The Future of Genetic Engineering

With the development of “selfish” genes by the University of California, Irvine, genetic engineering has become significantly more ethically complex. “Selfish” genes propagate through generations, meaning that any change made in an ancestor will show also in the descendents. This is different from conventional genetic engineering, where the genetic changes in an individual would only continue based on normal genetic distribution. This advancement presents several new ethical issues, not only in the genetic engineering of wildlife, but also with that of human genetic engineering.

The most immediate issue with the inclusion of “selfish” genetic engineering in wildlife is the potential problem of maintaining the propagation of accidental or unintended changes to a species’ genome. For example, the inclusion of anti-malaria genes into the mosquito population in Africa is one of the most prospective possible applications. This change to the mosquitos’ genome would potentially save millions of lives, and eradicate the risk of mosquito spread malaria forever. However, consider the possibility that this change also accidentally causes an increase in the spread of yellow-fever. How would this then be rectified? Ethan Bier, a fly biologist at the University of California, San Diego, proposes that for each “gene-drive”, a functionally opposite drive must be developed. This way, in the event of a malfunctioning gene drive, the reversal can be spread just as quickly.

Another potential issue with the technology is the possibility of environmental attacks by terrorist groups or nations. A sufficiently thought out gene-drive could wipe out entire biomes. For example, a change in vegetation that causes complication up the food chain, or one that eradicates a major food crop. While currently development of such a gene-drive may be impossible, or cost millions of dollars, presumably the development cost will decrease significantly as the technology develops, putting it in range of large terrorist groups or rogue states. And how would these attacks be considered in wars between nations? Would it be classified as a biological attack, or its own genre? Would international law have to change to reflect this?

The possible implications in human genetic engineering must also be considered. While a gene-drive that eliminates major human diseases such as cancer or diabetes sounds extremely promising, it is important to understand that not all people may want to incorporate these changes into their genome. An “unselfish” genetic change would allow an unmodified parent and a modified parent to avoid the modifications in their offspring. However, a “selfish” genetic change would mean that the genetic changes would continue in their children. As a result, humanity would need to split into two distinct groups: those who are free of genetic changes, and those who are not. The only possibility to merge the two groups would be to use genetic engineering to undue those very changes.

While gene-drives represent a monumental advancement in genetic engineering, the ethical dilemmas that arise are just as significant. With great power comes great responsibility.