Germ line gene manipulation (GLGM) is the alteration of genomic content of zygotes or gametes by inserting genes into the Genome of Germ Cells. These alterations affect the genomic content of future generations. With the advent of technology, GLGM is currently performed on infants to alter their germ cells. This procedure is mostly successful if carried out in infants in embryonic stages. GLGM application is used for correcting or preventing genetic deficiencies. What happens is that properly functioning genes are transferred into reproductive cells. GLGM are also used for enhancing genetic cells. This procedure influences traits of the unborn child such as physical appearance or even mental abilities. Successful enhancement of these procedures would be passed to many generations (Carter, 2002, p. 1).
Why should we keep repeating bad genes to our future generation if you can get rid of these diseases once and for all? These questions have been going through parents minds since the invention of germline gene therapy or pre-implantation gene diagnosis. However, before parents decide to undertake the procedure, they should look at the scientific and ethical implications of genetically modified babies before spending all that money in designing their own babies.
Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis is a technique that requires the use of test tube baby technique (IVF) to test foetus for genetic disorders before it’s implanted to the uterus. There has been an increase of genetic disorders that can now be easily be prevented through this technique, however, parents should note that not all disorders can be diagnosed in this way. For example, single gene disorder such as cystic fibrosis can be examined under this gene manipulation while genetic disorders such as Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy or hemophilia can only be performed on males. Therefore, when PGD is carried out on the cell is examined to determine the sex of the embryo, only female embryos can be replaced (Marcus, 2004, online). Ethically, PGD increases inequality since only wealthy parents are able to select traits that will guarantee them happiness, creativity and physical talents while families of lower class are left to deal with heart diseases, alcoholism, mental illness and obesity. Also, PGD promotes stigmatisation and discrimination against people with genetic impairments if they could not afford the procedure. Actually, testing could promote a culture of prevention and perfectionism rather than promoting a culture of intolerance (Kersten, 2008, p. 8).
PGD has been reported to misdiagnose as caused by chromosomal mosaicism. For embryos with heterozygous and dominant disorders, mosaicism causes a problem for the PGD of chromosome abnormalities and aneuploidy causing a problem to the foetus. For diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities before PGD is performed is time consuming and technically difficult due to the probe non-availability (Harper et al 2001, p. 11).
Parents should not spend whatever they wish on gene manipulation because if the replacement genes are not correctly inserted into the chromosome may cause a new mutilation in the genome genes permanently impairing the genetic changes that are passed on to the future generations. Another disadvantage of GLGM is that it causes infertility arising from gene manipulation. When unidentified changes are done in the Uterus to the Germ line by gene transfer, the foetus when matures becomes unable to produce off-springs when it grows up. It also requires considerable amount of time to reduce the burden of genetic diseases and this could cause parents a lot of money. Essentially, GMGL is not the most efficient way of eliminating genetic disorders from human gene pool (Carter, 2002, p. 1: Beauchamn & LeRoy, 1999).
Ethically, Germ line gene manipulation is like playing with God. First, individuals should not be let to make decisions about other individuals. Secondly, the power of biotechnology altering God’s handwork is morally wrong. This steams out the debate of the existence or non-existence God. This gene manipulation causes the problem of identity. GMGL changes the identity of the recipient by the act of gene manipulation but person identity is not affected since embryos do not have any memories that need to be altered. It’s morally believed that embryos have moral status that prevent human beings from being genetically tampered with therefore parents should not invest all their savings trying to alter genes that cannot be interfere with. It is required of patients to give informed consent to any medical procedure; therefore this gene manipulation does not give the future generations opportunity to consent to such procedures giving us a moral dilemma for GLGM interventions. GMGL proponents argue that the procedure should be carried out regardless of future generation consent as they do not have rights since they do not exist. They claim that the only right their posses is being born from genetic diseases of which the germ line gene are trying to change (Carter2002, p.1; Gregory & Camplell, 2000).
It is possible that GLGM recipients will not equal access opportunities to employment and insurance. It is argues that some societal institutions will take advantage of this by trying to discriminate against those who have or have not undergone the gene manipulation. These potential institutions include insurance companies, educational institutions, employers and social security. If parents agree to implement GLGM, it will be necessary to implement privacy laws that will prevent exploration of institutions which might take time and money to effect (Carter, 2002, p. 2; Walters & Palmer, 1997).
Canadian researchers in 2005 discovered that attractive children received more attention that ugly ones. More on the reports, a field study was conducted in a supermarket where children entering the store were charged on the attention their get from shop attendants. Their attractiveness was judged on a ten-point scale. On following the children around, the researchers discovered that 1.2 % of homely kids received less attention as compared to the 13.3% of the cutest kids. These findings convey bitter truth, but who determines the cutest scale. How does beauty look like? Is this the reason why parents want to spend all that money in gene manipulation? Actually, beauty is commercialised, what looks cute 10 years ago is not what looks cute today. So, what happens if they change the cute genes today, then 10 years down the line the beauty scales change? Will they take the 10-year grown kid to the doctor and change the genes again? Children should be let to grow up naturally as God intended, decision to determine their beauty should be left to themselves when they grow up. If they decide to do so, they should consider plastic surgery (Green, 2007, p.67).
List of References
- Beauchamn, L, Tom., & LeRoy W., (eds) 1999, Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, Wadsworth Publishers, California
- Carter, L. 2002, ‘Germ Line Gene modification. Office of Public Policy and Ethics’, Fact sheet 4, pp. 1-2.
- Gregory, S., & Campell, J. (eds.) 2000, Engineering the Human Germ Line: An Exploration of the Science and Ethics of altering the Gene We Pass to Our Children’ Oxford University Press, New York
- Green, M. Ronald. 2007, Babies by design: the of genetic choice, Yale University Press.
- Harper, C. Joyce, Delhanty, Joy, D. A., & Handyside, Alan, H, 2001, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, John Wiley and Sons.
- Kersten, E, 2008, The ethical Implication of Preimplantion Genetic Diagnosis (PDG). Web.
- Marcus, S. 2004, IVF techniques: Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), IVF-Infertility.com, Web.
- Walters. L., & Palmer, J. 1997, The ethics of Human Gene Therapy, Oxford University Press, New York.