Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
x
H
OW
W
OULD
Y
OU
V
OTE
?
Should we legalize the pro-
duction of human clones if a reasonably safe technology
for doing so becomes available? Cast your vote online at
http://biology.brookscole.com/miller11.
How might such genetic developments affect re-
source use, pollution, and environmental degrada-
tion? If everyone could live with good health as long
as they wanted for a price, sellers of body makeovers
would encourage customers to line up. Each of these
affluent, long-lived people could have an enormous
ecological footprint for perhaps centuries.
Ethics: What Are Our Options?
Arguments persist about how much we should
regulate genetic engineering research and
development.
In the 1990s, a backlash developed against the increas-
ing use of genetically modified food plants and ani-
mals. Some protesters argue passionately against this
new technology for a variety of mostly ethical reasons.
Others advocate slowing down the technological rush
and taking a closer look at the short- and long-term ad-
vantages and disadvantages of this and other rapidly
emerging genetic technologies.
At the very least, they say, all genetically modified
crops and animal products and foods containing such
components should be clearly labeled as such. Such la-
bels would give consumers a more informed choice,
much like the food labels that list ingredients and nu-
tritional information. Makers of genetically modified
products strongly oppose such labeling because they
fear it would hurt sales.
Supporters of genetic engineering wonder why
there is so much concern. After all, we have been ge-
netically modifying plants and animals for centuries.
Now we have a faster, better, and perhaps cheaper
way to do it, so why not use it?
Proponents of more careful control of genetic engi-
neering counter that most new technologies have had
unintended harmful consequences. For example, pes-
ticides have helped protect crops from insect pests and
disease. Wonderful. At the same time, their overuse
has accelerated genetic evolution in many species,
which have become resistant to many of the most
widely used pesticides. The pesticides have also unin-
tentionally wiped out many natural predator insects
that helped keep crop pest populations under control.
The ecological lesson: Whenever we intervene in
nature we must pause and ask, “What happens next?”
That explains why many analysts urge caution before
rushing into genetic engineering and other forms of
biotechnology without more careful evaluation of
their unintended consequences and more stringent
regulation of this new technology.
Figure 4-12
An example of genetic engineering. The six-
month-old mouse on the left is normal; the same-age mouse on
the right has a human growth hormone gene inserted in its
cells. Mice with the human growth hormone gene grow two to
three times faster and reach a size twice that of mice without
the gene.
new gene will be located in the DNA molecule's struc-
ture and how this will affect the organism.
Genetic engineering is a trial-and-error process
with
many failures and unexpected results. Indeed, the aver-
age success rate of genetic engineering experiments is
only about 1%.
The application of our increasing genetic knowl-
edge holds great promise, but it raises some serious eth-
ical and privacy issues. For example, some people have
genes that make them more likely to develop certain
genetic diseases or disorders. We now have the power
to detect these genetic deficiencies, even before birth.
This possibility raises some important issues. If
gene therapy is developed for correcting these defi-
ciencies, who will get it? Will it be reserved mostly for
the rich? Will it lead to more abortions of genetically
defective fetuses? Will health insurers refuse to insure
people with certain genetic defects that could lead to
health problems? Will employers refuse to hire them?
Some people dream of a day when our genetic
engineering prowess could eliminate death and aging
altogether. As a person's cells, organs, or other parts
wear out or become damaged, they would be re-
placed with new ones. These replacement parts might
be grown in genetic engineering laboratories or bio-
pharms. Or people might choose to have a clone
available for spare parts.
Is it moral to take this path? Who will decide?
Who will regulate this activity? Will genetically de-
signed humans and clones have the same legal rights
as people?
