Science has proven that DNA is the basis of heredity in nearly all living creatures. It is unusual to think that the same molecules that make a fungus a living creature are also similar for human life. The science of genetics has even found gene sequence coding for specific enzymes and proteins that are virtually identical in humans, plants, and microorganisms. Experiments have shown that genes from one species can be manipulated and expressed in another species. This forms the basis of the science that has been discussed in the previous chapters.

With the advances from biotechnology in agriculture, medicine, and other areas, genes from highly diverse organisms have been transformed into other species to obtain the expression of a certain trait. An often-cited example is again that of Bt corn. A gene from a soil-borne bacterium was engineered into corn to provide resistance to a devastating insect species. For many, this is not ethically wrong, but others find inherent problems in the use of genes across species. It is a basic issue with the science of biotechnology: whether or not our knowledge of DNA and genetics should allow us to manipulate organisms that are not naturally compatible. Many believe that such genetic manipulation is beyond the realms of responsible and moral science. Does such DNA manipulation change the inherent properties of corn or any other organism, or does biotechnology serve to expand the frontiers of life?

This question is one of the basic ethical arguments behind biotechnology and is actually just the beginning of the many ethical questions that can be directed at this science. Despite arguments about the moral justifications of basic genetic engineering, scientists continue to develop products using advanced methods of gene manipulation. However, many cultures and traditions might be affected by such engineering techniques. For instance, those of the Jewish faith abstain from the use of pork, as it is traditionally considered unclean. What would be the ethical implications of using swine genes in a medicine, plant, or other product? Would it compromise the faith of one who abstains from pork? Such examples can be expanded to include many other scenarios in which this encounter of science with tradition could occur. The issue leads to the questioning of many long-held traditions and beliefs. Perhaps life is simpler than previously thought, and advances in genetics and biotechnology allow us to understand how life is simply contained in the ordered chemistry of DNA. This leads to the importance of public awareness of the applications of biotechnology and must also be included in a debate about ethical implications related to this expanding science.

Privacy and confidentiality are one of our most valued possessions. Soon, it might not be possible to hide from society our weaknesses, limitations, and genetic deficiencies. The individuality of each human being is being unmasked.

The completion of the first version of the Human Genome Project, announced in February 2001, unveiled the genomic sequence of the almost 3.2 billion letters of our chromosomes. This announcement also generated discomfort and fear. The revelations of the deficiencies and predispositions coded by human gene sequences are an unsettling idea for many people. The knowledge of the human genome sequence will make possible the diagnosis of several diseases even before their onset. The association between genes and genetic diseases not only affects patients, but it also raises legal and economic issues for society.

In some countries, like Great Britain, the population of some regions has voluntarily donated DNA samples for establishing a genomic database for criminal use. In that country, the ethical perception is that DNA donation for genomic databases is not an invasion of an individual's privacy. In the United States, the situation is completely the opposite: The great majority of the population has a much stronger sense of individuality and so opposes the idea of genetically exposing themselves. However, some genomic databases have been made mandatory in the United States, such as the one at the FBI. In some states, inmates involved in sexual crimes, murders, and other violent crimes have been required to have their DNA profile included in genomics databases. The fear of many people in relation to the loss of their genetic privacy is that the DNA information could be used for discrimination in employment situations or for health and life insurance.

Health insurance companies in some countries have begun to use two tables for deciding premiums: one for the carriers of genes associated with colon cancer and another for individuals that do not have those genes. The idea of pre-existing conditions as a limiting factor in insurance coverage could soon be extended not only to diseases manifested previously, but also to the presence of genes associated with predisposition to diseases or weaknesses.

Some geneticists believe that a DNA profile will not only be used to solve crimes, but also to prevent them. They argue that violence is a genetically transmitted trait. Dutch scientists studied a family in the Netherlands with male individuals with outstanding rates of aggressiveness and rape over five generations. The men were found to carry a genetic defect that causes a deficiency of the enzyme serotonin in their brains. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter related to behavior, humor, and personality in humans. Perhaps this is evidence for the existence of genes associated with violence and other antisocial behavior.

