Science is quickly progressing into new frontiers that humanity once deemed areas of science fiction. The new possibilities presented with each new discovery are exciting and inspire wonder in their observers. Sometimes, however, these discoveries lead to moral outcry from groups who do not agree with the practices that they encourage. The complete sequencing of the human genome was one such discovery that has led to the use of genetic modification, a practice that many see as a morale catastrophe waiting to happen. While some believe that the use of this newfound knowledge should be banned, others think it should be used to its’ full capacity to change any attribute of a human being. This includes potential knowledge, strength, and any other physical attribute that is controlled by genetics. In essence, this technology could allow for someone to create what they deem to be the perfect human being. I, however, do not belong to either of these groups. I understand the potential benefits of both using this technology and not, but think that a certain amount of risk is necessary to achieve greatness. It is because of this that I propose that The United States limit the use of genetic modification to changes that are in response to a life-threatening condition or illness that could be prevented soon after conception. 

The problem posed by the use of the aforementioned practice is not caused by the technology itself, but more so by the tendency of imperfect people to abuse it. Genetic modification holds the key to preventing certain birth defects, cancers, and physical disabilities before the birth of the child that would have them. In a perfect world, this would be as far as most people would go to change their own offspring. However, this is not the case in our society. As is plainly obvious in our day to day occurrences, this world is far from perfect. The temptation to misuse this advancement in genetic science  is such a big deal because of how many changes it can make. Many parents, children, and corporations could benefit from the creation of enhanced children. These enhancements could result in far more intelligent humans that are stronger and vastly superior to their predecessors in a way that is only rivaled by the evolution of humans from their ancient ancestors. The morale dilemma with all of this is that giving some an advantage that is not available to all is almost undeniably unfair and could lead to an increase in discrimination. Those who are “better” will be more likely to achieve and those who cannot afford to have these procedures performed may ultimately be left behind. Also, the changing of the human genome is something that is not entirely understood by the scientific community, so changing a certain piece of DNA holds the potential to cause side effects generations from now that cannot be adequately predicted. 

When someone is going to have a child, the last thing on their mind is the possibility that he or she will be born with a life altering disease. However, for many, this is a harsh reality that drastically alters the future that they had planned. Fortunately for many parents, science has advanced in the area of genetic engineering and now potential parents can pre-select traits to ensure that their children do not have certain illnesses. In some cases, it is even possible to have a “donor sibling” with such similar DNA and traits that they can help save their older siblings with defects. In these specialized cases, the younger sibling can lend stem cells to the child who needs them so that they can live a fuller, happier life without any negative consequences to the donor. (Park 64) This shows the need for certain genetic modifications to ensure that children with life-threatening diseases can live lives free of their illnesses. Those who would disagree with this notion would argue that the donor sibling is being used for the survival of the sibling in need, but the fact of the matter is that there is no harm brought to the younger child in the process. Also, children whose lives are saved by their siblings birth will have a connection that not many siblings can say that they have, thus providing an example to tighten the bonds within their family unit. 

Genetically altering children does not begin to cross any moral lines until parents begin to enhance traits that unfairly benefit their child. (Walker 353) Parents who choose to do this can potentially have children with a higher aptitude for intelligence and increased strength. This poses a huge threat to society because due to the newness of this technology, only the wealthy can afford to have this type of procedure. Whenever they have these genetically enhanced children, they will already have a higher chance of success than those who choose to have children without altering their DNA. Inevitably, the wealth gap will vastly increase as those who are smarter will make more than those who are not. Those who are genetically smarter will pass this trait down to their children (as long as they have children with someone with the same trait) and the problem will cycle until there are almost two separate species of humans, the “enhanced” and the regular people. The need to regulate this type of procedure is dire because if we allow people to unfairly enhance their offspring, then the problems that society has already will spiral out of control. 

More-so concerning than the expansion of the wealth gap is the potential for problems to develop within the human genome as a result of changes made now. The scientific community does not fully understand the potential consequences of changing a particular sequence in human DNA at this point in time. The consequences could potentially result in the death of thousands as certain bodily functions cease. Making drastic changes to enhance the cognitive ability of a child could have adverse effects on brain development in future generations leading to cancers of the brain and early onset of memory disorders. Changes that are made now could have serious consequences in hundreds of years that would, by that point, be so far ingrained in our DNA that we would have a hard time reversing it. These complications will require further genetic modification to correct and holds the potential to lead to a catastrophic cycle that repeats itself until the human genome is so altered that it is impossible to return it and our species to its’ original state. This further shows the need for the limitation of genetic modifications at least until it is better understood.  

Naturally, there would be money to be made off of a process as unique and limitless as creating a “perfect baby”. This will inevitably lead to corporations allowing “ideology or the chase for a profit” driving them and many will attempt to exploit the industry to their advantage and to make money off of parents desiring to have offspring with certain traits. (Knoepfler) Some companies have already begun to file patents for rights to certain processes so that they can use them exclusively. The company 23andMe is one such company. They filed for a patent on a process that would allow them, and them alone, to choose what genes were expressed in the clients’ offspring. There was no limitation specified. This patent grants 23andMe the rights to genetically alter a client’s offspring however the parent so chooses with no regulation and no concern about the potential side effects that such specific modification could cause. It is understandable that business would mostly likely be the means of delivery of this product. However, filing for a patent suggests that 23andMe wants to eliminate the competition from being able to use the same technology. This is only the first step in the commercialization of genetic modification. If corporations are allowed to venture into this new frontier without any sort of regulation, they will undermine the importance of human reproduction and having children will become more about class than it will be about the sanctity of a human life. 

