As I continue my studies in Biomedical Engineering seeing the material, experimenting with the processes, etc. I start to realize that today's news stories in science are often times ethically conflicting more so than ideologically conflicting. The principles in science remain true over centuries; they are tested and repeated to expand upon, but the fundamentals behind the basics of human life remain relatively static. Now it is often a question as to whether these new tests and solutions are ethically sound enough to be put into daily lives of patients that will be directly affected. Should a new medication be used to treat a patient when the long-term effects are unknown? Should it be legal for individuals to buy organs for transplant? Questions like these remain and are much beyond the average questions asking in science. An example of this, the up and coming topic of genetic manipulation of embryos, affects the population on a large scale, and I do not believe it is ethically sound enough to be used worldwide. 

Human reproduction is a life process that the majority of individuals have the choice take part in in their lifetime. It goes hand in hand with the scientific process of evolution from generation from generation, naturally selecting the traits in offspring that will best suit their environment. This allows for the adaptation, which is ultimately essential for survival. However, the key factor to evolution and the selection of these traits is that it is a natural process. Imagine being able to choose which traits a child will be born with. That idea is no longer hypothetical, but now a definitive truth of the scientific world. It is in fact possible to choose the traits of a child just as you would choose the components of your sandwich. Instead of turkey, cheese, and tomatoes, anyone could be choosing blue eyes, brown hair, and the athleticism capacity of Kobe Bryant.  The important issue of this discovery is the ethical concern, which is stopping it from being pronounced as an option for soon-to-be parents (Green, Ronald M.). As soon as the debacle is settled, it will be determined whether genetic manipulation of babies is practiced globally. 

In an article by Renuka Sivapatham, a research associate for Buck Institute for Research on Aging, a program with the capabilities of actually carrying out this genetic engineering is explored. This system, the CRISPR/CaS9, has the capability to manipulate DNA by changing the sequences of the linkages. It has been successful on several organisms (Sivapatham, Renuka). So the process is possible, but it should not be used for several safety reasons. The long-term effects are unknown for this system. People would be at a huge risk for problems later on in their lives and even in their children's lives. Since genetic manipulation is involving reproduction, the problems could go on for centuries if something goes very wrong. Safety should be a main consideration for this new process because there are a lot more unknowns and not just one generation is affected.  

Over time, since this is a process that affects multiple generations, it will create an economic divide between people who can afford this process and those who cannot. This problem would be similar to a current problem with a procedure of plastic surgery. In society now, if a person is unhappy with the way he/she looks, surgery is an option to correct the 'imperfection.' However, this is only an option for someone who can afford it. However, with genetic engineering of embryos, this corrected 'imperfection' would not only affect the individual, but his/her children, grandchildren and so on. Eventually it will create a huge economic divide by class.  A wealthy upper-class member of society could have the capability of spending mass amounts of money to create the perfect children -- smartest, most athletic, most attractive, overall more favorable than the average person. That perfect child would have perfect children, and grand children, and so on, thus creating this bubble of perfection due to their wealth. Those who could not afford this genetic modification would fall behind in education, in job application, and in many aspects of life. This would create a very large tension among socioeconomic groups that would be counterproductive in our movement for equality. Outbreaks would occur and it would bring about a competitive aggressive atmosphere in the world.  Overall, our world is not ready to handle all of these conflicts (Fineberg, Harvey V.).

Dr. Francis Collins announced the policies of the US National Institute of Health as far as giving out funding for research involving this genetic engineering. According to this recent statement of April 2015, NIH will not fund any practices of the manipulation of genes on humans or the technologies needed to do so. They claim that after taking many perspectives into account, it is very collectively seen as a practice that should not be allowed for several reasons including safety, ethics, and no consent of the next generation that will be directly affected. Additionally, there are legislative exclusions as well that are already in place. The Dickey-Wicker amendment, added to a bill passed by President Clinton in 1995 forbids the Department of Health and Human Services from funding for research purposes in which the human embryo is created or destroyed (Collins, Fancis S.). The US National Institute of Health is a government program that is looking out for the best of our nation. Their decision to not fund the process of genetic engineering is indicative of the best interest of our country. The more programs that fund its production, the more quickly the US will adopt genetic engineering into society. Therefore, the US National Institute of Health is making the best decision by not funding genetic modification of embryos.

In contrast to the NIH's lack of funding, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) in the FDA, does grant funding for human gene therapy and its technologies. The CBER uses the Public Health Service Act and Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to as a basis for their principles and supervision. However, the funding allowed by the CBER is strictly for medical gene engineering, including no cosmetic procedures. It allows for funding for treating a condition in which there is no cure, by altering the patient's DNA to substitute in for defective genetic material. Although they allow funding for these procedures to be done, they do not approve of any therapy products to be sold for the general population. Overall, it is important to note their funding is strictly for medical purposes and no cosmetic procedures may be altered genetically so their viewpoint encourages general health but not aesthetic enhancement. It is important that CBER is allowing funding strictly for medical advancements; however it will still not be effective. It will be very difficult to keep a boundary between genetic engineering for medical and aesthetic uses. Even technologies in use today such as the Internet are overused and become out of control. If genetic engineering is introduced, people will most likely overuse it, negatively impact the next generation to its entirety. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in the FDA should definitely reconsider its decision to fund genetic engineering.

