Humbert 1

Amanda Humbert

Dr. Erin Dietel-McLaughlin

FYC 13100

29 October 2010

A Threat to Humanity

Does biotechnology represent an aid or a threat to human kind? This question has aroused

multiple diverse reactions through the years. It has been addressed both through exaggerated,

fictional, and satirical pieces such as Aldous Huxley’s “A Brave New World,” Michael Bay’s

“The Island”, and scholarly journal articles such as James Kanter’s "Europe’s New Approach to

biotech Food" and Robin Finn’s “From Superseeds to Mutant Tomatoes” from The New York

Times, among others. By using these sources, which vary in published dates, I attempt to

demonstrate how human concerns on the power of biotechnology have not changed greatly, but

are rather constant. Moreover, I intend to support my arguments with actual and real examples

that have come to effect recently. A critical overview of the negative and positive aspects of this

technology suggests that we need to find a balance in the utilization and creation of genetically

engineered products and organisms in our lives. The main issue lies on the fact that society is

sleepwalking through technological advances as Langdon Winner expresses on his text:

“Technological Somnambulism.” Even though I support certain practices of biotechnology such

as the manipulation of bacteria, diseases and harmful genes, I am convinced that we have to

impose limits on its practices to prevent chaotic and regretful results. If not controlled,

genetically engineered creations are going to be detrimental on the long run and they might

disrupt natural selection.

In the first place, one of the most impacting and terrifying achievements of biotechnology
 Humbert 2

is genetic engineering of organisms. This concern has been expressed differently through a

series of medias in the past, and it keeps coming up. It is mainly feared because it is a menace

against nature and life as we know it today. As the knowledge on manipulation of genes and

cells increases, the practice will increase as well. These manipulations can result in the

interference of natural selection (which can be described as the way traits become more or less

common given to survival of the fittest) since they will produce biased outcomes in gender and

traits.

On his successful novel “Brave New World”, written in 1931, Aldous Huxley makes a

subliminal prediction on the effects of biotechnology by developing a story about a utopian

society ruled by a totalitarian government that designed five different castes. In this world,

humans are genetically bred according to specific predetermined castes, and are conditioned to

slight intellectual and physical differences. For instance, the Epsilons were hampered by oxygen

deprivation and chemical treatments so that they were meant to carry out unskilled or easy tasks.

“Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so

frightfully clever. I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are

much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta

children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still

worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a

beastly color. I'm so glad I'm a Beta.” (Huxley).

From this quote we can extrapolate the level of power Huxley wants us to see technology

is capable of achieving. The quote demonstrates thoughts that had been literally implanted in an

individual’s mind to control society as a whole. "You all remember, I suppose, that beautiful

and inspired saying of Our Ford's: History is bunk." (Huxley). Similarly, this quote shows the
 Humbert 3

radical parameters biotechnology can reach. In the novel’s case, society has lost its identity and

past. It shows that social stability at the expense of natural life is preferred in this world. In the

entire text, Huxley is prophesying and warning us about the control that technology might

impose in our lives. Similarly, the film “The Island” which was released on 2005 deals with a

company that bred perfectly healthy human replicas. These served as the insurance policy of

millionaires around the world. When the real person needed an organ or such they would just

take that of their replicas, regardless of the wishes of the clone. This is another example of the

atrocities that genetic engineering can come to be guilty of. I believe it noteworthy that even

though these sources differ in release date by more than seventy-five years, the similarities are

remarkable.

Many might disagree with my conclusion that these sources serve a purpose to predict

and warn humanity of possible outcomes by claiming that this is only fiction and if even

possible way into the future. What they don’t realize is that technologies of these kind have

already been significantly developed. The first one being the ‘birth’ of Dolly the sheep. This is

the case of the first cloned mammal in history. This was achieved by taking the nucleus of an

udder cell from an adult, Finn Dorset, white sheep and implanting it into an unfertilized egg, and

then fusing them with electrical pulses. Even though these may not sound so complicated it was

a major achievement in science and it has led to numerous experiments that try to improve these

processes. On the scientific journal Science News, John Travis (M.D., M.P.H.), states in his

article “Dolly, Polly, Gene-send in the clones” that: “The cloning craze continues” and he goes

on to say “two biotech firms recently announced apparently major advances in cloning

technology.” (Travis). In addition there have been recent notable advances in in vitro

fertilization and the manipulation of gender, specific genes, and traits in general. Now we are
 Humbert 4

offered the opportunity of choosing our babies’ sex or eye color through invasive fertility

treatments and drugs. At first instance this may seem as something positive but it is really a

threat to natural selection. Some scientists argue that this will not be the case since these

procedures can cost over $20,000 dollars. However, it is not going to take long for these

practices to become cheap and common. This can be supported by the fact that the first

computer cost nearly 10,000 dollars and it took up the space of a whole room. Nowadays the

average computer costs no more that $2,000. As we can infer, the case will be similar with

manipulation of genes and fertilization, where scientists will soon be able to modify procedures

into simple and cheaper ones.

