Neil deGrasse Tyson once said, “Science literacy is the artery through which the solutions of tomorrow's problems flow.” Understanding the systems in which all beings must function is the key to furthering human existence in all aspects. One of those systems is genetic engineering, the key to our future. Genetic engineering is a technology only a few decades old, and as such is still in its infant stage of scientific knowledge and development; what we have learned so far could change every aspect of our lives. Genetic engineering will reestablish how and what we eat, as well as allow us to edit the genetic makeup of any organism, including ourselves. The only obstacle in the path of manifest destiny for supreme human potential is the core of humanity, that is morality. 

Humans have been genetically engineering food for a few hundred years, just not in the traditional sense of the term (Uzogara 183). Cross-fertilizing plants to produce the most viable traits, or breeding cattle to reap larger payloads of meat are basic forms of genetic engineering, but they often produce random offspring and do not produce concrete results for many years. It wasn’t until the 1960s that actual genetic engineering using advanced methods began. The first genetically modified organism was a potato (Uzogara 183). Researchers from Pennsylvania State University collaborated with Wise Potato Chip Company to produce a larger potato to reap a greater quantity of potato chips. These chips were soon taken off the market after it was discovered these genetically modified potatoes were producing a toxin potentially harmful to consumers. This event in the timeline of genetic engineering was important not only because it was the first actual use of genetic modification in the food market, but also because it demonstrated the possible unexpected effects of genetic engineering. 

It wasn’t until 1979 that the genetic modification of food began again, but this time it was focused on cattle (Uzogara 184). Researchers at Cornell University developed a growth hormone for cattle to increase their milk production capacity to all new lengths. This growth hormone is still used today, except in more precise forms to increase milk production capacity even further. This new form of genetic modification caused a vast interest in the research of genetic modification of the food industry, and thus heeded government oversight. From 1983 to 1989 the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency were all given administrative and legislative powers to oversee genetic modification of food to protect consumers from possible harm, as well as to regulate the market. 1994 marked the year that the first genetically modified food product was made available to the consumer market, that is the Flavr Savr Tomato (Uzogara 184). This tomato was genetically modified to have a greater shelf life by extending its ripening process.

Since, the market has been introduced to many genetically modified fruits and vegetables, as well as many processed products containing genetically modified crops. According to USA Today, 40 percent to 75 percent of food in the typical supermarket contains genetically engineered ingredients (Weise, 2012). To many, this statistic can appear quite alarming, but it shouldn’t. People are afraid of genetically modified food because they believe it can harm them, or because it makes food less “natural.” This is all paranoia as the FDA, USDA, and the EPA would never allow for products that could potentially be harmful to consumers to enter the market. These agencies conduct research on genetically engineering crops, because ultimately the government wants what is best for its citizens. For instance, an apple that has been genetically modified to never brown when left in the open-air hit shelves in early February (Dewey, 2017). This apple will show skeptics the convenience of genetically modified food, preventing apples from going to waste and providing slight convenience. Genetically engineered crops are not grown in a lab, they are grown from the ground like all vegetation. It does not go against the natural order, if anything it is pushing the human potential of natural selection to new limits as we are now growing food that is larger, can last longer, and more nutritious. 

The ‘naturalness’ of genetic engineering was put into question when researchers, philosophers, and politicians in Norway discussed the “animal integrity” of genetically modifying animal production for consumption (Bovenkerk et al, 16). “Animal integrity” refers to the natural-born characteristics that animals are entitled to. These Norwegian intellectuals believe farms should be adjusted to the chicken, and not to those who created the farm. That is, chickens are being used and altered for what they offer, instead of being cherished for what they give. This moral-based philosophy implies that chickens deserve the same sentient respect that humans handle for each other. This is not so much animal integrity, as it is human integrity. Human beings have attained intelligence far greater than any other creature on Earth, thus putting us at the top of the food chain. Is it not the right of humans to reap the rewards we sow? Industrializing the meat industry benefits the consumer immensely, as now the food chain is more convenient. We get more nutritious food, in larger quantities, at a faster rate. It is not at our disposal to worry about the rights of the chicken, but instead humans are focused on the rights laid out to us by natural selection.

As is reputed by natural selection, humans have the right to wage war on what makes us-us, that is to wage war on our own DNA. Within the last decade, one of the most important discoveries in the history of mankind was made when scientists at Umea University in Sweden and scientists at the University of California, Berkeley both discovered the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system (Broad Institute, 2017). CRISPR stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, which really doesn’t give much insight into what it is. Think of it as a DNA archive, that can be added to or taken from. CRISPR is a defense mechanism used by bacteria to fight off their enemies, bacteriophages (Kurzgesagt, 2016). When a bacteriophage attacks bacteria, it does so in a fashion similar to a virus; it inserts its DNA into host cells of the bacteria to recode the cell’s nucleus and make copies of itself. To combat this, bacteria have developed a way to edit their own DNA. By using what is called a Cas-9 protein, the bacteria put a snippet of the parasitic bacteriophage DNA into its own DNA, so that when it is being attacked the Cas-9 protein can simply destroy the harmful bacteriophage DNA. Now, how does this relate to us as humans? The Cas-9 protein is incredibly precise, that is it can target exact locations on the seemingly indefinite strand of DNA. It wasn’t until recently that scientists discovered that the CRISPR/Cas-9 system could be programmed (Doudna and Charpentier, 2014). Essentially, you give CRISPR the DNA you want to modify, then you insert it into a living cell. CRISPR is one of the greatest discoveries of the scientific world, it allows us to do whatever we please to the DNA of any organism be it animal, plant, microorganisms, or humans. 

