Course: SAT 170 Introductory Biotechnology

Unit 15 Learning Module

SubTabs

- Unit 15
- Table of Contents (Selected)
- Unit 15 Key Terms (Selected)

Page 2 of 2
Ethics of GMOs and Cloning

As is evident by the protest shown here, there is controversy over the introduction of genetically modified organisms into the environment.

The production of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) or transgenic organisms has been another biotechnology application that has been the topic of significant ethical debates. One of the concerns that is brought to the table whenever GMO’s are introduced is whether or not the genetic alteration will impact the species integrity and biodiversity. Species integrity is a way to measure the well-being of the modified organism, that is does the modification lead to a major change in the organism. Such changes can prove to enhance or be detrimental to the organism’s survival. Some would argue that considering species integrity is not important if the outcome can benefit humans. The potential impacts of GMO’s on reducing the biodiversity of an environment is one that has proven very difficult to assess. Recall that biodiversity is a term used to describe the complete collection of living organisms in a given area. For example, what are the consequences of producing plants that produce pesticides to ward off pests to increase the production of a particular crop? What if the pesticide was proven to be harmful to beneficial insects such as bees which are important pollinators? What if the pesticide was shown to have harmful effects in humans? Which of these is more or less important? The potential that GMO’s exhibit to increase crop yield and therefore, improve food production must also be considered in this evaluation. The same kinds of questions can be addressed as we consider GM animals and GMO’s for other reasons including vaccine production, development of model organisms and as sources of organ and tissue transplants. For example, it is common practice to inject domestic animals with growth hormone to speed up growth and increase yields of things such as meat and milk. When conducting such experiments, one should be asking whether or not these compounds could be harmful to the humans that consume these products and also whether or not such GMO’s could pose a risk to the environment.

Like GMO’s, stem cells and organismal cloning has received a lot of media attention and represents yet another highly controversial set of topics. As we have previously discussed, the use of stem cells and animal clones in the field of regenerative medicine can be invaluable to restore loss of function, and in some cases prevent eminent death, of an individual. The major controversy around stem cells seems to be on embryonic stem cells (ESC) as they are derived from embryos. Since embryos have the potential to develop into a human being and the removal of stem cells from an embryo can result in destruction of the embryo, this raises a moral dilemma around what is known as personhood. The term personhood has extensive roots in social rights movements and is an important component of legal affairs. In the context of ESC research, we can think of personhood as the status of being a person which has certain unalienable rights as a human being. So the major debate centers on whether or not an embryo can be considered a person. For some, the definition of being a person implies that you have certain attributes such as self-awareness. Those individuals might argue that without a developed nervous system, an embryo is not privy to these unalienable rights. Another controversial factor when discussing embryonic stem cells is the destruction of embryos associated with in vitro fertilization (IVF) or abortion. IVF is a form of assisted reproductive technology where an egg and sperm are collected and joined in a test tube before being implanted in a woman’s uterus for development. The process of IVF is lengthy and difficult partially owing to the fact that the retrieval of eggs from a female donor is somewhat complicated. Furthermore, the likelihood that any given embryo will successfully implant in a woman’s uterus is uncertain. For that reason, it is common practice for physicians to collect and fertilize several eggs at once. The eggs that are not used for implantation can be frozen in the event that the current round of IVF was unsuccessful or that the parents decide they would like another child at a later point in time. However, often these embryos will remain unused and will eventually be discarded. So the question arises, why can’t these embryos be used as a source of ESC if they are destined to never have the chance of development? Another controversial source of ESC is from aborted embryos and fetuses that are collected in abortion clinics. If these embryos will otherwise be treated as biohazardous waste, why should they not be contributed to scientific research on ESC? Would the use of such aborted embryos somehow endorse the practice of abortion? While most individuals could easily argue that the use of stem cell therapy in regenerative medicine is clearly a good thing, the potential source of these stem cells has much more ambiguous and problematic implications. Likewise, the cloning of animals becomes a troubling topic for many individuals including those in the scientific community.  While the cloning of animals to generate “prize” animals is a practice that has been employed in animal husbandry to generate animals with certain desirable characteristics may be uncomfortable, the use of cloning to help increase the numbers of individuals in an endangered species may seem ethically appropriate. When we consider the cloning of human embryos, we often see a much more passionate debate. One form of cloning, known as therapeutic cloning, aims to generate human embryos for the purpose of creating matched cells for transplant or to use such embryos as human research models. For some the thought of human cloning illicit images of humans being produced for commercialization purposes.

