Gene therapy: changing who we are
Curing genetics diseases to designer babies. Genes control who a person is, and now, scientists can change one’s genes.
But is it morally right to change who we are?
Composed of DNA, the famous double helix, genes regulate the body’s form and function. When genes don’t work properly, the person suffers the consequences. From cancer to myopia, many diseases both deadly and benign, can be traced back to genetics.
According to Arthur Nienhuis, the former president of the American Society of Gene Therapy, in the 1960s, as the scientific community’s understanding of the connection between genetic disorders and specific genes grew clearer, the “dream of gene therapy emerged.”
Today, gene therapy is still in its infancy.
Currently, gene therapy focusses on somatic cells which are body cells such as blood cells. Gene therapy can be conducted in multiple ways: replacing a mutated gene with a healthy copy, “turning off” a bad gene, or altogether introducing a new gene into a person, according to the National Institute of Health (NIH) website.
Though still very new, from the time of its conception, gene therapy has progressed. Clinical trials have yielded successes, with several diseases successfully treated by gene therapy. Such diseases include Severe Combined Immune Deficiency (SCID), hereditary blindness, Hemophilia, Parkinson’s, and cancer, according to the Genetic Science Learning Center’s website.
But as the saying goes, every cloud has a silver lining. Unfortunately, when the therapy triggered leukemia, the gene therapy for SCID ended. Because of this, gene therapy is “currently only being tested for the treatment of diseases that have no other cures” according to the NIH website.
Gene therapy comes with many inherent risks as therapy alters the very makeup of a person. Patients face unwanted immune reactions, infection, and tumors.
Sophomores Seddon Stamper, Isabel Harnett, and Jacqueline Bursalyan are part of Carlmont’s Biotechnology Institute. The three collaborated on a project about gene therapy.
Stamper said, “There are many potential problems, from altering the wrong cells to damaging the DNA of the patient. These are all complications that need to be resolved or reduced for gene therapy to become a safer and more effective treatment.”
An additional complication is that cells die. For the patient, the effects of somatic cell gene therapy is often temporary. As somatic cells are not passed down to future generation, somatic cell gene therapy’s benefits, and harms, end with the patient.
Harnett said, “Gene therapy alleviates the symptoms of hereditary disease but in most cases this therapy is temporary and will have to redone multiple times as the cells will die off. It is not a permanent cure.”
In contrast is the idea of germline gene therapy, gene therapy targeting germ cells. Germ cells are reproductive cells, and gene alterations would be passed down from generation to generation. However, the subject is highly controversial. Scientists are unsure of how germline gene therapy would affect the development of the fetus and possible long-term side effects, according to the NIH website.
Additionally, germline gene therapy poses the issue of consent. An unborn fetus cannot decline or accept treatment. Beneficial or not, therapy would be imposed upon them.
Furthermore, many fear that germline gene therapy allows for too much control over human life. A fine line separates therapy and enhancement, deliberately manipulating genes to create a smarter, stronger, prettier human being.
Stamper said, “Gene therapy is facing multiple controversies. Especially with germline gene therapy, the religious opposition is that through gene therapy humans are playing God. The medical issues still remaining give rise to the question as to whether doctors should recommend patients to join a clinical trial. The potential Pandora’s box scenario of designer babies creates a social issue as germline gene therapy could increase discrimination, inequality, and racism.”
Biology for Biotechnology classes at Carlmont show the movie “Gattaca” to introduce bioethics. In the movie, people were segregated not by the color of their skin, but by their genes. Human control over genetics had been taken too far, and doctors would tailor the perfect baby specimens. Those who were conceived naturally, without genetic enhancements, were considered inferior. With the growth of gene therapy, many share a similar concern that gene therapy would be used for eugenics rather than therapy.
Bursalyan said, “Gene therapy has a bright future and can help cure many currently incurable diseases. More research on somatic and germline therapy is necessary. While we should take precautions, we also need to expand our horizons.”
Mankind has witnessed many past scientific advances face and push past their own set of ethical, legal, and social implications. While consequences must be weighed, they should not completely obstruct progress.
