Gene Therapy

Thank you for allowing me to post this argument and for agreeing to continue the round as a three round debate. Judges should ignore Round 2 and pretend that this is the start of the debate. 1) Gene therapy has much inherent danger The danger inherent to Gene therapy is actually similar to that we find with vaccinations only much more extreme. Most gene therapy requires the use of vectors typically viral or bacterial. We are therefore exposing embryos or human replication lines to disease particles that are not actually inert as in the case of normal vaccination, but actually successful in infiltration and replication. Thus, even if we can successfully identify and change genetic traits, there is a risk associated with the conscious infection of embryos. We do not claim to fully understand viral mutations and their spreading of virulence factors. Indeed, we have seen by our attempts to eradicate disease that what often happens by our attempts is that viruses and bacteria become immune and even more deadly. Moreover, we know from viral behavior in diseases such as HIV/AIDS that viruses are very good at laying dormant for years. Gene Therapy has the potential to introduce new and immune disease that breed and grow through the vulnerable embryo. When parents are able to perform gene therapy on embryos, they are putting these embryos and the future children at unconscionable risk. 2) it is precisely because of the cost gradient associated with gene therapy that allowance of gene therapy would produce unimaginable and unjust social consequences. Both sides agree that at least at first gene therapy would be so expensive as to prohibit mass utilization by many individuals. However, where we disagree is in the statement that such therapy would only be used for the curing of diseases and not for enhancement or social policy. I will tackle each of these in turn. Enhancement- In society today we find that those with money are at an advantage in terms of social environment. However, we have to realize that when advantage comes from genetically bought distinctions, that we are in a completely different ballgame. When individuals have permanent and ingrained genetic advantages that if put into germ-line cells can be passed on to and enhanced in their offspring, we are at the dawn of a new era of super and subpar human beings. Advantage and advantageous traits can be bought and can create an irrepressible social hierarchy. Today those of various non-white races in America are at a disadvantage because they come of ethnic or racial groups that tend to offer worse social environments, in the future that could emerge from the allowance of the pro side, there could actually emerge a true bell curve based on the purchase of intelligence or other enhancements. Even small boosts such as increased testosterone production or other hormone production. Princeton Geneticist Lee Silver has written extensively on this topic. Silver in Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World, predicts that in 2350: "The GenRich who account for the 10 percent of the American population all carry synthetic genes. Genes that were created in the laboratory...The GenRich are a modern-day hereditary class of genetic aristocrats...All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich." (Silver 1997) Social engineering- Even though it is unlikely that individuals could afford massive scale social engineering it is entirely possible that on a large scale interest groups could invest networks for cheap and reliable genetic engineering. Churches could use their vast pooling of resources in order to severely pressure parents to eliminate traits such as ones that may be identified that contribute to homosexuality. Look to what was done by the jewish community to pressure breeding to eliminate Tay-Sachs for a model for how this can work. 3) The race to the bottom/top in terms of what is truly normative. The truth is that once a large portion of a population decides that one trait is desirable ( be it something like tallness or shortness), these traits become generally necessary for social advantage as well as the ability to attract mates and etc in terms of sexual selection. There is adverse pressure to race to the top in terms of the development of these outrageous traits. Imagine a society in which peacock tails are bought and in which only those with the best enchantments have chances to advancement. Even though a parents direct offspring can benefit from these traits, we are dealing with a situation in which as this becomes normative more and more alterations are needed in order to keep up with the status quo. Thus, it is similar to the leaders of a nation building bigger weapons and being sucked into a permanent and difficult to cease escalation and allocation of resources into weapon building. Cross apply what I said earlier about the potential risks for population wrecking diseases and you can see why this escalation and push for bigger and better enhancements can imperil mankind. 4) We have limited knowledge of what advantages diseases may bring. Compounding all of this is our absolutely limited knowledge of how things we now view as deficient actually enhance our adaptability in many areas. For instance being a carrier of sickle cell genes gives immunity to Malaria which was very important in the African continent. When we eliminate diseases we can surely not be sure of what benefits and immunity we are destroying. Again, we could be letting in killer disease and destroying our immunity to them without realization. 5) Generational non-consent When we change germ-lines we are permanently altering the destiny of future generations that we should not ethically be able to control. Most choices we make impact our direct offspring and future generation indirectly and give them control over their future. When we convert into a different religion for instance, we do this impacting our offspring but always giving them the chance in the future to undo or alter this choice. On the other hand germ-line therapy eliminates this ability. 6) Child's right to privacy Since gene therapy must be done in labs there will be a record of all alterations done and those not chosen for the perusal of insurance companies, politicians, police and etc. This violates their integral right to privacy of their own genetic code. There are a lot more arguments out there but I think these suffice for now.