genetic engineering essay brainly

132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Welcome to our list of genetic engineering essay topics! Here, you will find everything from trending research titles to the most interesting genetic engineering topics for presentation. Get inspired with our writing ideas and bonus samples!

🔝 Top 10 Genetic Engineering Topics for 2024

🏆 best genetic engineering topic ideas & essay examples, ⭐ good genetic engineering research topics, 👍 simple & easy genetic engineering essay topics, ❓ genetic engineering discussion questions, 🔎 genetic engineering research topics, ✅ genetic engineering project ideas.

• Ethical Issues of Synthetic Biology
• CRISPR-Cas9 and Its Applications
• Progress and Challenges in Gene Therapy
• Applications of Gene Editing in Animals
• The Process of Genetic Engineering in Plants
• Genetic Engineering for Human Enhancement
• Genetic Engineering for Improving Crop Yield
• Regulatory Issues of Genetic Editing of Embryos
• Gene Silencing in Humans through RNA Interference
• Gene Drive Technology for Controlling Invasive Species
• The Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering Many people have questioned the health risks that arise from genetically modified crops, thus it is the politicians who have to ensure that the interests of the people are met and their safety is assured. […]
• The Film “Gattaca” and Genetic Engineering In the film, it is convincing that in the near future, science and technology at the back of genetic engineering shall be developed up to the level which makes the film a reality.
• Gattaca: Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering Although the world he lives in has determined that the only measure of a man is his genetic profile, Vincent discovers another element of man that science and society have forgotten.
• A Major Milestone in the Field of Science and Technology: Should Genetic Engineering Be Allowed? The most controversial and complicated aspect of this expertise is Human Genetic Engineering- whereby the genotype of a fetus can be altered to produce desired results.
• The Dangers of Genetic Engineering and the Issue of Human Genes’ Modification In this case, the ethics of human cloning and human genes’ alteration are at the center of the most heated debates. The first reason to oppose the idea of manipulation of human genes lies in […]
• Is Genetic Engineering an Environmentally Sound Way to Increase Food Production? According to Thomas & Earl and Barry, genetic engineering is environmentally unsound method of increasing food production because it threatens the indigenous species.
• Human Genetic Engineering: Key Principles and Issues There are many options for the development of events in the field of genetic engineering, and not all of them have been studied. To conclude, human genetic engineering is one of the major medical breakthroughs, […]
• Mitochondrial Diseases Treatment Through Genetic Engineering Any disorders and abnormalities in the development of mitochondrial genetic information can lead to the dysfunction of these organelles, which in turn affects the efficiency of intracellular ATP production during the process of cellular respiration.
• Genetic Engineering: Is It Ethical to Manipulate Life? In the case of more complex operations, genetic engineering can edit existing genes to turn on or off the synthesis of a particular protein in the organism from which the gene was taken.
• Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Apart from that, there are some experiments that cannot be ethically justified, at least in my opinion, for example, the cloning of human being or the attempts to find the gene for genius.
• Genetic Engineering in the Movie “Gattaca” by Niccol This would not be right at all since a person should be responsible for their own life and not have it dictated to them as a result of a societal construct created on the basis […]
• Religious vs Scientific Views on Genetic Engineering With the need to increase the global economy, the field of agriculture is one among the many that have been used to improve the commercial production to take care of the global needs for food […]
• Genetic Engineering Using a Pglo Plasmid The objective of this experiment is to understand the process and importance of the genetic transformation of bacteria in real time with the aid of extrachromosomal DNA, alternatively referred to as plasmids.
• Managing Diabetes Through Genetic Engineering Genetic engineering refers to the alteration of genetic make-up of an organism through the use of techniques to introduce a new DNA or eliminate a given hereditable material. What is the role of genetic engineering […]
• The Role of Plant Genetic Engineering in Global Security Although it can be conveniently stated that the adequacy, abundance and reliability of the global food supply has a major role to play in the enhancement of human life, in the long run, they influence […]
• Significance of Human Genetic Engineering The gene alteration strategy enables replacing the specific unwanted genes with the new ones, which are more resistant and freer of the particular ailment, hence an essential assurance of a healthy generation in the future.
• Is the World Ready for Genetic Engineering? The process of manipulating genes has brought scientists to important discoveries, among which is the technology of the production of new kinds of crops and plants with selected characteristics. The problem of the advantages and […]
• Genome: Bioethics and Genetic Engineering Additionally, towards the end of the documentary, the narrator and some of the interviewed individuals explain the problem of anonymity that is also related to genetic manipulations.
• Genetic Engineering Is Ethically Unacceptable However, the current application of genetic engineering is in the field of medicine particularly to treat various genetic conditions. However, this method of treatment has various consequences to the individual and the society in general.
• Designer Genes: Different Types and Use of Genetic Engineering McKibben speaks of Somatic Gene Therapy as it is used to modify the gene and cell structure of human beings so that the cells are able to produce certain chemicals that would help the body […]