But is it morally right to change who we are?
Composed of DNA, the famous double helix, genes regulate the body’s form and function. When genes don’t work properly, the person suffers the consequences. From cancer to myopia, many diseases both deadly and benign, can be traced back to genetics.
According to Arthur Nienhuis, the former president of the American Society of Gene Therapy, in the 1960s, as the scientific community’s understanding of the connection between genetic disorders and specific genes grew clearer, the “dream of gene therapy emerged.”
Today, gene therapy is still in its infancy.
Currently, gene therapy focusses on somatic cells which are body cells such as blood cells. Gene therapy can be conducted in multiple ways: replacing a mutated gene with a healthy copy, “turning off” a bad gene, or altogether introducing a new gene into a person, according to the National Institute of Health (NIH) website.
Though still very new, from the time of its conception, gene therapy has progressed. Clinical trials have yielded successes, with several diseases successfully treated by gene therapy. Such diseases include Severe Combined Immune Deficiency (SCID), hereditary blindness, Hemophilia, Parkinson’s, and cancer, according to the Genetic Science Learning Center’s website.
But as the saying goes, every cloud has a silver lining. Unfortunately, when the therapy triggered leukemia, the gene therapy for SCID ended. Because of this, gene therapy is “currently only being tested for the treatment of diseases that have no other cures” according to the NIH website.
Gene therapy comes with many inherent risks as therapy alters the very makeup of a person. Patients face unwanted immune reactions, infection, and tumors.
Sophomores Seddon Stamper, Isabel Harnett, and Jacqueline Bursalyan are part of Carlmont’s Biotechnology Institute. The three collaborated on a project about gene therapy.
Stamper said, “There are many potential problems, from altering the wrong cells to damaging the DNA of the patient. These are all complications that need to be resolved or reduced for gene therapy to become a safer and more effective treatment.”
An additional complication is that cells die. For the patient, the effects of somatic cell gene therapy is often temporary. As somatic cells are not passed down to future generation, somatic cell gene therapy’s benefits, and harms, end with the patient.
Harnett said, “Gene therapy alleviates the symptoms of hereditary disease but in most cases this therapy is temporary and will have to redone multiple times as the cells will die off. It is not a permanent cure.”
In contrast is the idea of germline gene therapy, gene therapy targeting germ cells. Germ cells are reproductive cells, and gene alterations would be passed down from generation to generation. However, the subject is highly controversial. Scientists are unsure of how germline gene therapy would affect the development of the fetus and possible long-term side effects, according to the NIH website.
Additionally, germline gene therapy poses the issue of consent. An unborn fetus cannot decline or accept treatment. Beneficial or not, therapy would be imposed upon them.
Furthermore, many fear that germline gene therapy allows for too much control over human life. A fine line separates therapy and enhancement, deliberately manipulating genes to create a smarter, stronger, prettier human being.
Stamper said, “Gene therapy is facing multiple controversies. Especially with germline gene therapy, the religious opposition is that through gene therapy humans are playing God. The medical issues still remaining give rise to the question as to whether doctors should recommend patients to join a clinical trial. The potential Pandora’s box scenario of designer babies creates a social issue as germline gene therapy could increase discrimination, inequality, and racism.”
Biology for Biotechnology classes at Carlmont show the movie “Gattaca” to introduce bioethics. In the movie, people were segregated not by the color of their skin, but by their genes. Human control over genetics had been taken too far, and doctors would tailor the perfect baby specimens. Those who were conceived naturally, without genetic enhancements, were considered inferior. With the growth of gene therapy, many share a similar concern that gene therapy would be used for eugenics rather than therapy.
Bursalyan said, “Gene therapy has a bright future and can help cure many currently incurable diseases. More research on somatic and germline therapy is necessary. While we should take precautions, we also need to expand our horizons.”
Mankind has witnessed many past scientific advances face and push past their own set of ethical, legal, and social implications. While consequences must be weighed, they should not completely obstruct progress.