans of worms are