A correlation has also been found between atypical levels of serotonin and dopamine with violent behavior and suicide in different studies. The levels of the neurotransmitter are regulated by genetic and environmental factors as well as the interaction between the two factors. The environment is a broad term referring to nongenetic factors contributing to the trait of interest. This can include upbringing, relationships, lifestyle, and other less tangible influences on behavior or health. Current attempts to link violence to genes are more sophisticated and are applied to individual cases and not to population groups. It is believed that, in the near future, genes for violence or dishonesty will be identified, just like the genes related to cancer and other diseases. In reality, even if all the complex human traits like intelligence, violence, honesty, anxiety, and friendliness are mapped and sequenced, they will remain misunderstood for a long time because the understanding of the human mind is still so limited.

Even if the existence of a gene for violence were confirmed, would it be ethically correct to label a child as prone to violence? Would the simple knowledge of that information alter the isolation patterns of society in relation to a carrier of that gene, inducing him or her to become violent? It should be recognized that the manifestation of most traits results not only from genes, but also environmental influence during an individual's life.

“Family Sues State: Son's Propensity to Violence Does Not Justify Discrimination.” That type of headline has not yet been printed, but it might be a nearer reality than you imagine. The discovery that genes A, B, or C are associated with violence or dishonesty will engender ethical issues with a profound impact in modern society. How would society accept the use of genetic information to prevent crimes and not only solve them? Many psychologists already support the hypothesis that certain genes code for violence.

The idea that all behavior, tendencies, health, and other traits are controlled by genes is called gene myth. Despite statistical or other associations between genes and some traits, a great part of behavior and health is determined by lifestyle, relationships, and upbringing. There might be genes related to lung cancer, but that doesn't discount the issue of smoking as a major factor for the disease. Likewise, media and the examples of friends and family heavily influence genetic tendencies toward violence or honesty. Many believe that a greater understanding of our genomes will result in scientific explanations, or excuses, for antisocial or criminal tendencies, when there are likely other, more important reasons for such traits.

The DNA profile of an individual not only reveals his or her propensities to develop diseases but also his or her intrinsic potential. Universities, corporations, and insurance companies, among other institutions, will certainly have an interest in accessing information from genomic databases before offering employment or an opening to courses to customers.

Less complex traits like height can be studied and understood more objectively. About 5 percent to 10 percent of 200,000 people with breast cancer diagnosed annually are found to possess genetic factors associated with the disease. The genes most commonly associated with breast cancer today are BRCA1 and BRCA2 (Figure 14-1), two different mutations in the normal form of genes. BRCA1 and BRCA2 also increase the risk of ovarian cancer in women and prostate cancer in men.

Source: Courtesy of Myriad Genetics.

Figure 14-1. BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are located on human chromosomes 13 and 17.

In families with a history of breast cancer, especially in those of Jewish descent from Eastern Europe, the incidence of the mutations BRCA1 and BRCA2 are much higher than in the general population. In such situations, women should be tested for the two genes. If the result is positive, the chance of developing the disease is greater than that of the normal population. Although the presence of the mutated gene is not a guarantee of cancer, some women still opt for a radical mastectomy as a preventative measure.

The knowledge of the presence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in individuals can lead them to alter their lifestyle, reducing consumption of alcohol and increasing the frequency of mammograms. In such cases, genetic tests can alter the individual's fate.

For other diseases the situation could be much more complex. For example, Huntington's disease is a degenerative and fatal neurological disease that usually has an onset around the age of 45 to 50 years, an age at which most people have had children. In families in which one of the parents is affected by this disease, each child has a 50 percent chance of also having the disease. People that have parents with Huntington's disease tend to not have genetic tests; they prefer to live with uncertainty about the disease rather than the certainty of developing the disease, because there is currently no cure, and there are few treatment options.

