Last week I attended the Genetic Engineering table talk led by GRF Shivem. The discussion was focused both on ethical and technological questions that are related to advancements in genetic engineering. Although genetic engineering (broadly defined as direct manipulation of an organisms genome) has existed for awhile in a few forms, the main impetus behind a lot of current research is CRISPR. CRISPR is a big long acronym for something, but the idea is that we can control proteins and genes that bacteria use to edit genes to edit genes of our choosing. The applications are already being seen from cancer to plant breeding and others. But all of these wonderful technologies raise ethical questions. One question in particular deals with a new program that is attempting to grow human organs inside of pigs (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/pig-organs-for-humans/536307/). Normally such organs provoke a dangerous immune response in humans, but with genetic engineering that might be a thing of the past.

This brings up an obvious ethical question of using animals as glorified receptacles for human organs. Someone who believes that eating meat is fine isn’t likely to object to this, as in this instance the pigs are directly saving human lives rather than “just” providing a tasty treat. However, even if one is a vegetarian (or similar) this is not a straightforward question. A good portion of people alive today (although certainly not everyone) who eat meat do not need it in a strict sense: they could theoretically cut meat out of their diet and lead a regular life. However, in this case it is a matter of life and death: someone who needs an organ will die if they don’t get it in a timely fashion. There is far larger demand for organs today than there is supply, and it’s not easy to tell a small child with liver cancer that their life is worth less than a pigs. I’m not pretending that I have all of the answers to these questions but they will only become more relevant, with larger consequences as time goes on.

Down at the flora rose dinning hall, about a dozen of us sat down with GRF Shiv to talk about genetic engineering. We bounced from pigs to Star Trek to designer babies. As with any topic as controversial such as this, a large part of the discussion centered around the ethics of its seemingly imminent commercial use.

This conversation made me think of what it means to be human in the 21st century. As of late, I’ve been giving much thought to my education and what it means in universal terms, not just jobs and societal ‘upnods’. A large part of my own major involves genetics, and I wonder if the extent we’re looking at from designer babies to saving someone who would not even come into existence in the first place is changing human nature.

I settled on the definition of education most widely pursued today, vocational, to be something that exists to make life easier for humans, for us to focus on…living. But when we change our own makeup 1) we’re removing a few elements/obstacles in life that give rise to the essence of humanity such as dealing with the emotions in response to the unknowns nature hands us. With genetic engineering we remove a lot of these unknown and for the better. 2)  We are literally changing our makeup. Personality is widely considered to be more of a product of our environment than genetics but our genotype does influence who we are. Not only directly, but through the characteristics it deals us and how we navigate our life with them. Does this mean we effect a persons nature, their exploration of what it means to be human?

When I got the email for Shiv’s table talk about genetic engineering, the thing that stood out to me the most was that it mentioned pigs (!). I don’t adore pigs, although I did love Wilbur in Charlotte’s Web. I was just curious- what do pigs have to do with genetic engineering?

A lot apparently- 0ur table talk was fascinating! We talked about a new technology called CRISPR, a genetic engineering tool that can alter the DNA of cells by using a protein to cut out the unwanted portions of a cell and replace it with modified material. CRISPR is extremely versatile and easy to use, and it can be used in various fields. It can be used to cut out a genetic piece that would cause disorders in children, or make a plant immune to a disease. As a result, this technology is extremely valuable. However, there is a legal battle going on about who actually owns the technology- a professor in UCSF who first discovered its use in bacteria, or her partner who first applied this knowledge to the use of human cells.

But back to pigs. CRISPR can be used to alter pig DNA so that human organs can be grown in pigs. This would be revolutionary- thousands of people wouldn’t have to die every year because they can’t get a organ from a human organ donor. Instead, they can get it from a farm animal.

As good as CRISPR sounds, it has the potential to create huge ethical problems. For instance, someone at the table mentioned ‘designer babies’. Parents could use this technology to make their children have a certain eye color, or skip out on a hunched back gene. And the thing about science is that sometimes people don’t know where to draw the line.

CRISPR will probably win a Nobel Peace Prize one day (hopefully after the messy legal battle is cleaned up). However, it is important to recognize that as amazing as it is, it may potentially bring up future problems to society. I just feel sorry for the pigs.

On Tuesday, I attended the Table Talk about Genetic Engineering. The conversation mostly centered around the idea of Three Parent Babies and Pig Organ Donors. This is a commonly discussed topic lately, due to the rise in the use of these technologies with human applications. Most of the criticism around using this technology leads to ethical questions about how this relatively expensive technology can adversely affect our societal structure and how much should we be able to change the DNA of humans or any animals in general. For example, if people were able to fix the DNA of their children for a fee to prevent any diseases, most people would to ensure their child doesn’t have any unnecessary problems. But because it is a potentially expensive procedure, the lower income families may not be able to afford it and it could lead to a positive feedback loop, where employers would prefer those who went through the procedure because they would be unlikely to get sick or they could have a higher IQ, or whatever else they can change. Then those without the procedure may be forced into the lower paying jobs and that cycle can continue on. The other main ethical concern is with the concept of how much should we be changing our DNA or those of the plants and animals around us? Currently, they have been altering the DNA of pigs to remove genes to make them less susceptible to the animal diseases, allowing for future applications of growing them with human compatible organs for transplants.

