Rights and wrongs of genetic engineering

"How come you're AA and I'm SS? What criteria were used to make you AA while I get to be SS?" was the question asked by a sister who happened to be a sickle cell warrior to her older sister, who was AA genotype. You will agree that such a question, even though it has a scientific answer, empathetically puts one short of words.

The laws of nature desire and promote a natural cause, but science and technology have offered alternatives to ease the stressors that come with nature. One such intervention is genetic engineering, which can be further expanded to encompass genetic sampling and mutations. Science offers to alter the laws of nature by distorting or changing the course of an action.

Ethics, however, encompasses what is obtainable and acceptable within the context of human existence, not jeopardizing the safety of one individual over another. Such ethical rules are not limited to the merits of a community against those of a single individual. Ethics revolves around autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and honesty.

Let us quickly examine a few scenarios of the need for genetic engineering:

source

RIGHT A WRONG

The context of the choice to right a wrong involves an attempt to correct a deviation from the natural course or process. A good example is genetic selection, commonly practiced in developed countries where desired choices are made by prospective parents. Oftentimes, this involves terminating conceptions that have aberrations not desired or not compatible with living. Thus, through genetic sampling, choice selections are made and mutations are effected. Thus, the natural course of an event is tampered with, however, to right the wrong in its prospective outcome. Such interventions are seen in sickle cell patients identified in utero and aborted early. Ethically, this is much more acceptable as it ameliorates or aborts stresses that may result from the birth of the fetus if permitted to be brought to term. This could be seen as an opportunity to choose between benefits versus risks: the benefits of having the right choice versus the risk of living with a wrong outcome.

WRONG A RIGHT

The interventions of science and technology have, without a doubt, tampered with the right course, sometimes for experimental purposes but mostly as a result of medical interventions. Many of the results in this category occur as errors of medical interventions, and the parents have to live with such consequences. These interventions are often not intentional and have similar severity (if not worse) than alterations of a natural course. Interventions that intentionally disrupt the natural course of events often antagonize morals and ethics.

RIGHT A RIGHT (ENHANCEMENT)

There are occasions where a couple may desire specific features from their unborn kids and thus lead to genetic manipulations with an attempt to enhance some features or probably suppress some other features. In this context, the natural course is interrupted in an attempt to enhance or suppress features despite having nothing wrong with the fetus in utero.

Nigeria, a developing country, is yet to fully embrace genetic engineering, mostly because of its huge financial implications and perhaps the skill and equipment needed to carry out such activities. However, I am certain genetic engineering would be a field to be explored by many if the means were available.