Today there are genetic tests for the detection of genes that predispose an individual to the following diseases: sickle cell anemia, Down's syndrome, Huntington's disease, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, colon cancer, breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and multiple sclerosis. The number of diseases for which genetic tests are available continues to grow.

The inclusion of genetic tests results in information on an individual's medical record that could have serious effects in his or her life. Health or life insurance companies might refuse coverage for medical treatments under the allegation of a pre-existing condition. Today, pre-existing conditions only apply to diseases that have already been manifest in the individual; in the future, this might be extended to include the presence of genetic factors linked to specific medical conditions.

Large corporations routinely request intelligence and personality tests for prospective employees. Some people fear that, in the near future, genetic tests will be routinely requested prior to employment. Today, some companies already use genetic tests to identify employees who are sensitive to chemical products used in the work environment. Those companies have argued that the genetic tests are used only to protect their employees from risks related to work, and obviously, to eliminate the risk of being sued for damages in the future. According to the companies, they do not use genetic tests for selection purposes. In the future, companies could opt to increase the number of genetic tests that are mandatory for recruitment. Such tests might reveal personality patterns and could possibly be used for discriminatory means.

Biotechnology has opened the door to our lives, and questions of genetic privacy still remain to be answered. It is now possible to know more about our genetic makeup, but is that necessarily good? This raises many questions about the use of the enormous amount of information that has been made available.

John Moore, a leukemia patient, was treated at the University of California Hospital in Los Angeles in 1980. As part of his treatment, his doctor removed part of his bone marrow. With cutting-edge treatment, his leukemia went into remission, but during the following years Moore continued to have samples of bone marrow, blood, epidermis, and semen taken. Eventually, he became uncomfortable with the endless sampling of his tissue and decided to seek legal advice. To the surprise of many, he discovered in 1984 that the University of California had patented one of his cell lines.

The Patent Act was originally issued to protect “any art, machine or material that is new and useful.” Until some decades ago, the thought of patenting a living organism was inconceivable. However, when a patent for a bacterium with the capacity to decompose petroleum was requested, a new era of patenting began. In 1988, Harvard University received the first patent for a transgenic animal, a mouse with a human gene for cancer. That animal was called an oncomouse, and it has great usefulness in development of anticarcinogenic drugs. It has been strongly argued that patenting of human genes is ethically unacceptable. However, the ability to patent genes and profit from their use is the impetus for funding much of the research. Many companies are seeking to clone medical and agriculturally important genes with the hopes that they will have legal rights to the use of the information. Is patenting of genes morally acceptable, or is it a just compensation for the work needed to decipher gene sequence and function? With the differences of opinion, it remains to be seen how this viewpoint will change in society.

Until very recently many people understood that the human population could be subdivided into races according to an individual's skin color, body shape, hair, and so forth. In 1962, Carleton Stevens Coon, a famous anthropologist, published the book The Origin of Races, subdividing the human population into five races: Caucasian, Mongols, Australoids, Blacks, and Caboids. However, the biological differences among the people are far more complex than the traits that are readily seen.

Today, the information from several genetic studies, including the Human Genome Project, has found that the idea of a human race has lost much of the biological sense it might have had. According to the human genome sequencing accomplished by the public consortium and by the Celera Genomics Corporation, the largest difference between two individuals from any part of the population is about 0.1 percent and the difference between man and a chimpanzee is just about 1 percent to 2 percent (between a horse and a zebra, the difference at a DNA level is 4 percent). Within chimpanzee species there are at least three races due to differences among individuals that evolved in different African forests. However, they look very much alike despite evolution. In the human species, the genetic difference among individuals from different continents is much smaller than is readily apparent. Most of the genetic variability in humans is among individuals from the same continent, which means that at the DNA level, some Africans are actually more similar to Europeans or Asians than they are to other Africans.

