Genetic engineering is one of the fastest developing fields of science. It continues to impact our lives in many ways: the Green Revolution, the quest for perfect animal stock, disease treatment, or human reproduction. But success also has brought concerns. Plants have become insect resistant and also more toxic. Genetically engineered cattle produce more milk but have mutated and overgrown. When scientists opened the window for asexual human reproduction, life became a commodity that could be produced in a culture dish.

And it all started when a monk experimented with some sweet peas…

From Mendel to Dolly

Modern genetic engineering dates back to 1865, when the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel performed a series of experiments with sweet pea plants. These experiments led to changes in the plants’ genetic construction. Genetic engineering, also known as bioengineering or recombinant DNA technology, is a general term referring to any alteration of an organism’s genes in order to make them produce new substances or perform new functions.(1) During the following years, these little experiments developed into a new field. The genes of plants and small-sized organisms were altered through crossing, but other than that research was limited.

In the 1930s, industrial corporations like America’s Rockefeller Foundation or, 20 years later, Germany’s Volkswagen Group (VW), discovered a different approach to raise economic efficiency. At the same time, motives of social control and surveillance directed the Rockefeller Foundation’s interest in the human body to the individual and the collective levels.(2) The Rockefeller Foundation outlined its rationale for supporting genetic research as follows: For the last 100 years physics and chemistry have reigned supreme, and the question of human behavior had been neglected. The new goal was to accomplish social control through understanding and knowledge of the very basic elements of the human body.(3) With the promise of benefit for their own corporations, they started sponsoring this new subfield of biology. The National Institutes of Health, private corporations, institutes, and universities established research laboratories. The idea was that if more actors and institutions shared and exchanged knowledge, the more molecular biology’s narration of life would be consolidated, disseminated, and legitimized.(4) 

Soon discoveries were reported from the science frontier. In 1953, M. Wilkins, F. Crick, and J. Watson discovered DNA’s double helix model while working at the University of Cambridge in England. In 1962, they received the Nobel Prize for their discovery. In 1968 Nirenberg, Khorana and Holley received a Nobel Prize for their interpretation of the genetic code and its function in protein synthesis.(5) 

The first frogs were cloned in 1970. In other words, an artificial copy of their embryo was produced. Soon this fast developing field of biology turned into a new industrial sphere. In 1980, industrial biotechnology emerged after the Supreme Court case of Diamond vs. Chakrabarty. In this case, Chakrabarty engineered and wanted to patent a certain kind of organism. After his request was denied, he went to court and received a favorable ruling. This decision led to the establishment of copyrights for living organisms, which ultimately industrialized the field. Producing and patenting new organisms were two crucial factors in the biotech industry’s development. Consider Steen Willadsen, who cloned the first sheep in 1984 from an embryo.(6) One year later, he mass-produced prize cattle embryos for Grenada Genetics in order to raise a perfect stock.(7) However, that project soon was stopped because of the cloned cattle’s high and death rates and abnormal behavior.

Since the biologic make-up of many mammals had been unveiled, scientists now had a new goal: exploring the human being. Therefore the U.S. Department of Energy launched the human genome project. Soon biotech giants like Celera and many private institutions got into the race. Their goal was to map the entire human genome in order to identify and eliminate disease-causing genes. This project raised certain concerns about what would be done with an individual’s DNA information, who could access it (e.g., insurance companies and employers), and genetic discrimination.

The first human embryos were cloned in 1993. Four years, later the whole world got to meet Dolly, the first sheep cloned from an adult cell. This was an important development, for it opened the door to asexual reproduction. But despite the great enthusiasm with this achievement, some people started wondering about possible dangers. Finally in June 2000, Bill Clinton announced the completion of the human genone project.

Applications and drawbacks

Genetic engineering has penetrated into various parts of our life. Agriculture has seen a Green Revolution. Herbicide-resistant plants were engineered to have built-in pesticide resistance and to convert nitrogen directly from the soil. By April 2002, the approximately 50,000 rice genes had been discovered. Scientists already are working on ways to alter rice, the main food of the world’s population, so that it will be more nutritious and resistant. Insects are being engineered to attack crop predators. Researchers are growing agricultural products in the laboratory using genetically altered bacteria. A major commercial role for genetically engineered plants as chemical factories is also envisioned, such as organic plastics.

