Genetic engineering is a topic of intense debate at the moment. Even though often associated with concepts like designer babies and a dystopian future, genetic modifications are already present and utilized in our arguably not-so-dystopian reality, as seen in GMO (genetically modified organisms) crops and disease treatments. This essay evaluates the value genetic engineering brings and the ethical implications it raises, presenting genetic modifications as a valuable tool with great potential.

Origins of Genetic Engineering: Background and History

Genetic engineering is a “process that uses laboratory-based technologies to alter the DNA makeup of an organism,” including plants, animals, and microbes (National Human Genome Research Institute; Shoemaker-Kiess and Socha). The history of genetic engineering research dates to the 1960s, when scientists made important discoveries like DNA ligase and restriction enzymes. These breakthroughs paved the way for DNA splicing experiments and recombinant DNA (rDNA) (“History of Genetic”). In 1974, a moratorium was posed on research in genetic engineering because of the ethical dangers associated with genetic engineering, and the Asilomar Conference was held the following year, where scientists made agreements on ethical ideas surrounding genetic engineering, which are still used to this day (“History of Genetic”).

In the decades that ensued, genetic engineering was used on plants, animals, and drug production. In 2001, Glivec, a gene-targeted drug to treat cancer, was approved by the U.S. FDA, opening a history of applying genetic engineering for disease treatment on humans (“History of Genetic”). In 1993, the principles of CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats) were discovered, and nineteen years later, the mechanism behind CRISPR was elucidated. This became a simple and efficient tool for genetic modification.

Genetic Modification in Agriculture

Genetic engineering allows DNA modification in plants, which enables people to improve the efficiency of agriculture. Genetically modified organisms refer to “organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination” (World Health Organization). Genetic modification in plants has allowed scientists to develop hardier crops, such as drought-resistant maize. One variety of this maize, referred to as MON 87460, was developed through the incorporation of cspB, a gene that naturally occurs in soil bacterium (Nemali et al. 1683-961)

Drought-resistant maize benefits farmers and agriculture industries in areas prone to drought, and will benefit more people as the effects of climate change intensifies. The Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa project brought 60 drought resistant hybrids to 13 countries in sub-Saharan Africa between 2007 and 2012. As a result, farmers’ yields increased by 20-30%, and grain worth increased by $160-200 million annually in drought- affected areas, generating up to $1.5 billion in benefits for producers and consumers (CIMMYT; “Global Coalition”). Drought-resistant maize provides a solution for agriculture in drought-affected areas, giving people the ability to sustain their own food source without having to completely rely on imports. In addition, climate change contributes to rising temperatures and reduced rainfall, leading to to more frequent droughts (Kim and Lee). Maize is sensitive to drought, and hot, dry weather during its fertilization stages can significantly reduce yield. Climate change may lead to a decrease in maize yield in many regions that were not drought-affected previously, leading to an increase in need for drought- resistant maize in those areas.

Although traditional agricultural methods like simple selection and crossing also select for desirable traits in crops, they are not as efficient practices when urgent problems, like food insecurity, must be addressed swiftly (National Research Council). Traditional crossing introduces many traits along with the resistance trait of interest, including traits that may be undesirable (Yin and Qiu). On the other hand, genetic engineering technologies can execute precise nucleotide substitutions and targeted DNA deletions and insertions (Gao 1621-35). Backcrossing is a useful technique in classical crossing to obtain specific traits associated with one or few genes. However, this process requires breeding for multiple generations to remove unwanted traits and is time consuming, taking at least two to three years (Ag Biosafety). Additionally, traditional crossing methods can only be performed on plants that can mate with each other, which may pose limitations on the traits a plant can obtain (Yin and Qiu). On the other hand, genetic engineering methods like transgenic crossing allows plants to obtain traits from any organism, like bacteria or other plants it cannot mate with (Gao 1621-35). Genetic engineering, therefore, is more advantageous than traditional methods because of its precision, speed, and access to a wide variety of traits.

Genetic Engineering in Human Medicine and its Limitations

Genetic engineering has multiple applications in humans, some of which are gene therapy, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, and synthetic biology. Gene therapy can be used to cure diseases through gene addition or gene editing. Gene addition utilizes a vector to deliver genetic sequences, while gene editing uses tools like CRISPR-Cas9, where a guide RNA locates the specific sequence to be edited and the Cas9 protein breaks the DNA (National Cancer Institute). These therapies have proven effective in treatments for diseases like sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis (US Food and Drug Administration). CAR T-cell therapy,on the other hand, uses genetic engineering to treat cancer by adding a gene for the chimeric antigen receptor to the T cells extracted from the patient’s blood. The addition of this receptor helps T cells attach to specific cancer’s antigens, allowing them to launch an immune response to cancer cells (American Medical Society).