Why then, are humans so different in appearance and chimpanzees are not? Chimpanzees originated and remained in tropical Africa until today. Humans left Africa and dispersed to all continents, occupying the most variable environments on Earth. Humans continued to adapt to each environment, and the most evident trait of that adaptation is skin color.

The Human Genome Project has shown that racism does not make any scientific sense. However, this new biological paradigm relating to the human race gives the opportunity for other ethical issues to emerge.

Even before the popularization of the applications of the information from the Human Genome Project, a changing trend in society can be seen. Consider, for a moment, a classified ad in The Minnesota Daily published on June 19, 2000 (see Figure 14-2). The Minnesota Daily is a newspaper at the University of Minnesota, a 150-year-old campus, with more than 64,000 students. The ad offered an $80,000 donation for “an egg to be used in an in vitro fertilization.” The couple that was willing to pay that amount certainly had examined other procreation alternatives without success. Obviously, that couple would not accept just any donor. According to the ad, donors were preferred that met the following criteria: height approximately 5'6" or taller, Caucasian, high standardized test scores, college student or graduate under 30, with no genetic medical issues. In compensation, the couple was willing to reimburse the “donation” with a check for the donor or for the charity of her choice. The ad went further, indicating that extra compensation was available for someone who might be especially gifted in athletics, science, mathematics, or music. Additionally, all medical expenses would be covered. This raises some questions: Is there any limit to what money can buy? How much is a human life worth? Seemingly, the words donation, donor, and charity only appear in the text to lessen the ethical implications associated with a monetary reward for a donation.

Source: Courtesy of The Minnesota Daily.

Figure 14-2. University newspaper ad soliciting an egg donor.

This is not an isolated case. Similar classifieds were found in other university newspapers, offering up to $100,000 for eggs. Some Web sites offer an online auction of eggs from models, with bids starting at $15,000. These sites have a strong sexual appeal, with sentences inducing customers to succumb to the value of beauty. The site not only shows the donors' pictures, but also has measurements on height, waist, bust, and hips, as well as intelligence, and longevity of parents and grandparents.

Although the harvesting of eggs is a quite safe procedure, a series of risks still exists, from hemorrhage to infertility due to ovarian complications. In spite of risks involved, the “monetary reward” calls into question the validity of this “donation.”

Although the idea of donating eggs to help infertile couples is acceptable to a reasonable number of people, the commercialization of this practice is raising ethical issues. Where should the line be drawn for what money can buy? This issue is just the first of many questions appearing due to the progress in reproductive medicine. It is believed that soon egg and sperm donors will also be providing not only information on their physical attributes, but also genomic information highlighting their genetic superiority. Although most in today's society reprove and condemn the trading of eggs and sperm, there are reports of couples buying them at auction.

Societal values might eventually determine which are the good genes and which are the bad genes. The Human Genome Project is a scientific tribute to modern man. However, even considering man a genetic creature, genes by themselves are not enough to create a human. Even if it were possible to put together the genetic puzzle with all of its 30,000 genes, using only the best ones, it would still be impossible to create a human being. A, G, T, and C can define someone's height, skin color, personality, and intelligence, but man is much more than the expression of a sequence of well-organized nucleotide bases in chromosomes. Knowing the complete genome sequence does not lessen the beauty, power, and potential of a human life.

Although human cloning has not been done yet, it is believed that it will happen in a matter of time. Since the Dolly sheep cloning in 1997 by Dr. Ian Wilmut at the Roslin Institute in Scotland, the technique has been advanced with many other mammals (monkeys, cows, cats, pigs, etc.). Many countries, however, are passing laws that forbid human cloning. In the United States, California outlawed human cloning in 2001. However, some research groups, mainly in infertility clinics, have indicated their interest in human cloning. Although it is technically possible to clone humans, there are several scientific reasons for not doing so, as discussed in Chapter 6, “Cloning.”