In the second place, biotechnology is affecting our health indirectly because as time goes

by we are increasingly consuming genetically exploited products. The intake of influenced and

artificial products has never proven healthy. Actually, it has always resulted in harmful diseases

or health conditions. In his article “From Superseeds to Mutant Tomatoes” published in The

New York Times, Robin Finn tells us about how Dr. Zachary Lippman, an Assistant Professor

Ph.D. at the Watson School of Biological Sciences at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, is close

to discovering a genetic intervention capable of turning a normal tomato plant into what the

author describes as a “bionic fruit factory.” Finn writes: “Simply put, his achievement is this: By

manipulating a single copy of a mutant gene, he can make a tomato plant increase its yield by

half and simultaneously sweeten its produce.” (Finn). I believe with common sense and logic

anyone can realize that nothing that makes a plant grow as rapidly as this and is sweetened at

the same time can be good to consume. Since the production of modified products gradually

grows, consumption does so as well. This has already resulted in the emergence of many

medical conditions and the worsening of others. If governments do not take control of these
 Humbert 5

matters we will soon find ourselves paying irrational prices for ‘normal’ natural food. These

ideas are sometimes unsupported and refuted by many for the sole reason that this practices

result in more than triple revenue than it would if done naturally. However, these individuals are

not being conscious about the effects this will have in the future and in their personal health as

consumers.

In third place, genetic engineering can be used negatively. In a paper published in 2003, the

Professor of Law at Georgetown University, David A. Koplow states: “At this point, it is

abundantly clear to all that the struggle against bio-terrorism will be long, difficult, and multi-

faceted. The latest word regarding the possible threat of smallpox bioterrorism in the United

States…,” and he goes on to say: “Yet it is prudent to prepare for the possibility that terrorists

would kill indiscriminately, who do kill indiscriminately, would use diseases as a weapon."

(Koplow). It is clear that biotechnology represents a threat to society and it is extremely difficult

for the government to control it. The genetic mutations and growths that can be achieved in a lab

have increasingly become a fear to scientists and governments. Since it has become easier for

scientists to manipulate genes this will be more common. Due to this we have to keep in mind

that a terrorist could be able to perpetuate and multiply harmful bacteria infinitely only by

getting his hands on it. He could insert it in society with no possible control of the government or

anyone.

Lastly, biotechnology challenges religion, morals and ethics. Everything that is done and

produced in an unnatural way (not done by a higher being or God) is not good intentioned or

might not have positive results for humanity. Particularly in the case of cloning, the Roman

Catholic Church rejects it for using embryos as objects rather than seeing them as potential

human lives with rights. It is often the case that cloned embryos are highly prone to experience
 Humbert 6

medical difficulties such as neurological and developmental problems. Not only the church but

also ethicists in general are absolutely against researchers attempting cloning. They argue that it

is in opposition to sexual reproduction, which we have been practicing for millions of years now,

and it seems irrational to replace it by these methods. According to research done by the

Encyclopedia of Science and Religion: “Some believe that cloning would confuse and probably

subvert relationships between parents and their cloned children. If one person in a couple were

the source of the clone's DNA, at a genetic level that parent would be a twin of the clone, not a

parent. This is assuredly not to say that parents may thereby select or control their child's

personality or abilities, because persons are more than genes.” I believe this is a very powerful

quote that proves in multiple ways how biotechnology is plain unnatural. An organism should

come to life only by the power of God and nature, and scientists have absolutely no right to mess

with human nature. It is also stated in this article: “some fear that by its nature cloning moves too

far in the direction of control and away from the unpredictability of ordinary procreation.” This

particular excerpt can be directly connected to Huxley’s fears of a perfectly controlled utopian

society and how biotechnology can be taken to extremes if not regulated.

