Genetic Engineering: Essential and Inevitable

One thing that is apparent from our longer lifespans is that, as we age, the human form is prone to many genetically driven, debilitating conditions. In other words, as an individual, the longer we live, the more likely we are to succumb to some genetically prescribed condition, notably cancers and degenerative illnesses such as Alzheimer’s.

Similarly, throughout our lives, we live a genetic lottery, not knowing what the genetic fates have in store for us; not knowing what might happen, or when.

These genetically driven events are described as being “prescribed” because their potential exists within us from the moment of our individual creation. Our genetic possibilities are already established; our blueprint for life is pre-cast within us. It is this – our DNA – that largely determines who we are and what becomes of us.

Even so, having particular genetic elements does not necessarily mean those traits will manifest. Although we may have a predisposition towards certain occurrences, whether someone exhibits a genetic trait depends on the environmental influences to which they are exposed. A gene has to be activated. It needs to be triggered into action.

Without that trigger, there is no genetic mobilisation, and genetic possibilities will remain dormant.

Logically, it should therefore follow that our best defence against genetically-sourced damage is to protect ourselves from these triggers. If we can identify and disable those harmful genetic triggers, we can eliminate the causes of many of our genetic problems.

In practical terms, identifying a causal link between a potential trigger and an unfavourable genetic outcome would enable us to take remedial action. We might be able to change our behaviours (such as eating organic produce and exercising more) or ban harmful products (such as Chlorofluorocarbons for the damage they do to the ozone layer, increasing the risks of skin cancer).

The trouble is that it is not always possible to identify the cause of much genetic activation so clearly and unequivocally. This is for a number of reasons:

• Simply, it can be extremely difficult to identify causal triggers. They’re not always obvious; they’re not always direct. Sometimes genetic triggers may even come across as quite innocent and innocuous – we would never think of them as having any detrimental properties. Who would have thought that sitting in the sun was a trigger for skin cancer!
• There are so many possible triggers, and as society progresses, we create new ones all the time. These new triggers will intermix and overlap with other forces in society. The trigger matrix becomes ever more complex. In trying to match our genes with potential triggers, we’re undoubtedly fighting a losing battle.
• A trigger may not be singular. It may be a combination of forces that,when combined, have a genetic impact. This means that there may not be a clearly identifiable trigger culprit.
• Given our unique DNA profiles, we don’t all respond to the same trigger in the same way. We can be exposed to something that triggers a genetic response in some people without necessarily triggering one in others. For instance, not all smokers develop cancer. This makes identifying triggers incredibly difficult.
• Triggers may be small and fleeting. They may also occur many years before they actually become apparent to us, making the association very difficult to detect. The chances are we may not even know that they have happened. It means we are mostly unaware as to which genetic triggers are being fired.
• In a commercial world, there are forces at work that prioritise other matters over individual genetic consequences. Sometimes, profits can be our driving motivation, and we may be willing to accept some genetic losses for financial gain. In such circumstances, identifying and neutralising harmful genetic triggers may not be our primary concern.
• Similarly, we may also become preoccupied with our desire for scientific and technological progress. This being the case, we may consider it reasonable to accept some collateral damage in relation to our genes.

The other drawback of this focus on genetic triggers is that it involves an element of Russian roulette.

The identification of genetic triggers can be a matter of trial and error – does a particular exposure trigger a genetic reaction? For individuals who may be subject to this analysis and experimentation, once a trigger is activated, it cannot be un-triggered or neutralised. Just as we cannot un-invent something, we cannot un-trigger a genetic firing. This may explain why people aren’t too keen to be tested upon to ascertain their susceptibility to different triggers!

Once a gene is triggered, our battle then becomes one of containment and control. We can either try to limit the damage, slowing its progress and lessening its impact, or we can seek to negate its consequences, making it more manageable and tolerable, learning to live with it.

Given these difficulties in identifying potential triggers and the fact that, once activated, accepting and living with certain genetic consequences is perhaps not the best outcome, it may be more fruitful to focus our attention on the other element of genetically driven trait emergence – our individual DNA structures.

After all, everything we need to know about an individual’s future possibilities is there for us to see in an individual’s DNA. We just have to learn to interpret it.

By identifying genetic sequences that may, once triggered, cause undesirable conditions, we could perhaps take positive action regarding those sequences. By identifying a genetic sequence as a target, we may – either pre- or post-triggering – be able to extract it from an individual, substitute it with a less damaging sequence, or destroy it in situ.

We might not be able to avoid exposure to potential triggers, but we can reduce their threat. If we don’t give the trigger a target, then no damage can be done; the harder we make it for a trigger to hit its target, the more protection we will have.

It is by focusing on our genetic base and isolating, neutralising or destroying trigger targets that we will then be able to secure our longer-term survival.

Any involvement in genetic engineering – as this is – inevitably risks criticism, but it is important to distinguish between different types of genetic manipulation. There is a distinct difference between proactively adding to our genetic mix, endeavouring to shape our human form, and adopting a more defensive approach to protect what is already there.

It’s like tending to a mature garden: our intention is not to add to the shrubbery; we just want to take out the weeds.

The other problem with seeking to change our genetic base to protect ourselves from environmental triggers is that we may be embarking on a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line on desirable genetic protections? Can we protect ourselves against everything? What one person feels that they might need protection from may not be considered a threat by others. For example, middle-aged hair loss.

Could such genetic interventions become the cosmetic surgery industry of tomorrow, with many people obsessed with having treatments and paranoid about their perceived flaws and weaknesses?

There may also be a concern around justification. Many people may have genetic vulnerabilities, but, for a variety of reasons (trigger immunity, lack of exposure to a trigger, other more dominant genetic influences), those vulnerabilities may not be triggered. In these circumstances, should we be involving ourselves in trying to alter a person’s genetic make-up? We would intervene based on possibilities. How do we quantify those possibilities? Does a forty per cent chance of affliction warrant an intervention?

In challenging this argument, a precedent may already have been set: how different is this from the precautionary vaccination programmes that many societies currently undertake?

As our engineering capabilities advance and we demand interventions across a broader range of areas (particularly cosmetic or characteristic ones), a final concern to consider is the potential demise of our uniqueness and individuality.

Given that an environment will make specific demands of its population if we want to be successful, in engineering our offspring, we are quite likely to all desire pretty much the same thing. We would become clones of one another.

We would also be able to observe the emergence of genetic fashions. What’s the latest trend?

This already happens in the naming of our offspring. The popularity of children’s names varies over the years. Sometimes traditional names are in vogue, sometimes new, modern names emerge, sometimes, for whatever reason, specific names soar in popularity.

And just as there is such interest in the choice of name parents make for their newborn, with prenatal genetic interventions, there may well, in the future, be much discussion around the genetic makeup options parents choose for their baby.

“We have gone for Alzheimer protection, blue eyes and a high intelligence rating.”

Genetic engineering would become like choosing the optional extras on a new car.

Despite these concerns and given our increasing vulnerability to malicious genetic possibilities, progress in genetic protections will largely come from adjustments to our genetic base. In contrast, pursuing these securities through the identification and management of environmental triggers is too complex and impractical, making it less realistic, given the extent to which we would want to pursue it.

As society, both in its relationship with Nature and in its intra-human interactions, struggles to fulfil humanity’s ever-increasing demands, we will have to find alternative means of securing humanity’s future. Adopting a genetically engineered course, involving ourselves in the composition of our DNA, is an obvious solution.

As an act of self-defence, genetic engineering will be both essential and inevitable.

For other interesting blogs on this subject area, check out Articles or the Article Index