In this blog post, we will look at the ethical issues surrounding the opposition to GMO and human genetic engineering, and the counterarguments to it.
You may have heard the word GMO at least once. Having heard it on TV news or read it in newspapers, GMO has become a familiar word to us. GMO stands for “Genetically Modified Organism,” which can be translated into Korean as “genetically modified food” or “genetically modified organism.” A genetically modified organism is an organism that has taken only useful genes from the genes of another organism and inserted them into an organism that does not have those genes, causing the organism to have the traits of the genes. Among these organisms, if the government has evaluated the safety and proven that they are suitable for consumption, they can be used as food and are called genetically modified foods. However, despite the government’s proven safety, people’s perception of GMOs is not good. On the contrary, the world, or at least the people of Korea, view GMOs very negatively, with books being published about the dangers of GMOs and anti-GMO movements being held. In the midst of this, the public’s attitude towards human genetic engineering, which involves the manipulation of human genes, is not favorable. The most common arguments against human genetic engineering are concerns about human dignity and side effects. However, these arguments are very weak. Let’s take a closer look at the reasons why.
First, let’s talk about human dignity. The dictionary definition of human dignity is as follows: “Human dignity refers to the idea that a person has value simply because he or she is human, and that person’s character should be respected.” Of course, human dignity is one of the criteria that distinguishes humans from other living things, and the importance of human dignity is emphasized in the Constitution of Korea. But is the current situation in which human dignity is used as a kind of universal key to regulate all genetic engineering on humans really right? Let’s take a very extreme example. Hemophilia is the most representative genetic disease, which is caused by a lack of clotting factors in the blood. If a person with hemophilia suffers from a bleeding, the blood does not stop easily, and even a small wound can be a serious threat to life. Let’s say the wife of a couple is a carrier of hemophilia. Since the hemophilia gene is caused by a mutation in the X chromosome, the probability that the couple’s son will develop hemophilia is about 50%. The couple must live with the 50% probability of anxiety every day. Of course, nowadays, if hemophilia is suspected, the presence of the disease can be confirmed in advance through a blood test of the fetus even during pregnancy. However, since there is no cure for hemophilia yet, they will still have a difficult life. But suppose human genetic engineering has advanced to the point where it can replace the F8 and F9 genes on the X chromosome, which are the cause of hemophilia, with normal genes. Would you still oppose genetic engineering on the grounds of the sanctity of life? Should even hemophilia be respected as part of the human condition? I would like readers to come up with their own answers to this question.
Another issue that those who discuss human dignity raise is the commodification of life. They say that, as in the movies “The Island” and “Gattaca,” immoral acts can occur in which lives are bought and sold according to the flow of money. However, there are already legal places where lives can be bought and sold for money. It is the hospital. In a hospital, you have to pay money to save a life. That is because the money is used to maintain the hospital and save more lives. Human genetic engineering is no different. It is exactly the same system of increasing the lifespan of people for a fee. The only difference is whether the treatment is given before or after birth. Therefore, human genetic engineering does not raise any ethical issues.
Opponents of human genetic engineering argue that it should never be done, citing the risk of side effects. But this is also a silly argument by people who don’t know how genetic engineering is developing. Basically, all life-related research goes through sufficient preliminary experiments. First, the theory of the research is checked. Then, the theory is applied to animals such as rats. Only when no problems are found at this stage are clinical trials conducted on humans. Only when all of these processes are completed and the theory is deemed to be perfectly applicable is it recognized as a treatment method. In other words, most of the treatments we can access are treatments that have been recognized for their safety.
Of course, there are a few exceptions. These can be divided into two main categories. First, there are cases where the side effects are minimal or can be avoided. This is the case with medicine. There is a small side effect of falling asleep when taking a cold medicine, but no one would stop taking the medicine because of that side effect. Also, taking too much medicine can be life-threatening. However, this is a situation that people can avoid by their own will. The other case is when you have no choice but to proceed despite the side effects. Cancer treatment is the most typical example. According to data from Statistics Korea, the total number of deaths in South Korea in 2023 is 273,076. Of these, 81,818 people died of cancer, accounting for 30%. This is an unimaginable percentage. Given this situation, developing a cure for cancer is the dream and goal of all doctors and scientists.
However, there is currently no complete cure for cancer. Cancer treatment can be divided into two categories: active cancer treatment and palliative care. Active cancer treatment can be further divided into surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. However, active cancer treatment has very serious side effects. Even if the surgery is successful, there is a possibility that the cancer will return at any time, and the side effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy are well known. However, the benefits of such treatment far outweigh the risks, so cancer is treated even at the risk of serious side effects. However, the more advanced the cancer, the more the patient loses. In such cases, palliative care, which improves the patient’s quality of life and reduces suffering, is preferred over aggressive cancer treatment.
As mentioned above, with the exception of two cases where the side effects are too small or too large, most treatments, including human genetic engineering, have no side effects or can control side effects. When vaccines were first developed, people expressed a strong aversion to them because they were thought to be a way to get a disease before getting sick. However, once it became known that vaccines were safe and their efficacy was proven, they became a necessity for people’s health. However, if people had not taken the vaccine when it was first developed for fear of side effects, the vaccine would not have received the same treatment it does now. The point is that the development of human genetic engineering should not be stopped because of fear of side effects. Consider how much modern medical technology has developed through side effects.
Movies and dramas related to human genetic engineering are very interesting. But they are just imagination. They try to attract the audience with extreme and provocative scenes. Human genetic engineering in reality will be much quieter and more gradual. So let’s stop worrying and instead pay attention to how the technology can be developed in a safer and more appropriate direction.
