Are the negative perceptions of GMOs and human genetic engineering justified? Human genetic engineering holds the promise of curing genetic diseases and extending life, but opposition to it is based on concerns about human dignity and side effects. However, with sufficient preliminary testing and safety verification, side effects can be minimized, and advances in human genetic engineering have the potential to provide safer and more effective treatments.
You’ve probably heard the term GMO before. Whether you’ve heard it on the TV news or read about it in the newspaper, GMOs have become a household word. GMO stands for “Genetically Modified Organism,” which translates to “genetically recombinant food” or “genetically recombinant organism” in Korean. A genetically recombinant organism is an organism that takes only a specific useful gene from one organism and inserts it into an organism that does not have that gene, so that the organism has the properties of that gene. If these organisms have been evaluated by the government for safety and deemed suitable for human consumption, they can be used as food and are called genetically engineered foods. However, despite the government’s assurance of their safety, people’s perception of GMOs is far from favorable. On the contrary, the world, or at least the people in Korea, are looking at GMOs in a very negative way, with books being published about the dangers of GMOs and campaigns against GMOs. This does not bode well for human genetic engineering, which is the manipulation of human genes. The most common arguments used by opponents of human genetic engineering are concerns about human dignity and side effects. However, these arguments are very weak, and we’ll explain why.
First, let’s talk about human dignity. The dictionary definition of human dignity is as follows “Human dignity is the idea that a person is worthy of existence and that his or her personality should be respected simply because he or she is a human being.” Of course, human dignity is one of the things that distinguishes humans from other living beings, and the Constitution of Korea emphasizes its importance. But is it right that human dignity is being used as a one-size-fits-all key to regulate all genetic engineering on humans? Let’s take a very extreme example. Hemophilia, the most common genetic disease, is caused by a lack of clotting factors in the blood. When a person with hemophilia bleeds, it doesn’t stop easily, so even a small cut can be life-threatening. Let’s say a couple’s wife is a hemophilia carrier. The gene for hemophilia is caused by a mutation on the X chromosome, so there is about a 50% chance that their son will have hemophilia. The couple has to live with that 50% chance every day. Of course, nowadays, if you suspect hemophilia, you can test the fetus’ blood during pregnancy to see if it’s going to develop. However, there is still no cure for hemophilia, so it’s a tough life. However, suppose human genetic engineering is developed and the mutations in the F8 and F9 genes of the X chromosome that cause hemophilia can be replaced with normal genes. Would we still oppose genetic engineering on the grounds of human dignity? Should we respect even hemophiliacs by including them as human beings? We leave it to the reader to answer this question for themselves.
Another issue for those who argue for human dignity is the commodification of life. The immorality of buying and selling lives for money, as in the movies “Ireland” and “Gattaca,” can happen. However, there is already a legitimate place where life can be bought and sold for money. Hospitals. Hospitals save lives for a price. This is so that the hospital can be maintained and more lives can be saved. Human genetic engineering is no different. It’s exactly the same system of extending a person’s life for money. The only difference is whether the treatment is done before or after birth. Therefore, human genetic engineering does not pose any ethical problems.
Opponents of human genetic engineering cite the risk of side effects and argue that it should never be done. But this is a silly argument from people who don’t understand how genetic engineering is developed. Basically, any research that involves life is subjected to sufficient preliminary experiments. First, the theory behind the research is checked. Then, the theory is tested on animals such as mice. Only if there are no problems are clinical trials conducted on humans. Only after all of this is done, and the theory is deemed to be fully applicable, is it recognized as a treatment. In other words, most of the treatments that we have access to have been recognized as safe.
Of course, there are some exceptions. They can be categorized into two main categories. The first is when the side effects are minimal or completely avoidable. This is the case with medications. Cold medicines have a small side effect of making you fall asleep, but no one would stop taking them because of that side effect. Also, taking a lot of medication can be life-threatening. However, this is a situation that can be avoided if the person is willing to do so. The other case is when a person has no choice but to live with 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 was 273,076. Of those, 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 every doctor and scientist.
However, there is currently no cure for cancer. Cancer treatments can be divided into two categories. Active cancer treatment and palliative care. Active cancer treatment can be divided into surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. However, aggressive cancer treatment has very high side effects. Even if the surgery is successful, there is always a chance of recurrence, and the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation therapy are severe, to say the least. However, there is much more to be gained from these treatments than lost, so it’s worth the risk and the side effects. However, the more advanced the cancer, the more you have to lose. In this case, palliative care that improves the patient’s quality of life and reduces suffering is preferred over aggressive cancer treatment.
With the exception of the two cases above, where the side effects are too small or too large, most treatments, including human genetic engineering, have no side effects or can be controlled. When vaccines were first developed, people were incredibly resistant to the idea of injecting themselves with a disease before they got it. However, once it was realized that vaccines were safe and very effective, they became a necessity for people’s health. But vaccines wouldn’t be where they are today if people hadn’t gotten vaccinated when they were first developed because they were afraid of the side effects. The point is, fear of side effects shouldn’t stop the development of human genetic engineering. Think about how many side effects modern medical technology has overcome.
Movies and TV shows about human genetic engineering are very entertaining. But they are only imaginary. They try to draw in the audience with as extreme and sensationalized scenes as possible. In reality, human genetic engineering will develop much more quietly and gradually. So, it’s time to stop being concerned and worried and start watching with interest to see how the technology will evolve in a safer and more appropriate way.