There have only been a few studies thus far to test what CRISPR can do, but that will grow tenfold within the coming years. Researchers in Germany tested out the use of CRISPR to edit the plant genome to understand its applications in the field of sustainable food practices (Belhaj et al, 2013). In their experiment the researchers used the CRISPR/Cas9 system to assess its usability in plants, more specifically on Arabidopsis and rice. It was found that there was a success rate of 89 percent for Arabidopsis and 92 percent for rice, showing the mutation that was targeted. This experiment was not performed to witness groundbreaking mutations that could have drastic impacts on let’s say the food industry, but it was simply performed to test how easily it was to use the CRISPR/Cas-9 system on plants by measuring the success rate. The researchers did bring up an interesting question in their study that provokes much thought into the applications of this technology, “Will the genetic changes induced in the plants be inherited by the subsequent generations?” This question will surely be answered in the future, but this technology is still very new so there are only a few studies on its applications. Recently, however, a study was conducted on actual human and mice cells to test the application of CRISPR on such.

A joint group of researchers from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology tested the use of CRISPR/Cas-9 in human and mouse cells to assess the quality of its application (Cong et al, 2013). The study conducted had three main goals: to cleave, or cut, an exact genomic loci in human and mouse cells, to fix a “mistake” in the layout of a DNA sequence, and to encode multiple guide sequence on a single CRISPR array. Cong and his team could do all of these things successfully in the human and mouse cells, with no evidence of unexpected mutations, or error, in the edited DNA. This study demonstrates the wide applicable use and simple programmability of the CRISPR/Cas-9 technology. 

There are three main foreseeable applications of CRISPR when dealing with humans: the end of disease, being able to “design” your children, and to potentially be immortal (Kurzgesagt, 2016). At first glance, it may be hard to process how impactful this will be on society. Imagine a world without disease. There would be no need to fear the creeping toll of suffering or death that is cancer. The dread of learning your child will be born with an inevitable genetic disease will be relinquished. These major life-threatening diseases and more will eventually be eliminated in a simple procedure that will work similarly to getting a flu shot. Another societal change will be the introduction of “designer babies.”

CRISPR will one day allow parents to make choices as to who their children are physically and mentally (Knoepfler, 2015). This means being able to give your child perfect eyesight, a full head of hair, increased muscle tone and strength, or even the gift of intelligence. These choices may one day be possible, and incite along with it many ethical issues. In his Ted Talk, Paul Knoepfler brings up the issues that come along with being able to design children. Although bestowing your child with attributes such as intelligence sounds absolutely wonderful, it could very well cause a divide in society between those who are gifted and those who are not. The first division will be brought about by distinctions within economic class. Not everyone will be able to afford designing their children, which will be unfair because all parents want what is best for their children. Second, a form of discrimination will form between those who are gifted and those who are not. Those with gifted intelligence may be allowed entry to certain schools that those who are essentially normal would not be accepted to. Lastly, this could give way to a society in ruins because the gifted and the non-gifted will not have an understanding of each other. The gifted may very well rule the world, and enslave those who are not gifted, or the non-gifted could rise against the gifted and commit genocide out of ignorance and misunderstanding. All of this seems very outlandish and brandishes a sort of dystopian future you would find in a novel, but there are those that foresee this being a very possible future if certain precautions are not taken.

How is it we can combat this and avoid the atrocities human civilization could one day face? The answer lies within our governance, and the legislation they pass. It will mean being forced to make exceptions and looking at all aspects of these exceptions. Of course, once one exception is made more are to follow. This subsequent order and desire will have to be managed with thorough restraint by both politicians and the people they represent. An exception that will be made will be the genocide of genetic disease. Once the technology has become more advanced, it will seem not ending genetic disease would be deemed unethical as doing so could end so much pain and suffering. This sort of legislation is already beginning to be passed, starting in even a very conservative modern country, that is the United Kingdom. Kathy Niakan, a stem cell scientist at the Francis Crick Institute in London, was given licensure by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to perform gene editing on human embryos (Siddique, 2016). This comes in part with the idea that if something is to be done to end genetic disease, then it should be done. It is hopeful that many other countries will follow in these steps.

Lastly, there is the possibility of age reversal. With the discovery of CRISPR comes along with it all the applications of its use. Aging is caused mostly by the shortening of telomeres, which are essentially end caps on strands of DNA that protect our chromosomes (Filsinger, 2016). As time goes on telomeres weaken, DNA strands are damaged, and cells can no longer perform their roles. It is this that needs to be targeted, and to do this, cells essentially need to be “reprogrammed.” Filsinger states, “The ideal reprogramming therapy would be a method that resets cellular age without fully reverting the cell to an embryonic-like state.” This is the main challenge of overcoming aging. It would be easier to change a cell into the state it was in when you are an embryo, but the cell is then useless as it can’t function as it should. Thus, the CRISPR/Cas-9 system could be used to edit the parts of the genome that cause telomeres to shorten. The problem with this is discovering which genes need to be targeted, as well as the unforeseen mutations that could be caused to the subject. 

Genetic engineering is a field of study and work that encompasses furthering the interests and functionality of mankind. This is done today in most part through genetically modifying our food so that it tastes better, yields larger quantities, and lasts longer. Many people are afraid that genetically modifying our food is in some form dangerous and unethical, but these are just claims backed by paranoia and ignorance of the unknown. Genetic modification exists to be convenient to our needs, and even makes our days more wholesome. This ‘wholesomeness’ will be furthered by the likes of the CRISPR/Cas-9 system that will one day allow us to edit ourselves. Imagine eradicating disease and death, a utopian future that could be our own. It is important we do not limit ourselves by denying these opportunities as we only get one life, and that life should be more precious than anything.
