Gene Therapy

Thanks for the response and for the vigorous debate thus far. I think I can very easily respond to most of your arguments, however. So basically the only argument you make is that gene therapy can cure diseases. My argument is not that this is not true, but that even if it is true, it is something that both on a personal level and a societal level we should prohibit because despite potential benefits it is a dangerous field with lots of unintended social and scientific consequences. Many things that could potentially be beneficial on a scientific level such as private organ donation markets, for instance, are banned by our society and condemned specifically because of such negative externalities. When we consider whether a specific scientific endeavor is ethical and should be utilized, we can not ignore all of these external double effects and consideration. ____ Rebuilding my arguments 1) First of all, let me just take a couple of quotes from the wikipedia article on viral vectors my opponent quoted. "Some viral vectors, for instance lentiviruses, insert their genomes at a seemingly random location on one of the host chromosomes, which can disturb the function of cellular genes and lead to cancer. In a severe combined immunodeficiency retroviral gene therapy trial conducted in 2002, two of the patients developed leukemia as a consequence of the treatment.[3]" "Since humans commonly come in contact with adenoviruses, which cause respiratory, gastrointestinal and eye infections, they trigger a rapid immune response with potentially dangerous consequences" While what my opponent says is true in that research in general advances and leads to safer technologies, that this is not necessarily true in this regard. Vaccines has been made "safe" over hundreds of years and yet we still have fears of contamination and the cause of diseases such as Down Syndrome. Viruses are even more tricky and difficult to understand and predict. Even if we understand our human genome fully, which is questionable, we certainly do not fully understand all of the potential harms viruses can cause. I mentioned HIV/AIDS not to say that viruses we are using for gene therapy could infect individuals with AIDS, but only to imply that viruses often insert themselves into the genome and do not express themselves for years or decades later. The other difference I mentioned between most treatment (including vaccines) and gene therapy is that with gene therapy using viral vectors we are actively letting viruses integrate into our genome and potentially insert other non related genes or make other alterations. Moreover, when we are using these viral vectors on vulnerable embryos that do not have reasonable immune systems built up yet, we are dealing with an even more problematic course of action. 2) First of all, if these harms come about in even one industrialized or third world country that should be enough to take away the legitimacy of this course of action. Especially, because what tends to happen with medical research is that once it is available anywhere those whom are rich and have money will be able to get the treatment. They can fly to the U.S and get treatment or to any other large monied country with looser safety standards. While Homosexuality and other social traits certainly have environmental components there is also overwhelming evidence of a genetic component http://news.bbc.co.uk.... Moreover, Homosexuality is but a single example and you do nothing to deny my major point which is that interest groups can form that will use genetics as a wedge issue and as a way to terrorize individual that do not genetically conform. 3) The thing is that even if traits are complex, it is likely that as research advances we will be able to do many things that will effect human performance. Things such as alteration of telomere sequences can easily impact aging. We have the potential for limb or other forms of regeneration in our genome but that it lies inactive. Once these types of traits are expressed, we really will fine a race to overexpose such traits which will carry a heavy cost. 4) Actually, with the reemergence of old threats a constant in the world of bio terrorism, it is very likely that we fill find our current conditions may give us immunity in ways we could not predict. The truth is that stopping disease through our current methods is fundamentally different than altering the genetic sequence in the sense that our genetics is by the pro's own admission not fully understood and has many impacts we can not fathom on immunity. The pro is the one thinking like Nostradamus in that he is arguing that our actions can lead to all of these untold benefits. Con is the side of caution that says that we can not predict the impacts of our actions and so we should be weary and prohibit alterations that could lead to disastrous consequences. 5) Because my opponent does not get to respond to this point, he does not really debate with my on a philosophical level. While one has the right to impact ones own body and that of ones immediate offspring ( though only really while in the womb), what gene therapy also does is impact the lines of descendants down the line. You are denying your children and their children the right of genetic self expression and choice and imposing your own genetic vision down the line. This is morally unjustified 6) Moreover, as I said in my 6th point this puts your kids at risk for discrimination and problems. What you alter and do not will be recorded and this will compromise our right to genetic privacy. Once we allow this kind of gene therapy to exist in society we can say goodbye to any notion of privacy and our right to not know what lies in our genome. This point is also not responded to and I think pretty significant. Gene Therapy has the potential to break down our notion of the individual and individual rights. Moreover, it has the potential to weaken our immune system, inject dangerous viruses into us while we are in our most vulnerable state, unintentionally remove viable and useful traits from our genome and ultimately eliminate notions of justice and equality at birth that form the basis of our great American nation. I am proud to oppose.