Every one of these examples should be reason enough to put a stop to biotechnological

research and advances. However, as we do so infinitely, we are sleepwalking, letting scientists

and researchers take over our lives and futures. As Langdon Winner argues that most of the time

we accept certain changes that have strong implications without really knowing about it; he says

this is as: “signing the contract without knowing the terms”. (Winner). He is right to say we are

sleep walking through all these changes that are going to determine human existence. Although

certain practices of biotechnology like the manipulation of bacteria, and harmful genes can be

helpful, the negative threats and potential possibilities it encompasses overweigh the positive
 Humbert 7

aspects. We have to take action and impose limits on its practices to prevent chaotic and

regretful results. If not controlled, genetically engineered creations are going to result in the end

of nature as we know it.

 Humbert 8

Works Cited

"Cloning." Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Ed. Ray Abruzzi and Michael J.

McGandy. Macmillan-Thomson Gale, 2003. eNotes.com. 2006. 28 Oct, 2010

<http://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/cloning>

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006. Print.

Koplow, David A. "That Wonderful Year: Smallpox, Genetic Engineering, and Bio-

Terrorism." Georgetown Law Faculty Publications (2003): 495-96. The Scholarly Commons.

Georgetown University Law Center, Jan. 2010. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.

<http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=facpub>.

Robin Finn. "From Superseeds to Mutant Tomatoes." The New York Times - Breaking

News, World News & Multimedia. The New York Times Comp, 20 Aug. 2010. Web. 13 Oct.

2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22tomato.html?ref=genetic_engineering>.

The Island. Dir. Michael Bay. Prod. Kenny Bates. Perf. Ewan McGregor, Scarlett

Johansson, and Sean Bean. Dreamworks, 2005. DVD.

Travis, John. "Dolly, Polly, Gene---send in the Clones." Science News 152.8 (1997): 127.

Hesburgh Libraries // University of Notre Dame. Society for Science & The Public, 23 Aug.
 Humbert 9

1997. Web. 9 Oct. 2010. http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.nd.edu/sici?origin=sfx

%3Asfx&sici=0036- 8423(1997)152%3A8%3C127%3ADPGSIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D&

Winner, Langdon. "Technological Somnambulism." The Whale and the Reactor: A Search

for Limits in the Age of High Technology. 1986. 644-49. Print.

 Humbert 10

Excellent (25-23) Good (22-20) Fair (19-17) Poor (16 or

below)

Audience, 22/25: Not entirely clear

Purpose & who is being persuaded,
Context but the thesis and context
are clear
Organization 21/25: Good logical
progression overall, good
attempt at topic
sentences and transitions,
at least one paragraph
could be split into two
Development 20/25: Good attempt at
integrating source
material, though a greater
synthesis of sources
within paragraphs would
have been helpful;
balance of discussion
between novel/movie is
uneven; some ideas could
be further explained
Coherence 21/25: Scattered
sentence-level errors, but
no major clarity issues
MLA 22/25: Good effort at
Conventions MLA page format and
citation, with a few issues
to clean up

+Research Proposal: 10/10

+Annotated Bib: 10/10
+Presentation: 5/5

Comments:

Amanda,
 Humbert 11

Thanks for submitting your research paper. There are some great strategies demonstrated in
this essay—you establish a clear focus in the beginning and maintain that focus throughout, and
you do a great job in several paragraphs providing clearly articulated topic sentences to show
how each paragraph’s main idea connects to your thesis. You also do a nice job attempting to
draw from source material, as you use some quotes in nearly every paragraph and then attempt
to explain how those quotes illustrate your point.

I would have liked to have seen a greater synthesis of sources in those paragraphs, where
instead of only using one source per paragraph to demonstrate the argument, evidence from
multiple sources is used to illustrate the richness and complexity of your case. Development
overall could be improved, and I think focusing your sense of audience would help in terms of
giving you some ideas for what kinds of points and evidence and examples are going to be most
meaningful for your intended readers. Are you trying to persuade budding scientists? The
average consumer? College students? Those populations have different things in common and
different shared concerns when it comes to the bioengineering debate, so putting your argument
together with those concerns in mind will help to create a focused, more developed presentation
of points.

Overall, though, this is a strong effort in this essay that demonstrates a lot of growth in terms of
your ability to work with complex ideas and stake out a perspective within that debate. Keep up
the great work!

Best,

Dr. E

Total Points: 131/150 = 87.3%

Grade: B
Humbert 12