De La O 1

Kate De La O

Instructor McCann

English 1302.203

11 April 2022

Something

Ambition, the drive pushing humans to improvement is evident throughout history. Any

boundaries set seem to only aggravate the human race to surpass it. Technological advancements

made in the twenty-first century have revolutionized medicine and what is perceived to be

possible. Genetic modification of the human embryo is the new curiosity plaguing those who are

ambitious to now alter the human race. While the pace of technological advancements never kept

up with the humans’ imagination of possibility, it has now in the aspect of germline editing.

Genetical modifying plants and animals is no longer suffice. Going a step further with the

modification of the very being of an individual is the next upcoming challenge. Genetic

modification of the human embryo is supported by many for its plethora of benefits: removing

hereditary diseases, curing diseases, and building immunity to sicknesses. However, surpassing

this challenge may undo the very good and harmonious living they are trying to achieve.

(INSERT THESIS)

Regulations In Research

While genetic modification of the human embryo claims many benefits our technology is

not up to par, therefore requiring more research. However, research backing modification of

germ cells (sperm cells, eggs, and embryos) is unregulated. Currently in the U.S, germline

editing is banned, preventing the government from funding any research regarding human

genetic engineering (CITE WEBSITE). Granted, there are no legislations preventing private
 De La O 2

companies from entering and experimenting in this field of study. There is no opposition to one’s

right to create a private organization of study but rather the latter, the unrestricted

experimentation process of human embryos. Without a blanket of protection from the federal

government human embryos are exposed to unethical and cruel methods of experimentation.

Though many may argue that an embryo is not yet a human, merely a fertilized egg, they are

considered human research subjects by the National Institution of Health (NIH) if they are

intended to transfer into a woman’s uterus (Dressor 203). Therefore, only protecting a few out of

the many potential lives to be experimented on. Countries such as Hungary, Costa Rica, and

Ecuador determined that every embryo has the right to life (Ossarch 736). While the United

States has not yet come to specific definitions and regulations when it comes to genetic

modification of the human embryo, it leaves the door wide open to unethical practice. Embryos,

that would have otherwise grown to become healthy children, are now threatened to be a product

of curiosity and experimentation. Regulations should be implemented as technological

advancements are made in this field of study. If regulations are to be put in place, how strict and

direct can they become to simultaneously protect human embryos and allow room for

advancement? There is never going to be a balance in which both sides live in a harmonious

functioning agreement. Like freedom and order in the U.S, regulation, and protection of the

human embryo counter each other in every recurrence. In order for there to be experimentation

there is failure and death of an embryo, and for complete protection of the embryo there is no

room for experimentation, consequently no leading to no advancement.

No scientific breakthrough was accomplished without failure. Failure, in this case, is

more than just the disposing of chemicals or prototype machinery, it would result in the disposal

of human embryos and lives. If an embryo born with negative off target results, unforeseen and
 De La O 3

unintended genome edits, where would the guilt lie? Who would remain responsible for

providing and aiding the individual whom is unfortunately and unfairly a failed product or

byproduct? Answering the infamous question “do the ends justify the means?” is where the

argument narrows too. Is humanity ready to make those types of sacrifices? Sacrificing humans’

lives, forever altered, for the better or worse. One may argue that other scientific breakthroughs,

such as antibiotics, involved human endangerment as this technological advancement in

medicine was new to the twentieth century. On the contrary, while antibiotics were in essence in

an experimental phase at one point, they never put in danger future offspring of the individual

who was experimented on. Nor did it achieve its success through unethical practices. (INSERT

CLOSING SENT.)

Rights (SUBHEADING STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION)

Rights and liberties are the epidemy of American beliefs. The drive fueling the American

Revolution was the belief that every human was designated, from birth, fundamental rights. The

current governmental system in the United States is centralized around the protection of citizens

liberties and rights. While loose interpretation of the Constitution seems to be the most common

forms of interpretation, many argue that genetic modification of the human embryo is a right.

