Sanjivani Singh, Grade 12

Food scarcity is a global issue that has been greatly rising since 2018, causing an ever-growing demand for innovative solutions (1). Traditional approaches to rectify this issue – like conventional plant breeding – have often been limited in their efficacy and scope, leading to the development of more advanced methods to tackle this complex issue. One of these solutions is genetic engineering. Genetic engineering involves employing specific laboratory techniques to modify the DNA composition of an organism (2); though the implementation of this process holds great promise for addressing such global challenges, it also raises significant ethical concerns as its applications are not limited to just plants.

Agriculturally, genetic engineering involves inserting genes that code for desirable traits in plants. These targeted traits are similar in genetic engineering and conventional plant breeding; however, genetic engineering allows for a direct gene transfer, thereby allowing for more difficult or previously impossible traits to be bred (3). Cauliflower is a nutritious vegetable crop consumed globally but is negatively affected by fungal diseases and downy mildew, which leads to quality and quantity losses. A recent study implemented several breeding approaches including quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping – which influences phenotypic variation – and gene pyramiding to induce the expression of the resistance gene BrRLP48 in cauliflower to develop resistant cultivars to downy mildew, highlighting the past success of this technology (4,5). Despite the potential and already present benefits of modified crops, the application of genetic engineering in crops is only partially accepted, likely because it does not have a direct benefit to consumers, however, it is suggested to be more accepted in second generation crops because of higher quality and direct consumer benefits (3). An example of a crop with direct consumer benefits is “Golden Rice,” genetically engineered to contain up to 35 μg β-carotene per gram of rice, effectively converting to vitamin A in humans, thus aiding organ function and the immune system (6,7). Genetic engineering in agriculture has demonstrated its potential by enabling the insertion of desirable traits in plants and creating crops to address health problems like nutrition deficiencies.

In addition to its implementation in agriculture, the application of genetic engineering in animals and human beings is being heavily investigated. Productivity of farm animal species can be increased; for example, transgenic pigs and sheep have been altered to express higher levels of growth hormone, and other pigs have been genetically engineered to express the Δ12 fatty acid desaturase gene, adding to its nutritional value (8). Ethical concerns surrounding animal genetic engineering revolve around the welfare of the animals involved and potential environmental impacts. Many embryos that undergo genetic engineering procedures do not survive, and so, large numbers of animals are produced to obtain results, thereby contradicting the effort to minimize animal use. In addition, altering animal genes may lead to unintended health issues of changes in behavior (8). Releasing genetically modified animals into the environment raises questions about their potential to disrupt ecosystems or introduce invasive species.

Interestingly, as Americans consider the possible use of animal genetic engineering, their reactions vary depending on the intended purpose of the technology. 70% of Americans believe that genetically modifying mosquitoes to prevent reproduction and the spread of some diseases is appropriate whereas only 43% believe it is appropriate to do so for the creation of more nutritious meat for human consumption (9). The public’s perception of what is morally reprehensible and what is acceptable plays an important role in whether these technologies will be implemented and for what purpose.

At the forefront, concerns about the ethics of human genetic engineering are being considered. The manipulation of the human genome raises questions about the extent of control individuals should have over their genetic makeup, and whether altering genes for non-therapeutic purposes violates human principles. CRISPR-Cas9 technology allows DNA sequence changes in pluripotent embryonic stem cells that can be cultured to produce specific tissues; these studies lay the groundwork to treat human disease in the future. CRISPR-Cas9 technology can be used to change the DNA in the nuclei of reproductive cells, thereby allowing changes to be passed on to future generations (10). However, the ability to use this technology to prevent genetic diseases still raises serious concerns. Concerns about the long-term health and safety require thorough testing and risk assessment before application as seen by the response to past gene-edited humans. Assistant Professors Shenzhen cut out a small portion of DNA from CCR5; he believed that the babies would be resistant to infections with H.I.V. (11). He was heavily condemned for his recklessness in performing such work without approval, further suggesting the importance of the role of the public in the implementation of these technologies. Additionally, the potential for creating “designer” babies raises further ethical concerns about the access to genetic altering technologies. The ethical consideration of genetic engineering in both humans and animals requires immense examination of the pros and cons, as well as the further discussion of individual rights and the welfare of all living beings.

As genetic engineering continues to advance and become more widely adopted, it has the potential to be transformative and truly revolutionize this world. From enhancing crop productivity to eradicating genetic diseases, this technology can one day solve some of the most pressing global issues faced today. Continued research and exploration amongst scientists and ethicists will allow genetic engineering to build a more sustainable and healthier world.

Citations:
[1] K. Georgieva, S. Sosa, B. Rother., “Global Food Crisis Demands Support for People, Open Trade, Bigger Local Harvests.” International Money Fund Blog, (2022).
[2] “GENETIC ENGINEERING.” National Human Genome Research Institute, (2023).
[3] M. Qaim., “The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 1, 665-694 (2009).
[4] R. Shaw, et al., “Molecular Breeding Strategy and Challenges Towards Improvement of Downy Mildew Resistance in Cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis L.).” National Library of Medicine 12, 667757 (2021).
[5] K. Powder., “Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) Mapping.” National Library of Medicine 2082, 211-229 (2020).
[6] G. Tang, et al., “Golden Rice is an effective source of vitamin A.” National Library of Medicine 89 (6), 1776-1783 (2009).
[7] “Vitamin A and Carotenoids.” National Institutes of Health, (2022).
[8] E. Ormandy, J. Dale, G. Griffin., “Genetic engineering of animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns.” National Library of Medicine 52 (5), 544-550 (2011).
[9] C. Funk, M. Hefferon., “Most Americans Accept Genetic Engineering of Animals That Benefits Human Health, but Many Oppose Other Uses.” PEW Research Center, (2018).
[10] D. Baltimore, et al., “A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification.” Science, (2015).
[11] C. Zimmer., “Genetically Modified People Are Walking Among Us.” The New York Times, (2018).