Fowler 1

Malli Fowler

Professor Douglas

UWRT 1102

9 February 2017

Build-A-Baby

Genetically modifying an embryo has become a controversial topic scientifically and

ethically over the years with the increasing advancements of technology. There is a great deal of

speculation towards whether genetically modifying a human or making a designer baby should

be banned in the United States. As of 2014, twenty-nine nations have banned the research of

human gene modification through legislation or non-binding guidelines. (Araki and Ishii) The

United States has restricted regulations over clinical trials from The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health refuses to fund germline research on

human embryos. (Araki and Ishii) The common interest in genetically modifying an embryo is

due to the nature of removing and preventing genetically inherited diseases like Cystic Fibrosis,

Sickle-Cell Anemia and Hemophilia A. More recently, couples have shown a higher interest in

using the technology of gene mutation to create their child's sex, eye color, and other physical

features. Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director and Jessica Cussins, Project Associate for the

Center for Genetics and Society, a non-profit organization out of Berkeley, California share their

insights on why genetically modifying a human and germline engineering should be banned in

the United States. On the other hand, George Church, a Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical

School gives a more experimental insight of why the research and technology of human germline

engineering is more beneficial than harmful and should not be banned in this country.
 Fowler 2

Darnovsky and Cussins provide a systematic approach for expressing their concerns

against producing genetically modified human beings. Darnovsky states that engineering the

traits of future children crosses a threshold that is medically unnecessary and dangerous for

multiple safety and social reasons. In their article, the authors suggest that genetically

modifying a humans reproductive cells and irreversibly changing every cell in the resulting

offspring will create profound health risks to the child. They also provide a strong background

for their opinions by stating that couples can recognize genetic diseases without gene mutation

by using a FDA approved embryo-screening technique known as Preimplantation Genetic

Diagnosis (PGD). The article also touches on the social dangers of designer babies as it could

take structural inequality to a whole new level.(Cussins) The authors state that modifying an

embryo is violating a human's biological rights and could potentially damage the heritage of

humanity. The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights declares that the

human genome underlies the fundamental unity of all members of the human family, as well as

the recognition of their inherent dignity and diversity. (UNESCO) Darnowsky and Cushions

claim that altering genes would infringe this statement. The Center of Genetics and Society

pushes for the United States to join the international consensus and ban genetic modification on

humans.

On the contrary, George Church provides a higher scientific background behind his

opinions and focuses on the rights of scientist to research new medical technology. The article

informs the reader that the FDA bans all medical technology from clinical use until proven safe

and effective relative to its alternatives. Tests must show promise in human cells, animals, and

small phase 1 clinicals before the FDA will ultimately approve it for larger trials and general use.

(Church) Church argues that society should not discourage the the usual path for approval by
 Fowler 3

adding an extra ban on top of the normal restrictions. With his medical background, Church

expresses that that alternative for gene editing including Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and

somatic gene therapy after birth might turn out to be less effective and safe. He states that the

cells included in post-natal somatic gene therapy could trigger cancer and that individually

engineered sperm precursor cells should be a billion times safer than modify billions of cells in

somatic gene therapy. He suggest that genetic modification will not influence society or future

generations because society already permits practices that influenced future generations like

PGD and vaccinations with no backlash. Church claims that genetically editing humans would

benefit parents who have moral objections to creating unimplanted embryos that result from

PGD. Throughout the article, Church tells the reader that genetically modifying humans is no

different than other therapies and that the United States should not prejudge the effectiveness by

banning it.

With limited technology the United States provides for genetic modification, it can be

difficult to compromise on a verdict whether testing and research should be banned. While

Marcy Darnovsky and Jessica Cussins lack a strong medical background compared to George

Church, they expressed their information and opinions in a more effective and systematic way by

listing the reasons why they did not believe in genetic modification. The reader can easily

understand the risks, both medically and socially that come along with genetic modification on

humans. While Church gave the reader factual information about medical technology, he lacked

organization and structure to his article and all of his opinions are based off a what if and

should have scenario because he had no credible evidence due to the Unites States strict

regulations that are already set in place. Church also fails to mention the long-term effects and

risks that genetic modifications can have on an embryo and born child. While analysing the
 Fowler 4

articles the reader must remember that Darnovsky and Cussins work for a non-profit

organization, so the information they are portraying is directed towards the well-being of society

and George Church, who is a Professor at Harvard Medical School, portrays his information

towards progressive research and science. One could argue that if genetic modification research

and testing was banned in the United States we would never fully understand how genetic

modification could be beneficial and effective in the medical world. Society must consider the

medical, social, and ethical risks behind modifying the genes of our future generation before

coming to a verdict to whether to make genetic modification of humans illegal in the United

States.

Works Cited
 Fowler 5

Adams, J. U. "Manipulating the Human Genome." (2015): n. pag. CQ Researcher Online [CQ
Press]. Web. 7 Feb. 201

Motoko Araki and Tetsuya Ishii, International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective
genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinolgy, Nov.24,
2014, http://tinyurl.com/pumn8a8

Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights | United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization." Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and
Human Rights | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO,
n.d. Web. 08 Feb. 2017.