Beyond the risks for the pregnant mother and for the clone, a series of ethical issues has been raised in relation to human cloning:

Consider for a moment the arguments by philosopher George Schedler. Considering the chance of a clone being born with genetic defects and a lawsuit against the parents, Schedler argued, “While society maintains their perception that children with genetic defects are not complete human beings, judges will probably consider them worthy of financial compensation.” Some ethicists would argue that cloning violates a child's right to an open future. A cloned child would feel the pressure to become similar to his or her biological donor.

Ethical issues will be raised as society discusses and understands the implications of human cloning. Consider, for example, that human cloning was a reality today. In this scenario a child could have a variable number of parents, from just one to as many as five:

Cloning is a great challenge for society, and moral values certainly will deeply change in the 21st century.

Finally, as humans are not just biological beings, biotechnology should consider its limits on the basis of spiritual values. For example, religious conversions produce profound behavior transformation without any genetic modification. This fact reinforces the idea that human behavior is not just a matter of genes or the environment in which the individual develops. An individual, despite possessing superior genes, can be arrogant and behave irresponsibly in relation to society.

For some people, embryos in their first days of life are nothing more than an amorphous cluster of cells and should not be considered a barrier to research leading to cures for human diseases. For some people, an embryo, beginning at conception, has the status of personhood and deserves social and legal protection. Ethical discussion should precede any conscientious decision. Without ethics, scientific progress in medicine and pharmaceutical development could be underway using individuals instead of animals for early-stage clinical trials, with no regard for human life. If this were the case, the cure for many diseases might have already been discovered, but ethically and legally, human beings cannot be used in scientific experiments that do not have safety standards.

From a biological point of view, the zygote and, consequently, the embryo and fetus are human lives in the most basic form. If they are implanted into a woman, they are able to grow and produce a baby. The ethical question is what the value of a human embryo is. Still, is it possible to balance the interests of millions of people who are suffering from diseases with the interests of an undeveloped embryo? One should not forget that each person, at the beginning of his or her life, developed from an amorphous cluster of cells to be a complete being.

For many, a young mother with small children who was afflicted with Alzheimer's disease would be much more important to save than an embryo, a mass of cells. However, stem cells can be harvested from tissues other than embryos. Scientists prefer the stem cells from embryos because their differentiation potential is higher than those from bone marrow or other tissue. The scientific community and society must proceed with wisdom and prudence. Vanity should not drive unprincipled scientists to dictate the value of human life.

Eugenics seeks the genetic improvement of the human race through selection. This idea became more prominent in the beginning of the 20th century and had another great push during World War II. One of Hitler's main objectives was the purification of the Aryan race.

According to the theory of evolution, developed by Charles Darwin in 1859, more “fit” individuals are capable of leaving a larger number of offspring. However, less fit individuals tend to leave fewer descendants. Therefore, over many generations, genes of less adapted or “inferior” individuals are gradually eliminated from the population. Darwin called this process natural selection.

Due to the use of medicines and improved medical procedures in the last few centuries, man has evaded natural selection. A classic example is the Cesarean section procedure for childbirth. Women that would otherwise die from natural childbirth can now produce offspring. Therefore, today, genes for body shape that prevent natural deliveries are retained in the population. Natural selection for this trait still exists in indigenous populations that do not have access to modern medicine, but this is the exception and not the rule. In some way, less adapted people with low physical resistance, predisposition for genetic diseases, and so on, continue to leave offspring with the help of modern medical resources. How many of us would not be here if medical resources were not available?

Proponents of eugenics argue that the human species is accumulating bad genes because man has a slow natural selection. Others argue that people need a license for many activities, such as driving, hunting, and fishing, but not to procreate, and therefore the government should also control procreation. In China and India, the government regulates population growth. This is a quantitative and not qualitative control. Some people argue that there is sexual discrimination in those two countries, and that boys tend to be preferred because they can bring larger revenue for their family.

