Political Issues Associated with Genetic Engineering
The political ramifications of genetic engineering (GE) are widespread, cross-disciplinary, and fundamental in nature. Questions involving everything from basic human rights, moral considerations of the unborn, and property protection, to safety and disclosure, arise across the various disciplines and industries which apply genetic engineering technologies. DELTAFORCE1, a leading GE advocate, takes the position that GE technologies hold great potential for both the individual and the business, and that this potential should be realized to better the lives of millions worldwide; however, a policy of strict regulation should be adopted to protect the basic rights of the individuals and corporations in the political arena.
DELTAFORCE1 takes a moderate position which seeks to promote the successful implementation of GE technologies while maintaining the rights of all involved, and urges the reader to voice their support by, for example, composing a letter to the editor, writing their congressman, or voting for officials that support the responsible implementation of GE.
DELTAFORCE1 takes a moderate position which seeks to promote the successful implementation of GE technologies while maintaining the rights of all involved, and urges the reader to voice their support by, for example, composing a letter to the editor, writing their congressman, or voting for officials that support the responsible implementation of GE.
Human Issues
There are two basic GE applications for humans: diagnosis of hereditary diseases, and gene therapy for treatment of those diseases and possibly, in the future, the creation of so-called “designer babies.” Many agree that the use of GE technologies to diagnosis potentially life-threating diseases is advantageous; certainly, testing someone to determine their risk of sickle-cell anemia can lead to earlier and more effective treatment. The political issue is whether insurance companies and employers should have access to the results of GE tests; employers wish to know if their employees are capable of continuing work and for how long, and insurance companies wish to save money whenever possible. It is the position of DELTAFORCE1, however, the the patient has an expectation of privacy, except in cases where the presence of a genetic disease (identified through GE testing) directly affects the rights of another individual or individuals beyond the patient's immediate family. Medical history is a private matter, and should be treated as such.
A second implementation of GE in humans is gene therapy. Again, the use of gene therapy to treat genetically-based diseases is rarely opposed, but much more complex issues arise when considering the unborn. Prenatal testing can, and often is, performed. Should, therefore, a couple who's unborn child is diagnosed with Tay-Sachs disease, which inevitably results in death before age four, be able to abort their child? Here lie major ethical issues, and DELTAFORCE1 will only go so far as to say that the government has limited authority beyond existing, widespread legislation to decide for the couple. A slightly less controversial issue involves influencing the genome of an unborn child to either cure genetic diseases through gene therapy, or bestow “preferred” genetic traits on the child. The question here is whether the child has the right to a unique genome. Here DELTAFORCE1 answers “yes,” but with the qualification that gene therapy is acceptable to prevent the development of a potentially debilitating or life-threating disease or disorder. Again, the final decision should rest with the parents. Altering the genes of an unborn child for purely cosmetic reasons, however, is another issue, and here DELTAFORCE1 re-asserts the right of that child to a unique genome, and to individuality. The parents do not, in this case, have the right to alter their child's genes. |
Agricultural Issues
The use of GE in agriculture raises issues of a primarily economic nature. Genetically modified crops (GMCs) are the main implementation of GE in agriculture. Existing crops are genetically modified to display certain desirable traits, such as resistance to disease, greater environmental endurance, longer shelf lives, etc. Corporations invest millions of dollars to create successful GMCs, and as such wish to protect their intellectual property by restricting distribution of their GMC seed (i.e., only they may sell it, and its use without their consent is illegal). It seems difficult, however, to control a self-replicating product, and it is the position of DELTAFORCE1 that companies have a right to protect their intellectual property, but the enforcement of such is extremely difficult. The government should facilitate property protection, but some of the burden of enforcement lies on the corporations themselves and within their distribution systems and product lines.
Another GE issue related to agriculture is, of course, safety: are GMCs safe? It is certainly conceivable that they might be harmful; altering the genetic makeup of any organism is risky at best. It is the position of DELTAFORCE1 that governments should directly test and regulate GMCs for safety purposes, and that they must thoroughly evaluate each new GMC before its introduction to the market. Once approved, it should not be necessary to label GMC foods as such when sold; if they are proven safe, labeling will neither help the consumer nor the producer, and companies should choose to label at their own digression. |