Religious objections to genetic engineering
Genetic engineering is seen by many people as putting people in the place of the Creator as it gives to a
few people the ability to change the natural world completely. Some people hold that it is ethically questionable
to transfer genes from one species to another species. This attitude is sometimes grounded in a religious belief
that it is not up to humankind to violate boundaries that are set by God. Any design of nature through the
insertion of new genes is, according to this argument, morally unacceptable. The argument does not occur in
the Bible (in fact one may cite places to the opposite), but is based on an interpretation of God’s will [20].
Secular objections to genetic engineering
Secular objectors to genetic engineering must defend the claim that the dignity of an individual member
of a species, or of the species itself, is tied to its unhampered with evolution to its present state [34]. Nature
itself is indifferent to our dignity, and so altering nature cannot violate our dignity. In fact, it dignifies us to use
the talents we have to alter our environment and our biology to improve our lives and those of the disabled.
Technology in any form is an Outgrowth of our intellectual abilities: at its best, it allows us to overcome natural
shortcomings. Home heating and air conditioning violate the natural order, yet allow us to thrive in climates we
otherwise could not survive. Few would argue that overcoming that natural disadvantage violates our inherent
dignity.
Those who argue for drawing a line at altering the genome of humans or other organisms must give
reasons both for regarding DNA as somehow special and apart from the rest of the natural world and for
arguing that conscious manipulation of DNA is morally impermissible. There are some reasons to support
“genetic exceptionalism,” the point of view that DNA is unique, but those arguments do not necessarily imply: a)
that because of this uniqueness there are absolute bars to altering it; or b) that if it is acceptable to alter the
DNA of non-humans, it is nonetheless unacceptable to alter that of humans. Uniqueness does not itself imply
any moral duty. In fact, every human being is “unique” by virtue of DNA, environment, and upbringing, but our
moral duties toward each do not depend upon that uniqueness. Neither of the assumptions above can be
sustained by logic or empirical evidence and as indicated previously, we have been tinkering with genes in
plants, animals, and even human beings, through selective breeding for millennia. Thus, the uniqueness of DNA
has never forbidden us implicitly or explicitly to modify what we encounter in nature [35]. It is arguably just a
matter of degree rather than a qualitative difference in kind that separates selective breeding and genetic
engineering. Those who oppose genetic engineering on moral grounds must make a coherent case that it is
qualitatively different from selective breeding, or they must similarly oppose the selective breeding which has
resulted in almost every aspect of our modern agriculture.
Rawls [36] interprets human dignity as implying that we enter into a social contract treating each
individual from the position of equality: “for in this situation men have equal representation as moral persons
who regard themselves as ends and the principles they accept will be rationally designed to protect the claims
of their person”. We have dignity in a way in which no other animal does, which is not to say that other animals
lack dignity. (Creatures have their own dignity, inherent to their species and capacities).
We are the only creatures we know capable of art, science, literature, architecture, and transforming our
environment to accommodate our physical limitations. The concept of human dignity is perfectly compatible
with genetic engineering. Recognizing human dignity often means taking steps to ensure that where nature
impedes human potential, everyone’s human potential may be achieved to the fullest. The disabled and the
infirm should be aided wherever possible, and consistent with their stated goals, to achieve their potential,
consistent with the principle of avoiding harm to others. Indeed, recognizing the inherent dignity of our fellow
human beings suggests that we are impelled to pursue genetic engineering research, to the degree that it can
help to develop therapies and treatments for those who suffer or develop natural or accidental limitations [37].
Clearly, some limits on genetic engineering also may be required by human dignity. Actions that diminish
the capacities of others to achieve their potential are affronts to human dignity. Genetic engineering requires
special attention to issues of equal access and even some restrictions on its applications where they may
threaten subordination of some humans. Any invention used to diminish critical human capacities, such as
cognitive functioning, would be unethical. Thus, while some people might benefit from a small race of humans
genetically engineered to be slaves with diminished mental capacities this would clearly and egregiously violate
Citation: Gatew H and Mengistu K. Genetically modified foods (GMOs); a review of genetic engineering. J. Life Sci. Biomed., 2019; 9(6): 157-163. www.jlsb.science-
line.com
161