The next 20 years will bring many changes in human behavior, and one can imagine that a revolution could take place that will transform the world. Comparing the world today and that of 50 years ago, no one would think that eugenics could be an issue again. Some of the most despicable human acts were performed in the name of the Aryan race purification. Until 1945, eugenics was taught in many important universities around the world, and the compulsory sterilization of inferior people was relatively common in several countries. There are reports of sterilization of 20,000 people in the United States, 45,000 in England, and 250,000 in Germany during the first half of the 20th century. Eugenics turned public opinion against government intervention in citizens' reproductive choice, and today, compulsory sterilization is only conceivable in the minds of fanatic eugenists. However, with world overpopulation and a growing shortage of resources, many people are afraid that population controls could become a reality again.

Currently, it is difficult to imagine that collective sterilization would be used again, but as genetic tests become routine, it is feared that a new wave of sterilization and abortion could take place, not because of mandatory enforcement, but because of pressure resulting from genetic counseling. Abortion based on genetic counseling is already a reality in countries where it is legal. However, is it right to discriminate against genetic defects or weaknesses, even if it is in the womb? Isn't life just as precious? History has shown that the memory of people is short and that history is cyclical.

With an uncertain future ahead, it seems opportune to recognize that genetic tests and new forms of human reproduction will be part of society from now on. In this scenario, the best alternative seems to be drawing strength from family and moral and religious principles.

The Bible says that man was created in the image of God. What is said about the image of God in the Bible? Passages in the Book of Genesis and one in the New Testament address this topic. In Genesis 1:26-27, “I will make man in My image, after My likeness . . . And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female created He them,” image is introduced in a parallel to man's likeness to God. Just being the image and likeness of God is enough to make people recognize that their life is sacred (Genesis 9:6). In the New Testament, Paul emphasizes the moral dimension of creation and the image in which man was made. The new man in Christ is a transformed image of its Creator (Ephesians 4:24).

Although the Bible does not discuss man's biology, it is clear that human beings should be seen with God's perspective. Many of the ethical principles of society reflect its religious beliefs. Most Western countries have established ethical principles based in Christianity. This can help many to form opinions on applications of biotechnology for human beings, but does not address many of the other uses for this science.

If something is harmful, we tend to avoid it. This simple rule might work well in theory, but not in practice. What is the best way to behave in situations in which the usefulness of something is not clear or when the decision could be both useful and harmful? Biotechnology can create situations in which such ambiguity prevails. Most of the differences in opinion between those in favor of biotechnology and those opposed to it are due to differences in their perceptions and interpretations of the risks and benefits. The two following hypothetical cases show that biotechnology is making information available that could bring uncertainty and discovery of new issues to many people.

The fine line between right and wrong, or between ethically acceptable and ethically unacceptable behavior, is a tremendous part of bioethics. If it were possible to define those limits or present a rule of thumb to guide ethically correct decisions, it would certainly be mentioned here. However, it seems that many of the ethical cases related to biotechnology have no clear right or wrong and should be judged on an individual basis. Ethical considerations relating to the many facets of biotechnology should not be something that is only discussed at a company board meeting or within the committee rooms of governing organizations. Many of these new technologies will affect everyone in the near future, and it is important to recognize the many considerations involved in biological sciences. Biotechnology is advancing and making progress on the major factors that limit the lives of billions of people. Solutions to the problems of hunger, disease, pollution, and others are being found using the science of biotechnology, yet many are apprehensive about the technology or fear the technical nature of the science.

Despite the greatest efforts, balanced arguments that will satisfy everyone are impossible to find. The first step for anyone is to become educated in the background, the science, and the applications of biotechnology. It is then important to be informed about how biotechnology affects the risks, benefits, and moral implications associated with superior health care, enhanced crop production, and environmental improvement. This knowledge must be used to make informed and sound judgments, so that opinions are based on fact and study, and not on emotion, hype, or fear. Ultimately, each individual must take the essential steps to understand biotechnology.