Before this talk, I already knew about some Genetic Engineering applications like the ones discussed were happening. I had also read some interesting books, such as “Brave New World” that introduced concepts of how these technologies could affect society. The way I felt about these applications of genetic engineering mirrored what I had felt before. I think it is a great resource to help people and cure terminal illnesses, but it depends on the guidelines they have to adhere and who controls the technology. If guidelines remain lax, there is a lot that could potentially go wrong with who they test this on or how far they take it. Such as, potentially making clones for humans, whose organs they can harvest, should the ‘original’ human need it. Additionally, those who control it have a lot of say in how it affects our society. If it were a not-for-profit group then I hope that they would standardize it so everyone can gain access to it. But a for-profit group may be more interested in income and may make it an elite thing. This could lead to a large gap in the low income and the higher income citizens. Additionally, genetic engineering could also be very helpful to humans. Not only in the way of removing diseases, but it could give us the ability to adapt to different climates or maybe even other planets within a far shorter timeline. Of course, this is far off, as we would first have to determine how different genes interact with others before we could go in and change DNA and we would have to have the technology to aid us in this feat.  Genetic engineering is a fascinating field and it will be interesting to see where it takes us in the future.

At this week’s Table Talk, we discussed the controversy of various forms of genetic engineering and the forms of competition which drive progress, especially in fields such as science and medicine. One of the forms we discussed was that which occurs between countries. I found this particularly compelling because it reminded me of previous events in the history of the United States and the world: one positive in the eyes of scientific progress and one catastrophic to humanity. The first of these, the space race, mainly provided a motivational drive — a political benefit to scientific progress, and it concluded with one of mankind’s greatest achievements to date, placing a man on the moon. However, the latter of these was the race to create an atomic bomb, and while it also represented great scientific progress, this time in terms of the understanding of radioactive elements, the ultimate result was the death and devastation of hundreds of thousands of people. Ultimately, the question this raises to me is not whether genetic engineering will result in incredible scientific progress — for it undoubtedly will. Instead, will genetic engineering one day find itself the cause of great devastation to humanity? And what steps can we take to prevent such a disaster without hindering scientific progress?I personally have faith in the scientific community in preventing physical threats that would resemble an atomic bomb, such as a swine flu epidemic, but I am less certain about the potential impacts of genetic engineering that will come about based on people’s choices and investments (i.e. designer babies) and what consequences, both physical and societal, may arise as a result.

This week, I attended the Table Talk on genetic engineering. We covered a lot of relevant topics like CRISPR, in-vitro fertilisation, and designer babies. A lot of the discussion was fuelled by our thoughts on the ethical considerations revolving around gene editing. For example, all of us agreed that if there were a way to ensure that a baby would never have any neurological diseases, we would approve of such a technique. But if that same gene change induced a change in intelligence for the baby, then we would start to see some of the negative effects of genes editing. For instance, society may start to discriminate against those who aren’t genetically modified, leading to class division and more inequality. This example really illustrated that the ethics of science is never simple because progress on one end could lead to a regression in another.

One of the things that really struck me about this talk was how these technological advances aren’t just something to be wary of in the distant future – it’s already occurring now. For in-vitro fertilisation, the couple can choose which embryo to forward with, effectively selecting for gender. I didn’t know about this previously because I thought there would be stricter regulations against this sort of choosing, but I was wrong. It really highlights the importance of having these discussions about ethics and morality in respect to technology, especially because the technology exists already and will only continue to grow more popular in the future. At the same time, if the US government restricts research and application of genetic engineering, there’s no guarantee other countries will do the same and now the US will begin to fall behind in the competition. It’s an interesting dilemma with no obvious solution but one that will have to be resolved soon.

During our table talk discussion about genetic engineering, I realized how far we as a society have gone in developing new technologies. I am not an engineering or a science student, so it was difficult for me to understand some of the engineering techniques, but what stood out to me was how new research methods on genetic engineering have changed the world. We discussed new “Crispr” technology and its role in helping genetic engineering. But even 20 years ago, this technology wasn’t available, let alone used relatively inexpensively around the country.

What comes with genetic engineering are questions of ethics. During our discussion, we brought up some of the ethical problems that can occur when genetic engineering is used particularly with fertility. In one example mentioned, a baby was given an immunization gene so that they can never develop any diseases, while also making them smarter. The ethical question that arises in this situation is that, is it right to administer these genes to a baby while other babies may not have the same access to such technology? I still struggle with this question, and the question of whether genetic engineering, particularly in humans, is ethical.

Overall, however, I thought the talk was insightful, as it opened my eyes to the new technologies we have available today in modifying our genetics. The one thing I am uncertain about is how far this technology will grow given the ethical questions in this field.