Some drawbacks of this revolution are increased toxins and diseases, which are causing the resulting organisms to become resistant to antibiotics. Increased toxins in plants were designed to make insect-resistant plants. Nuclear physicist Dr. John Hagerlin testified in Washington, DC, at the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) public hearing that increased toxins trigger unanticipated allergic reactions. The resulting gene pollution threatens the environment, for it breaks down genetic barriers put in place by Nature.(8)

Industrial mistakes in production or insufficient research in engineered food ingredients also can cause serious problems. The Tryptophan food supplement, an amino acid marketed as a natural tranquilizer and sleeping pill, was mass-produced from genetically altered bacteria. It killed 37 persons and permanently disabled over 1,500 others with an incurable nervous system condition known as eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS).(9) When these technologies were applied to livestock, farmers first were pleased that the engineered cattle produced more milk, grew faster, and yielded more meat. However, cases of mutation and rampant overgrowth have caused scientists to reevaluate the effectiveness of these procedures.

Another important issue is inserting human genes in animals. What percent of human genes does an organism have to contain before it is considered human? If humans have a special ethical status, does the presence of human genes in an organism change its ethical status? What about a genetically engineered mouse that produces a human sperm that is then used to conceive a human child?(10) Or a pig that contains human genes in order to grow organs that can be transplanted to humans?(11)

It is shocking that the FDA issued guidelines in September 1996 that allow animal-to-human transplants, even though a group of 44 top virologists, primate researchers, and AIDS specialists, opposed it. They attacked the FDA guidelines, saying that based on knowledge of past cross-species transmissions (e.g., AIDS, Herpes B, Ebola, and other viruses), using animals was not adequately justified for use in a handful of patients. Vast numbers of people could be injured or even killed if a new infectious agent were to be transmitted.(12) The FDA puts the responsibility for health and safety on local hospitals and medical review boards.

Recombinant DNA technology also has been applied directly to the human body. After mapping the entire genome, scientists discovered some disease-causing genes. They are now working to isolate those genes and develop molecular-level treatments. Although curing Alzheimers, nuscular dystrophy, and many other inherited diseases would make patients happy, unexpected results may occur. When applying gene therapy, a one-to-one correspondence between the gene and its function is assumed. Since genes interact in a horizontal manner, as scientists have shown, introducing a new gene could have unforeseen effects.(13)

Genetic manipulation in human beings always encompasses the possibility of designer genes that manipulate a child’s appearance, IQ, or behavior. According to a March of Dimes survey, 40 percent of Americans would use gene therapy to enhance their children’s looks or intelligence. Even picking your child’s gender has become a question of money. A Fairfax, Virginia-based genetics and in-vitro fertilization institute offers family balancing for approximately $3,000. Known as microsort, the male sperm is separated from the female one. In 2001, the institute treated around 60 couples a month and planned to double its production. Fortune Magazine calculated that the microsort market could be worth $200 million.(14)

There is also talk that people could be exploited as producers of certain substances. For example, a biotech corporation applied to the European Patent Office for a patent on a so-called pharm woman. The idea was to genetically alter women so that their breast milk would contain specialized pharmaceuticals.(15)

Related debates

There are many other largely debated topics in this field, but the most controversial one of all is human cloning life. This is divided into therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning.

In therapeutic cloning, scientists produce embryos in culture dishes to harvest their stem cells. These then are used in further research, the long-term goal of which is to produce replacement organisms. Stem cells are undifferentiated and primitive cells that can be found in embryos as well as in an adult body.(16) Researchers intend to isolate stem cells so they can serve as a starter stock for growing replacement nerve, muscle and other tissue that might one day be used to treat patients with various diseases.(17) Even though this procedure sounds very promising, we should not overlook the fact that embryos are mass-produced to harvest stem cells. Once these have been isolated, the embryo becomes useless and disposable. The ethics of this procedure are questionable, since stem cells also could be harvested from an adult human body.