The need for regulation in the genetic modification industry is undeniable. The possibility for unfairly enhanced humans threatens a social structure that has taken years for this country to develop and slowly correct. The potential damage that altering unknown sections of DNA could cause are just as profound as the original discoveries are themselves. The unforeseen illness and death that changing the wrong portion of DNA could potentially lead to far outweigh any benefit of altering drastic portions of a child’s genome. Furthermore, the greed of people with the power to commercialize this industry has the potential to undermine the importance of a human life. This could turn having a child into a social statement fueled by the desire to show one’s financial prowess as opposed to a special and sacred moment. It is because of these risks that I have proposed that the US limit genetic modifications use to that of healing and disease prevention. This option provides the cures that many people need with a fraction of the risk. 

As was previously stated, the solution to the problem facing the scientific community is to regulate the use of this technology. Other countries, like Britain, have already instituted legislation involving genetic modification, limiting it to life-saving instances only, but they have allowed for certain instances of scientific study where scientists can use DNA modification for scientific study. This goes to show that other countries have already faced the moral dilemmas that we are facing and have come up with viable solutions that not only solve their problems, but appease the groups arguing for both full use and no use of genetic modification. (Scientific American, 29) However, it is clear that some are already succumbing to the temptation to use GM for other purposes, as demonstrated by their recent testing. I propose that the United States follow in the footsteps of Britain and regulate these processes in the same way that they did, except allowing for more leeway when it comes to determining what a life-saving situation is. For example, it could be argued that a disability is not life-threatening, but it will definitely cause some undue struggle upon the family of the child. In these situations I propose that The United States lessen the regulation and allow for parents to be selective about the traits their child gets in order to prevent disabilities and diseases. Instead of just preventing those that threaten their life in the immediate future, I think that disabilities should be treated with just as much concern and swiftness so that children all over this country can live with expanded opportunity without the limitation of disability. This could be accomplished by introducing a bill in a House sub-committee and moving it through the House and into the Senate, where it would be voted on by state representatives before it went to The President for approval. It is at this point that he could ultimately alter the course of human history for better by regulating the use of certain processes to disease prevention until the repercussions of certain changes are better understood. 

This is ultimately the best course of action because it allows for those who agree with full use of genetic modification to use it and study its’ effects, but also appeases those who think that meddling with the DNA of a child is unethical and should be banned at all costs. Those for it should understand the risks involved and respect the needs of their own species and those who are against it should feel for the families of children that are to be born with a disability or a disease. This will eventually lead to elimination of diseases and disabilities caused by genetics because children with altered DNA will pass down the healthy traits to their children and so on. The elimination of disabilities is a profound notion, but not one that is totally out of reach for humankind. If genetic modification is limited and used in a responsible manner, then the benefits for our species will be almost inconceivable to our generation. In fact, most changes that will occur will most likely be after several generations have passed as it will take several of them for major diseases to become scarce. 

However, some would argue that limiting genetic modification is counterproductive and slows science unnecessarily. They argue that we know just as much about disease causing DNA segments as we do others and that the risks are just as great for those processes as well. They believe that allowing humans to create “designer babies” will lead to a superior human race for all because as people propagate the human race, traits will be passed on to all people eventually. (DeFrancesco, 8) It is also arguable that the commercialization of genetic modification is necessary because without it, there would be no competition and thus higher prices for this technology to customers. This reduction in price could potentially bring this product to the everyday “working class citizen” and create a more even dispersal of technology and lessening the wage gap because everyone will become more intelligent together as opposed to in separate classes. However, these are false notions. The genes that cause defects such as down-syndrome have already been identified and can be fixed very soon post-conception. Also, conditions would have to be impossibly perfect for the creation of “designer babies” to ultimately create a singular, superior human race. The greed of those with more power would prevent this from ever occurring. 

Ultimately, the unrestricted use of genetic modification presents far more risks and chance based opportunities for error than regulating it does. The life saving opportunities that it provides are priceless and will lead to improvement of the lives of children and the families of children that would have otherwise been born with disabilities. Children who might have died soon after birth will now be saved because of this revolutionary procedure and restricting it completely would be a completely illogical path to take. Not liming it at all also presents its’ own unique set of problems because the greed of imperfect people will fuel the need to commercialize this process and take the intimacy and sanctity out of creating a new human life. Also, parents who want to give their children an unfair advantage would engage in a procedure that would grant their children with the potential for abilities that those born without specialized DNA would not have. Mostly importantly, however, is the potential for future damage to the genome of humans who will live hundreds, if not thousands of years from now. Decisions that science makes today could greatly affect the people of the future if the repercussions of our actions are not taken into account. The only responsible course of action is to restrict the use of genetic modification to that of life-saving situation and disease prevention so that the temptation to further change the human genome is deterred. 