Upperclassman students in college and other older individuals who pursued careers without going to college were both interviewed and their responses were recorded about this topic to show the average person's opinion. They were asked questions such as if parents should be allowed to change the eye color of their children, and responses varied from thinking it is their choice or that it is not morally just. Overall, however, most of the individuals found some moral issue in each of the scenarios. One example is, they were all asked if there are any moral principles behind gene therapy (replacing defective genes with normal ones) and one such person responded saying that it simply is not okay. He/she believed that it is messing with the normal life processes. However, when the topic was singled in on using gene therapy to destroy SCID (immunodeficiency diseases), opinions were swayed. Majority of people believed that it would be morally wrong to not take action with the power to fix a disease. Several life consequences such as health improvements, diversity, social stratification, and societal betterment were explored in this interview and the results are divided throughout each subcategory. (Sadler, Troy D., and Dana L. Zeidler).  This shows the varying opinions about the topic of genetic engineering throughout the general public. Being that there is no clear opinion, if it were introduced it would cause an up-roar from the many people who saw it to be wrong. It will add to the tension throughout society, not only between economic classes, but between average people. 

A news article from BBC news claims, "It is "essential" that the genetic modification of human embryos is allowed, says a group of scientists, ethicists and policy experts."  The opening line of the article, was my exact counterargument. Genetic modification will alter the natural life processes, create an economic divide in society, and will become overused. The article states the genetic engineering can be used to treat illnesses in babies, which I think could be beneficial. However, if this process is instilled in our society, I predict that it will become overused and instead of being strictly used for medicine, it will be used for aesthetics. "And because these changes would not be passed on to the next generation, they are far less controversial," the article states (Gallagher, James. "GM Embryos 'essential', Says Report). However, changes would be passed down from generation to generations as the embryos that receive these changes reproduce. This article accurately represents the medias' take on the debacle, pushing for the 'new and trendy' ideas and making bold statements that may not be completely accurate. 

According to another article from BBC News from February 1st, 2016, "UK scientists have been given the go-ahead by the fertility regulator to genetically modify human embryos." This marks a huge step for the pro-gene manipulation population. The UK has firmly marked their decision of allowing it throughout the country despite the ethical oppositions. This decision could even have a profound impact on the decisions of other countries as well. Dr. Kathy Niakan, the leader of the research, will take fertilized eggs in the first seven days after fertilization and experiment with them. The author explains Dr. Niakan's hopes for her work, "Earlier this year, she [Dr. Niakan] explained why she had applied to edit human embryos: "We would really like to understand the genes needed for a human embryo to develop successfully into a healthy baby." She says that only thirteen of every one hundred eggs actually make it to become babies of at least three months old, and she would like to gain a better understanding of the reasoning behind this, while also working to improve it with the gene mutations. Many are in favor of her work, but many strongly oppose, as it remains a global disagreement. The article states,"Dr Sarah Chan, from the University of Edinburgh, said: "The use of genome editing technologies in embryo research touches on some sensitive issues, therefore it is appropriate that this research and its ethical implications have been carefully considered by the HFEA before being given approval to proceed" (Gallagher, James. "Scientists Get 'gene Editing' Go-ahead). It is ultimately evident that the UK is aware of the ethical concerns of creating "perfect babies" and chooses to accept this idea as a possibility in the country. Being that this is such a recent article, it may start a chain reaction to other countries; that is why it is necessary to be aware of all the negative effects of the process of genetic engineering.

Every person is affected by the debacle of genetic engineering of embryos. Reproduction is the process that keeps our world going, creates our generations, our society, which make up our nation. Genetic engineering may seem to have many positive benefits in the medical world; however, ultimately it will be malevolent to our nation. It will alter the normal processes of natural reproduction of which we are built upon. It will cause tension between different groups of people of all ages. This tension will not stop as this generation ends. It will continue for years as these changes in the embryo cannot be reversed. The long-term safety effects are unknown, and introducing the process of genetic engineering of embryos at this point is a huge risk. Opinions in the US are scattered and other countries are acting. The UK is the first country to officially allow the genetic manipulation of a fetus to be practiced country-wide.  Renuka, a professional in the field of science, believes that is it important for every country to develop guidelines that will reflect their ideas on the processes of genomic engineering on humans. The National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine along with the scientists who discovered CRISPR/CaS9 will be working together to create these guidelines for our country. They believe it will prompt other countries to do the same, creating a worldwide awareness (Sivapatham, Renuka). So have your voice be heard as we create the guidelines for our country, and say no to the genetic modification of an embryo. 