Reproductive cloning intends to implant such a cloned embryo into a woman’s uterus. Although this procedure is not safe for either the mother or the child, Severino Antinori announced that he and his team will soon produce the first cloned child. The Whitehead Institute of Biomedical Research revealed that cloned mice possess subtle genetic defects that could eventually wreak havoc on the animals system. This means that even though a cloned child might appear completely normal at birth, it has to expect serious health problems later in life.(18)

There also are potential psychological risks for a cloned child. Dr. Thomas Murray worries about the child’s self-identity problem once he/she finds out that he/she is a clone and how he/she was conceived.(19) George Johnson, a professor at Washington University, opposes cloning because genetic variation is the chief defense our species has against an uncertain future. If we strip ourselves of it even partially, it is to endanger our species.

Conclusion

Recombinant DNA technology faces our society with problems unique not only in the history of science but also life on the Earth as well as legal approaches towards them. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms. It presents probably the largest ethical problem science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restrictions to learn what we can about nature. Reconstructing nature was not part of the bargain. Going ahead in this direction may not be only unwise but also dangerous. Potentially it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer and novel epidemics.(20)

Since creation is in a perfect balance, interventions might have unforeseen effects. A book must be written by an author, a picture must be painted by an artist, and a poem must be written by a poet. Each piece of art has an artist who has an encompassing knowledge of his/her creation. If we do not understand that nature is a perfectly composed book, our writings will be no more than scribbles between the lines.

Footnotes

1. http://209.52.56.28/lexicon/g.html.
2. Lily E. Kay, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 26.
3. Herbert Gottweiss, Governing Molecules: The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the US (Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 1998), 42.
4. Ibid., 46.
5. www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1968/index.html.
6. www.dartmouth.edu/artsci/courses/coco25/Cloning/The_History_of_Cloning.html.
7. http://library.thinkquest.org/24355/data/details/1985.html?tqskip1=1&tqtime=0508.
8. www.netlink.de/gen/hagelin.html.
9. www.psrast.org/jftrypt.htm.
10. Surrogate Fathers, New Scientist (31 Jan. 1998).
11. Robert Pool, Saviors, Discover, (May 1998): 53-57. (special issue.)
12. IP/BiodivNews, 1-24-97 or http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GE%20Essays/Redigning.htm#40.
13. Horizontal gene transfer refers to the transfer of genes to unrelated species by infection through viruses, through pieces of genetic material, DNA by being taken up into cells from the environment, or by unusual mating taking place between unrelated species. (Mae-Wan Ho, Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare, 2d rev. [Continuum Pub Group: 2000),
14. The Economist (14 Apr. 2001): 22.
15. Andrew Kimbrell, The Human Body Shop: The Engineering and Marketing of Life (New York: Harper Collins, 1994), 191.
16. Popular Science (Jan. 2002): 58.
17. Scientific American (Jan. 2002): 45.
18. Gunjan Sinha, Popular Science (Jan. 2002)
19. Thomas Murray, Talk of the Nation broadcast, 24 Feb. 1997.
20. George Wald, The Case Against Genetic Engineering, in The Recombinant DNA Debate, eds. David A. Jackson and Stephen P. Stich (Prentice Hall College Div: 1979), 127-28.

As this news spread throughout the world, people began to ask if one day a human being could be cloned. Certainly, at least in theory, it seemed possible. Some people even claimed that it would be a good idea to clone such geniuses as Einstein and others who had passed away. On the other hand, others argued that such knowledge could lead to cloning such people as Hitler, and that this was reason enough never to open the door to this potentially dangerous technology. 

The role of environment

But is DNA everything? Is DNA the only item that makes us human? Case studies of same egg twins’ show that there is more to us than DNA. Researchers have noticed that such twins, despite having the same DNA and being brought up mainly in the same environment and the same manner, somehow follow different paths, acquire unique personalities, and show evidence of different characteristics, although they may show similarities during childhood. Thus we can see that environment is an important factor on human behavior.

Used in this context, environment refers to the surrounding society, culture, belief, and moral values in other words, that which separates human beings from animals. DNA, the acronym used for a person’s genetic code, plays the key role in the beginning of any biological life form. This key molecule functions similarly in both animals and plants to produce living cells.

Human beings have a special life-giving feature: the soul. Although its nature remains a mystery, its existence is felt deeply in the conscience and gives us a distinct nature that is not shared by non-human life forms. Although a person’s first biological body is evident in the DNA even before it assumes an identity, it is the soul that determines his or her character and temper. Another shaping factor that should not be underestimated is the surrounding society (e.g., family, school, and economy) that unites with the soul and contours the body.