However, genetic engineering has limitations and risks in both gene therapy and CAR-T cell therapy. During reported trials, gene therapy faces variability in the levels of engraftment of gene-corrected cells (Kohn et al. 738-46). Gene therapies using adeno-associated virus (AAV) as a vector face the challenge of durability, where recurring doses might be necessary to achieve a long-lasting therapy. However, the adaptive immune response after initial dosing causes the new doses to be neutralized before reaching its target tissue, which is a challenge for the durability and efficacy of AAV therapies. The genetic sequence carried by vectors can pose risks of genotoxicity, potentially causing the cellular transcripts to be truncated prematurely when the vector integrates into introns (Kohn et al. 738-46).

CAR T-cell therapy also presents challenges, especially when used on solid tumors. This is because solid tumor antigens are often expressed on normal tissues as well, making it difficult to target specific malignant cells. Despite these limitations and risks, genetic engineering remains a valuable cancer treatment option.

Genetic Engineering in Embryos: Ethics and Social Disparities

Beyond genetic engineering in humans for medical treatment, genetically modifying embryos raises ethical concerns related to the wealth gap and parenthood. This technology can deepen disparities and divisions between socio-economic classes. Genetic engineering is a costly technology whose clientele is composed mostly of wealthy groups (Kotzé 70-84). While it holds potential to provide traits like disease immunity, enhanced intelligence, and athletic ability, only patrons with deep pockets can enjoy these prospects. Colin Gavaghan, professor of Digital Futures at University of Bristol, claimed that “their children will be born not only with silver spoons in their mouths, but with golden genes in their chromosomes” (Kotzé 70-84). Children from wealthy families will not only have advantages in educational resources and connections, but an indisputable edge in ability and competency over their less well-off peers, further increasing their chances in competitive processes like college application or job seeking. This carries the possibility of widening the wealth gap and further dividing existing class structures.

When there are fewer shared traits between groups of people, empathy may fade, leading to more division. People who have access to genetic engineering may be insulated from those who have no access to genetic engineering and are born with chronic diseases, physical disabilities, or mental disabilities. This lack of shared experiences and empathy may even lead to policy changes, described as “if illness is thought of as something avoidable, social provision and care for the sick might also be reduced” (Kotzé 70-84). Moreover, the perception of diseases and disabilities as a choice and something avoidable can lead to heightened stigma around the individual. A comparable example is the stigma around addiction, which is caused by “the belief that addiction is a personal choice reflecting a lack of willpower and a moral failing” (“Reducing the Stigma”). Like addiction, even though the inability to afford genetic engineering is not a personal choice, it may be perceived as one and those with “avoidable” diseases may receive similar stigma. In the case of addiction, the stigma not only has a social impact, but it also “damages the health and well-being of people with substance use disorder and interferes with the quality of care they receive in clinical settings” (“Reducing the Stigma”). Genetic engineering not only leads to division between classes, but also a shift in parents’ rights.

Genetic engineering in embryos draws discussions on parental rights and may change the scope of parents’ rights. Genetic engineering traits like sex and physical appearance can have an indelible impact on a child’s future, potentially interfering with “‘the child’s right to an open future,’ meaning a right to have one's future options kept open until one is capable of making one's own decisions” (Bredenoord 108). Even though parents have reproductive autonomy, defined as “the right to control one's own procreation unless good and sufficient reasons exist for denying a person that control”, this might not overweigh the autonomy of another individual such as the child (Bredenoord 108). In this scenario, parental autonomy and the child’s right to an open future are in opposition. However, the child cannot defend their rights, making it difficult for the child’s rights to be protected if the choice lies entirely with the parents.

Although genetic modification allows parents to select traits that may provide a better life for their child, the meaning of parenthood is shifted with this action. Julian Savulescu, a philosopher and bioethicist, proposes the principle of Procreative Beneficence, which describes that “couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” (Savulescu). Through this selection, it is inevitable that parents would have a vision for their children and the “best life” they will live. This new obligation encourages and justifies a result-oriented parenting style, providing another tool to make children conform to parental expectations.

Proposing Regulations

To address potential ethical problems that come with genetic modification, a strict scope should be defined for its use. Current regulations on research regarding genetic modifications vary by country. A study collected data on policies and legislations of 96 countries regarding genetically modified embryos. Of these, only 40 countries have policies on research with genetically modified embryos, of which 11 countries permit research (Baylis et al. 365-77). Genetic engineering should only be used on embryos to treat specific diseases that are well-researched with a low risk of adverse effects in future generations. Moreover, equal access to this technology should be provided to avoid exclusivity to selected groups.

