Genetic Engineering: to fear or not to fear?

The History of Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering has been present in society since around 1973, able to be classified as the process of utilising biotechnology to amend the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) of an organism which is often to produce more desirable qualities. Scientists identify that DNA is the fundamental building block of life; no DNA would equate to no life, just an obsolete universe devoid of movement. The history as to specifics of DNA is fairly recent in the scientific region. Only 73 years ago (in 1953), the double-helix structure of DNA was discovered by the scientists James Watson and Francis Crick which then established a deeper understanding of the scaffolding to life itself.

Furthermore, genetic engineering in real life society had not yet been deemed successful until 1973 when biochemists (Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen) achieved the first artificial genetic modification. Achieved by inserting a gene from one bacterium into an E. coli cell, proving that genetic modification was able to form foreign proteins. This breakthrough paved the way for the succession of the commercialisation just 3 years later in 1976 by Boyer himself. He co-founded the company Genentech which then birthed the genetic engineering industry. Followed by a period of industrial growth, it skyrocketed through from synthetic bacteria-produced human insulin (1982) all the way to modified food (1994).

Modern Society Accustomed to the Way of Genetic Engineering 

Society has staggeringly grown in its views towards this topic, veering to it as a necessity for the way forward. Genetic engineering has widened many opportunities for medicine, agriculture and industry but is non-exhaustive to what it is capable of affecting. 

For medicine, there is continuous reliance on the synthetic human insulin for those who suffer from diabetes. The process is that insulin is curated by yeast plasmids or E. coli bacteria, leading to the production of pure human insulin – acting as a miniature factory at work. Additionally, in more recent years there has been an increasing risk factor of zoonotic (passed on from an animal species onto humans) viruses (in particular coronavirus) which has resulted in a dire necessity of mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) vaccines. These work by producing harmless foreign cells which are then used as a vehicle to drive a mass production of antibodies particular to the antibody, providing a period of immunity. 

Moreover, for agriculture and food, genetic engineering has benefitted both the result of producing food and also reducing the need of pesticides. In an example, bt crops have been engineered to possess a gene from soil bacterium (B. thuringiensis) which equips the crops with a natural protein that is toxic to pests. This substantially reduces the need for insecticides and thus, in turn, will reduce the risk of eutrophication of waterways and bioaccumulation further up the food chain. Stemming off genetic engineering, food may be stipulated to increase nutritional value and enhance abilities such as herbicide resistance.

Sequentially, for the industry and environment, microorganisms and microbes are genetically engineered to equip them with desirable attributes. Microorganisms are modified to consume toxic waste, break down microplastics or even digest crude oil after following environmental spills. In addition, fungi and yeast are important for biomanufacturing as they are modified to create spider silk proteins for high end textiles or even for use in biofuels to be more ecofriendly.

Ethics and Fears of Genetic Engineering

Although there are many advantages to this, many fears arise when questioning the nature of genetic engineering, surrounding ideas of humanity, agriculture, animals and bioterrorism. Separately, in the past it was heavily prevalent for the idea of religion and how it can be viewed as usurping the role of God which then led to extremely biased debates on how this idea of genetic engineering should be approached with utter repugnance.

Primarily, the debate of human genetic engineering presents a stance of formulating a ‘slippery slope’ and how if the human race initially raises the usage of genetic engineering, it may result in the carnage of a whole redo of individuals before they are born to present more subjectively desirable qualities. This can also augment the idea of rights as, if modifications occur in the egg or sperm, it denies that individual the autonomy to consent. Likewise, it can create a resurgence in the class division system as it is expensive so only wealthy people are given the right to modify genes of future offspring. This can also dwindle the support for disabilities as they become less prominent due to the gradual erosion of societal support. 

Secondarily, the idea of agriculture is affected as despite genetically modified food being deemed safe to eat, many individuals still fear implications for long-term issues. Withal, genetic engineering can further substantiate corporate monopolies as only large corporations are genetically engineering which can stem pressure onto smaller scale farmers and may eventually result in poverty for those smaller companies.

Alongside these, the wildlife can also be flagged up as a prominent issue due to the fact that modifications can exacerbate existing farming practices and elicit newfound health complications to the animals themselves. Furthering upon this idea, scientists may use a ‘gene drive’ to rapidly force modified genes through wild populations, which may result in extinction of a species and cause the biodiversity of the particular environment of which they are found in to plummet. The result of this is then undefined and can be catastrophic to the ecosystem or result in ecological chain reactions.

Finally, genetic engineering can be utilised in order to strengthen bioterrorism as these tools used for it are becoming increasingly accessible. A main fear is about the modification of pathogens in crude laboratories to ensure they are more lethal, more contagious and more resistant to vaccines. Genetic engineering has a dual-use nature in which beneficial modifications can be co-opted by nefarious and horrific contrasts; perhaps a usage for genetic engineering will be found in warfare in the future.

Genetic Engineering - Impact On Previous Generations

Despite genetic engineering being a fairly recent discovery on a scientific timeline, it has been a source of profound apprehension for centuries. Literature serves as evidence of this enduring anxiety, most notably in Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’. The novel can be read through the lens of acting as a warning of scientific ambition and discovery, hence the subtitle of ‘The Modern Prometheus’. This intertextuality is majorly symbolic as Prometheus was a titan in Greek mythology, stepping beyond his role by gifting the human race with fire. Zeus punished this transgression by condemning him to have his liver eaten by an eagle every day. Drawing a parallel to genetic engineering, Shelley extracted inspiration from Luigi Galvani and Galvanism (which was prominent in the news during the early 1800s). By weaving these into a science fiction classic, she forged an eternal metaphor for the dangers of overruling the natural order.

Hence, genetic engineering commands caution; the threshold of beneficial outcomes remains largely unknown - when do we know we have reached the line?