The era in which one lives also has a role in determining one’s character. Given that a society is made up of individuals, it is subject to changes in moral values over time. Thus it is quite likely that if Einstein or Hitler were cloned, the resulting person would be an ordinary contemporary man who is obsessed with sports cars and the Internet, and a man who carries his cellular phone wherever he goes.

What made Hitler a monster was the era and society in which he lived, not his genes. What made Einstein a genius was the chance to explore and use his own capabilities and intelligence. It is quite certain that genes are the sole parameters that affect a person’s intelligence and other intellectual features. In addition, the wonderful and unknown nature of a human being would be more conclusive and understandable if the complex interactions between the spiritual properties and cultural effects were taken together as a whole.

The role of the soul

People can be cloned. In fact, clones that are biologically similar and yet behaviorally unique would be the best proof of the soul’s existence. Since the soul cannot be cloned, as it issues from a different world, cloning a person’s body may not be that dangerous. But it also would not make any sense. Moreover, the cloned individual could end up as a dangerous animal.

Consider the following example of inter-species breeding: When a horse and a donkey are mated, the resulting animal is a non-fertile hybrid. If a female horse and a male donkey are mated, the result is a non-fertile mule. If a male horse and a female donkey are mated, the result is a smaller and weaker animala hinny. But since half of the DNA comes from each animal and thus each hybrid offspring has the same DNA, how can this difference be explained? Obviously, the DNA contained within the mitochondria of the female horse’s egg cell makes a huge difference.

Other issues

The patent dilemma: The patent (copyright) system prevents any illegal copying and imitating and ensures that the actual researcher and inventor is rewarded. Drugs and chemical substances are the most patented items in medicine. After a large portion of the human DNA puzzle was solved, the issue of how to patent this information was put on the American agenda.

President Clinton declared that most parts of human DNA had been determined. However, such information was not to be placed in the hands of humanity at large, for the pharmaceutical companies had spent vast sums of money to produce this information. Also, it would be a serious violation of basic commercial sense for the companies to just give this information to the general public for free.

In addition, paying for the copyrights to acquire the technology does not mean that you are totally free to with it what you want, for these same copyrights limit the usage of that particular technology. This means that if cures are found for AIDS, cancer, and other currently incurable diseases, only the wealthy will be able to afford them.

Determining does not mean understanding: DNA consists of exons and introns. Exons form the meaningful parts of DNA by uniting with each other. We call the result genes. Introns are the non-meaningful parts of DNA. What is interesting here is that these non-meaningful introns make up 97 percent of all DNA. One wonders if they have functions, other than protecting and shielding the meaningful parts from external radiation and ultraviolet light, that are unknown to contemporary scientists? For example, each human cell contains about 4 meters of DNA chain in its nucleus. Surprisingly, introns and exons are represented by the same symbolic letters (A, C, G, and T), so determining the DNA chain is nothing more than a new beginning. The more important task is to identify the genes made of exons, which are non-trivially embedded into the introns.

The exact number of human genes remains unknown. According to some scientists, this number is either 25,000 or 32,000. Determining the DNA chain written with a four-letter alphabet is like trying to determine the meaning of an ancient inscription. Just seeing what it looks like does not mean that one can read it, for the latter is far more difficult than the former. This suggests that just determining the DNA chain is not enough, and that truly understanding the genes and their exact locations requires more time.

Conclusion

Human DNA has been determined, but we must remember that there are as many combinations as there are people. Also, the claim that DNA has been determined’ is true only for a select group of people. Human DNA differs from race to race, society to society, and even from disease to disease. Thus it will take more time to develop a full comparative table of human DNA. It would be great if our current technology somehow could devise a single formula to represent the gene map of every individual.

References

• Anderson, Kenneth N. (ed.), Lois E. Anderson (ed.), and Walter D. Glanze. Mosby’s Medical Dictionary. 5th ed. Mosby Year Book, Inc.: 1997.
• Erturk, Hikmet, DNA Her Sey mi?’ Siziniti, no. 269 (June 2001): 228-29. Translated by Emrah Altunkaya.