Closing Thoughts

Genetic modification carries the potential to become a valuable bioengineering tool. Currently, it is a rapidly developing technology that is still risky to be used on humans, but this does not undermine its value in disease treatments. Similar to other disease and cancer treatment options, gene therapy and CAR T-cell therapy have their own limitations and risks. After communicating the limitations and risks to patients, this technology can be a powerful tool and a valuable opportunity for the patients’ recovery. In contract, embryos cannot consent to the severe and prolonged risks imposed by genetic modification. Moreover, making changes in the human germline carries risks that are yet to be elucidated, and no individual has the power to give consent to them.

Even though genetic modification in embryos is considered to be unethical, genetic modification should still be considered a valuable tool. Many of the ethical implications related to risks can be resolved with the development of the technology. Humans can make an effort to address the other ethical issues through regulations.

Works Cited

Ag Biosafety. “Backcross Breeding.” University of Nebraska - Lincoln, 2001, agbiosafety.unl.edu/education/backcross.htm.

American Cancer Society Medical and Editorial Content Team. “CAR T-Cell Therapy and Its Side Effects.” American Cancer Society, 2024, https://www.cancer.org/cancer/managing-cancer/treatment-types/immunotherapy/car-t-cell1.html.

Baylis, François et al. “Human Germline and Heritable Genome Editing: The Global Policy Landscape.” CRISPR Journal vol. 3, no. 5, 2020, pp. 365-77. doi:

10.1089/crispr.2020.0082.

Bredenoord, Annelien. “Genetic Dilemmas and the Right to an Open Future.” American Journal of Human Genetics vol. 86, no. 2, 2010, p. 108. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.01.004.

CIMMYT. “Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA).” Projects, www.cimmyt.org/projects/drought-tolerant-maize-for-africa-dtma/. Accessed 10 May 2025.

Gao, Caixia. “Genome Engineering for Crop Improvement and Future Agriculture.” Cell vol. 184, no. 6, 2021, pp. 1621-35. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.005.

“Global Coalition Promises More than $650 Million to Accelerate CGIAR Efforts to Help 300 Million Smallholder Farmers Adapt to Climate Change.” CGIAR, 19 Sept. 2023, www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/uncas-global-coalition-funds-cgiar/.

“History of Genetic Engineering and the Rise of Genome Editing Tools.” Synthego, www.synthego.com/learn/genome-engineering-history. Accessed 9 May 2025.

Kim, Kyung-Hee, and Byung-Moo Lee. “Effects of Climate Change and Drought Tolerance on Maize Growth.” Plants (Basel, Switzerland) vol. 12, no. 20, 2023, p. 3548.

doi:10.3390/plants12203548. Accessed 10 May 2025.

Kohn, Donald B., Yvonne Y. Chen, and Melissa J. Spencer. “Successes and challenges in Clinical Gene Therapy.” Nature: Gene Therapy vol. 30, no. 10-11, Nov. 2023, pp. 738-46. doi:10.1038/s41434-023-00390-5.

Kotzé, M. “Human Genetic Engineering and Social Justice in South Africa: Moltmann and Human Dignity." Acta Theologica vol. 36, no. 1, 2016, pp. 70-84. doi:10.4314/actat.v36i1.5.

National Research Council (US) Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health. “Methods and Mechanisms for Genetic Manipulation of Plants, Animals, and Microorganisms.” Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects, National Academies Press, 2004. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215771/

National Cancer Institute. “CRISPR Cas-9.” NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms. www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/crispr-cas9. Accessed 10  May 2025.

National Human Genome Research Institute. “Genetic Engineering.” Genetics Glossary, www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Engineering. Accessed 9 May 2025.

Nemali, Krisha S., et al. “Physiological Responses Related to Increased Grain Yield under Drought in the First Biotechnology-derived Drought-tolerant Maize.” Plant, Cell and Environment vol. 38, no. 9, 11 Sept. 2014, pp. 1683-961. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12446.

“Reducing the Stigma of Addiction.” Johns Hopkins Medicine,

www.hopkinsmedicine.org/stigma-of-addiction. Accessed 10 May 2025.

Savulescu, J. “Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children.” Bioethics, vol. 15, no. 5-6, 2001, pp. 413-26. doi:10.1111/1467-8519.00251.

Shoemaker-Kiess, Erin, and Amanda L. Socha. “Subdividing GMO Classifications for Food Labeling.” Journal of Science Policy and Governance vol. 7, no. 1, Aug. 2015. https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/oped2_shoemakerkiess_socha_jspgfinaledit.pdf.

US Food and Drug Administration. “How Gene Therapy Can Cure or Treat Diseases.” Consumer Updates, 28 July 2022, www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/how-gene-therapy-can-cure-or-treat-diseases.

World Health Organization. “Food, Genetically Modified.” Questions and Answers, 1 May 2014, www.who.int/news- room/questions-and-answers/item/food-genetically-modified.

Yin, Kangquan, and Jin-Long Qiu. “Genome Editing for Plant Disease Resistance: Applications and Perspectives.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B vol. 374, no. 1767, Mar. 2019. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2018.0322