Nevertheless, human germline editing has not yet been directly ruled by the Supreme Court as a

right, as no human germline modification case has been presented before it. The fourth

amendment was extended to include parental rights in the BLANK vs. BLANK Supreme Court

case (CITE). Advocates for human germline modification use this extended clause under the

fourth amendment to justify the right to genetic modification of the human embryo. This

justification is unapplicable as any modification conducted on the germ level becomes

hereditary, affecting generations to come. Therefore, affecting more than the life of one child and
 De La O 4

being outside the sphere of parental rights. (INSERT INFORMATION FROM THE ARTICLE

FROM THE DOCUMENTARY)

“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are the unaidable rights mentioned in the

Declaration of Independence. These “god given” rights are the foundation on which the rest of

our government is built upon. It is the protection and guarantee of these very rights that dictate

the governmental system, laws and regulations passes, and how the country is operated. A

parent’s choice to genetically modify their child denies this individual from liberty and the

pursuit of happiness. The genetically modified individual had no say in whether the modification

should or should not take place jointly with the type of modification that was to be conducted.

Yes, it is absurd to expect consent from an individual that was yet be developed and birthed, but

this only proves the point further. Human embryos modified and discarded are denied the right of

life. Embryos born with defects, deficiencies, and off-target edits are robbed of their right to a

healthy life. Those born and left to live out their lives are dispossessed of liberty and privacy,

being obligated to constant supervision and continuous check-ups by the experimenters and

examiners. (ADD MORE INFO) (ADD CLOSING SENTENCE)

Malevolence

It has been exemplified through time that a human with an ambition to conquer will

climb the tallest mountains, crawl through the roughest terrain, and swim through the greatest

oceans to achieve their goal, even if it means harm to others. The human race, as opposed to

other mammals, is capable of purposeful harm, a malicious intent. Any resource within reach is

utilized for the purpose of getting one step closer to their visualization. If genome editing in

humans permits one to pick specific characteristics, what stops another from selecting traits that

favor for war and obedience? One with the means and drive to create a specific civilization can
 De La O 5

germ line editing. Of course, genetic modification of the human embryo is neutral, only tipping

the scale as the effect of one’s use. While the current intention to operate the genetic

modification of the human embryo is with good intention to improve human health, it may very

well be used to create soldiers. Yes, one can argue that laws and regulations will prevent such

uses. However, in current laws established it is noted that while the laws and regulations are

enforced, it has not prevented illegal gun purchases, human-trafficking, illegal usage of drugs,

etc. No matter law or regulation there will always be one who does the contrary. What about

other countries? Laws implemented in nation does not guarantee the implementation of similar

laws in another. (ADD MORE INFO) (ADD CLOSING SENTENCE)

The Inevitable

The Future

Conclusion
 De La O 6

Works Cited

Dressor, Rebecca. Genetic Modification of Preimplantation Embryos: Toward Adequate Human

Research Policies. no. No. 1, 2004, pp. 195–214.

Global Gene Editing Regulation Tracker. “United States: Germline / Embryonic.” Global Gene

Editing Regulation Tracker, 23 July 2019, crispr-gene-editing-regs-

tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/united-states-embryonic-germline-gene-

editing/#:~:text=Federal%20law%20prohibits%20the%20use.

Lanphier, Edward, and Fyodor Urnov. “Don’t Edit the Human Germ Line.” Nature, vol. 519,

Mar. 2015, pp. 410–11.

Li, Jing, et al. “Experiments That Led to the First Gene-Edited Babies: The Ethical Failings and

the Urgent Need for Better Governance.” Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE B,

vol. 20, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 32–38, https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.b1800624.

Montoya, Fernando. COMMENT INTERGENERATIONAL CONTROL: WHY GENETIC

MODIFICATION of EMBRYOS via CRISPR-CAS9 IS NOT a FUNDAMENTAL

PARENTAL RIGHT. Accessed 8 Mar. 2022.

Ndice Ossareh, Ta. WOULD YOU like BLUE EYES with THAT? A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to

GENETIC MODIFICATION of EMBRYOS. Accessed 8 Mar. 2022.

Shaver, LanceGarrett, et al. “A Human Rights Analysis of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short

Palindromic Repeats Germline-Editing for Disease Prevention.” Journal of Public Health

and Primary Care, vol. 1, no. 1, 2020, p. 17, https://doi.org/10.4103/jphpc.jphpc_21_20.

Sparrow, Robert. “Yesterday’s Child: How Gene Editing for Enhancement Will Produce

Obsolescence—and Why It Matters.” The American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 19, no. 7,

June 2019, pp. 6–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1618943.

 De La O 7

Stamell, Kiruna. “Why Gene Editing Isn’t the Answer.” Journal of the Royal Society of

Medicine, vol. 110, no. 7, Apr. 2017, pp. 280–82,

https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076817706278.