The end of life threatening diseases

The social problem of whether or not editing human DNA should be allowed stems from 12,000 BC, when humans first began to domesticate organisms. There was no actual modification of the genes, however there was the idea that nature could be manipulated to receive the desired outcome. Cross breeding and selective breeding were often used to create a new species, such as the mule (which is a cross between a female horse and male donkey). In 1972 DNA was transferred from one organism to another. Eight years later in 1980, the world’s first ever genetically modified animal was developed (BiologyWise, 2018). This mouse was just the beginning of a whole new direction for GMOs.
As more research was recorded, more organisms were being modified. Embryos were starting to be edited and cloned to create ideal DNA of animals. The modifications of the genes were mostly being used for food production and efficiency. Eventually in 1990 the Human Genome Project was launched. This project was able to record a person's DNA sequence, and found the malfunctions within it. It was easy to tell if a gene had been deleted or there was some type of problem with the order of the genes. Any issue was noticeable, which allowed scientists to determine if an individual had some type of illness or a high chance of developing one. Since there are about 30,000 genes in the human genome, this process was very time-consuming and took 13 years to sequence the first DNA strand, costing about one billion dollars. Now, with updated research, it can take up to three days and costs about four-thousand dollars (National Human Genome, 2016). Sequencing genomes were open to the public, which made many people want to know what was in their genes. This often resulted in people finding diseases that were not expected and unwanted. This was the event catalyst for genetic engineering in humans.
Now that many people were aware of the diseases in their bodies, they wanted to know how to get rid of them and save the next generation from inheriting these genes. Since scientist already knew how to modify animals, it was not long before they had the technology and information to do the same in humans. This is where the argument began of if it was ethical to change the DNA in humans. Many argued that humans are made the way they are for a reason and there should be no tampering with the way that these humans were supposed to be created. Others argued that if there is a chance that their future children and generations could live without these life-threatening illnesses, then they should take hold of this opportunity regardless of if it against “God’s plan” (Genetics Home Reference, 2018). Law vs ethics is a complicated value tension that has no correct answer. It is based purely off of what people believe and how they perceive the world.
Regardless of what view an individual holds, both sides understand the objective evidence that it is not possible to change large characteristic in these edited embryos. Many characteristics, such as height, have so many genes that affects one trait that it is not possible with today’s technology to edit these things. They also know that there are risks that go along with the editing of these genes and that nothing is ever certain, just like in every department of the medical field. Both sides may understand these facts, however they may respond subjectively to them. Those who oppose gene editing in humans know that it is not possible to change significant traits, but they still stick to their beliefs that there should be no tampering with the DNA of humans (Osterath,2016). Whether for religious reasoning or just accumulated opinion, there are many individuals that view human GMOs this way. Those who agree that the editing of human DNA should be accepted by society interpret these facts in a way to show that there are limitations to the modifications in these genes. They argue that this shows how the alterations will stick strictly to the single genes that cause disease, and not affect any other traits. Also, they believe the risks of modifying human genes are negligible if the next generations did not have to go through the pain of many common diseases (Simmons, 2008). This social problem is being discussed nationwide and has caused many discussions about the future of genetic engineering.
Currently the national government has a law that states that genetically modified embryos are only allowed to develop for seven days. This means that currently the genes are allowed to be modified, but the cells are not allowed to grow into a human being. The public players in this case are the federal government; the private would be the scientists and individuals considering having their embryos modified. All of these groups of people will be affected by the outcomes of this debate on whether the law should change to longer than 7 days to develop, or not. The people in this situation would be categorized as stakeholders (Pray, 2008). The government roles in this situation would be the public key players while the smaller businesses that are handling the genes would be private key players. These key players hold the future generations lives in their hands.