Embryonic stem cells have been the topic of debate of many organizations, including the one shown here. | Although cloning is a popular technique for the production of “prize” animals in the field of animal husbandry, there are a lot of individuals who feel strongly that animals should not be cloned.
With the improvement of genetic testing techniques, DNA analyses can be performed fairly quickly and for a small cost. This does raise concerns about how such information might be used. | As discussed in this unit, there is a significant amount of debate about whether or not genes should be considered as patentable items.

The publication of the human genome project has made way for significant advances in the understanding and treatment of human disease. The development of new tools and techniques for sequencing large amounts of DNA has made genetic testing and DNA diagnostics a more tangible and common practice. There is significant concern about the implications of having such data. What if an individual has been identified to carry a genetic disease for which there is no cure? Is there any benefit to that individual to know that they may develop that disease at some point in their lifetime? What are the potential impacts of false negative or false positive tests on an individual's well-being? Should testing of non-disease traits (such as intelligence or athleticism) be a part of a genetic test? Who should have access to the genetic profile of an individual? This could be particularly problematic as it could result in conflicts with health insurance and hiring practices if provided to health insurance agencies and employers, respectively. This latter point is the focus of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) which was signed into law by George W. Bush. This law prohibits potential employers and health insurance agencies from discriminating amongst individuals based on their genetics.

Yet another topic to consider with respect to bioethics is the idea of gene patenting. We will discuss patents in more detail in our next unit, but for the sake of our current discussion is important to understand what a patent is. A patent grants exclusive rights to an inventor for a particular period of time and prevents others from profiting from the production, use, sale, or distribution of someone's invention. Individuals or groups of individuals who feel that they have a patentable idea must submit a patent application to the US Patent and Trademark Office. It is the role of this agency to determine whether or not the proposed patent does in fact represent a novel idea. Another factor that must be considered is whether or not the patent application includes a product of that individuals or group of individuals mind or whether it is a product of nature. When asked about whether or not he would patent his vaccination against smallpox, Edward Jenner responded by comparing the idea of patenting his vaccination to someone trying to patent the sun. It is nature and therefore, is not something that is patentable. Recall from unit 1 that Edward Jenner used the material from cowpox lesions as a way to vaccinate individuals against the smallpox virus. Even with the caveat that things of nature cannot be patented, many biological patents do exist. Examples of such patents include the oil-eating bacterium produced by Anada Chakrabarty. You may recall from unit 1 that Anada Chakrabarty took this case to the US Supreme Court in 1980 where it was ruled that living organisms could be patented as long as they were substantially altered by man. Another example of a biological patent is the patent of two genes that have been linked to an increase risk of breast and ovarian cancer. These genes, known as the BRCA1 and BRCA 2 genes have been the focus of recent debate. These genes were originally isolated by researchers at Myriad Genetics, and Myriad holds the patent for these genes. Since their original isolation, Myriad has developed screening tests for individuals to determine whether or not they carry the cancer causing versions of these genes. This has proven to be an invaluable tool in the early diagnosis and treatment of breast and ovarian cancer. However, many argue that a gene is a product of nature and simply removing it from the rest of the human genome does not alter the material significantly enough to warrant a patent. Individuals in the research and medical community have expressed outrage as they argue that the patent of these genes has stifled research which could potentially lead to the advancement of treatments and identification of breast and ovarian cancer.

Another issue that we have yet to discuss is the idea of synthetic genome. A synthetic genome is one that is synthesized by man. Such genomes have already been introduced into bacterial cells. What are the potential applications and risks of such forms of biotechnology?