• A Technique for Controlling Plant Characteristics: Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture A cautious investigation of genetic engineering is required to make sure it is safe for humans and the environment. The benefit credited to genetic manipulation is influenced through the utilization of herbicide-tolerant and pest-safe traits.
• Genetically Engineered Food Against World Hunger I support the production of GMFs in large quality; I hold the opinion that they can offer a lasting solution to food problems facing the world.
• Genetic Engineering in Food: Development and Risks Genetic engineering refers to the manipulation of the gene composition of organisms, to come up with organisms, which have different characteristics from the organic ones.
• Genetic Engineering in the Workplace The main purpose of the paper is to evaluate and critically discuss the ethical concerns regarding the implementation of genetic testing in the workplace and to provide potential resolutions to the dilemmas.
• Designer Babies Creation in Genetic Engineering The creation of designer babies is an outcome of advancements in technology hence the debate should be on the extent to which technology can be applied in changing the way human beings live and the […]
• Genetic Engineering and Eugenics Comparison The main idea in genetic engineering is to manipulate the genetic make-up of human beings in order to shackle their inferior traits. The concept of socially independent reproduction is replicated in both eugenics and genetic […]
• Changing the world: Genetic Engineering Effects Genes used in genetic engineering have a high impact on health and disease, therefore the inclusion of the genetic process alters the genes that influence human behavior and traits.
• Future of Genetic Engineering and the Concept of “Franken-Foods” This is not limited to cows alone but extends to pigs, sheep, and poultry, the justification for the development of genetically modified food is based on the need to feed an ever growing population which […]
• Ecological Effects of the Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms Beneficial soil organisms such as earthworms, mites, nematodes, woodlice among others are some of the soil living organisms that are adversely affected by introduction of genetically engineered organisms in the ecosystem since they introduce toxins […]
• Proposition 37 and Genetically Engineered Foods The discussion of Proposition 37 by the public is based on the obvious gap between the “law on the books” and the “law in action” because Food Safety Law which is associated with the Proposition […]
• Is Genetically Engineered Food the Solution to the World’s Hunger Problems? However, the acceptance of GMO’s as the solution to the world’s food problem is not unanimously and there is still a multitude of opposition and suspicion of their use.
• Benefits of Genetic Engineering as a Huge Part of People’s Lives Genetic Engineering is said to question whether man has the right to manipulate the course and laws of nature and thus is in constant collision with religion and the beliefs held by it regarding life.
• Perfect Society: The Effects of Human Genetic Engineering
• Genetic Engineering and Forensic Criminal Investigations
• Biotechnology Assignment and Genetic Engineering
• Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms
• Bio-Ethics and the Controversy of Genetic Engineering
• Health and Environmental Risks of Genetic Engineering in Food
• Genetic Engineering and the Risks of Enforcing Changes on Organisms
• Genetic Engineering and How It Affects Globel Warming
• Cloning and Genetic Engineering in the Food Animal Industry
• Genetic Engineering and Its Impact on Society
• Embryonic Research, Genetic Engineering, & Cloning
• Genetic Engineering: Associated Risks and Possibilities
• Issues Concerning Genetic Engineering in Food Production
• Genetic Engineering, DNA Fingerprinting, Gene Therapy
• Cloning: The Benefits and Dangers of Genetic Engineering
• Genetic Engineering, History, and Future: Altering the Face of Science
• Islamic and Catholic Views on Genetic Engineering
• Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering: Should It Be Approved in the US
• Exploring the Real Benefits of Genetic Engineering in the Modern World
• Genetic Engineering and Food Security: A Welfare Economics Perspective
• Identify the Potential Impact of Genetic Engineering on the Future Course of Human Immunodeficiency Virus
• Genetic Engineering and DNA Technology in Agricultural Productivity
• Human Genetic Engineering: Designing the Future
• Genetic Engineering and the Politics Behind It
• The Potential and Consequences of Genetic Engineering
• Genetic Engineering and Its Effect on Human Health
• The Moral and Ethical Controversies, Benefits, and Future of Genetic Engineering
• Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering for Curing Disorders
• Genetic Engineering and the Human Genome Project
• Ethical Standards for Genetic Engineering
• Genetic Engineering and Cryonic Freezing: A Modern Frankenstein
• The Perfect Child: Genetic Engineering
• Genetic Engineering and Its Effects on Future Generations
• Agricultural Genetic Engineering: Genetically Modified Foods
• Genetic Engineering: The Manipulation or Alteration of the Genetic Structure of a Single Cell or Organism
• Analysing Genetic Engineering Regarding Plato Philosophy
• The Dangers and Benefits of Human Cloning and Genetic Engineering
• Genetic Engineering: Arguments of Both Proponents and Opponents and a Mediated Solution
• Genetic and How Genetic Engineering Is Diffusing Individualism
• Finding Genetic Harmony With Genetic Engineering
• What Is Genetic Engineering?
• Do You Think Genetically Modified Food Could Harm the Ecosystems of the Areas in Which They Grow?
• How Agricultural Research Systems Shape a Technological Regime That Develops Genetic Engineering?
• Can Genetic Engineering for the Poor Pay Off?
• How Does Genetic Engineering Affect Agriculture?
• Do You Think It’s Essential to Modify Genes to Create New Medicines?
• How Can Genetic Engineering Stop Human Suffering?
• Can Genetic Engineering Cure HIV/AIDS in Humans?
• How Has Genetic Engineering Revolutionized Science and the World?
• Do You Think Genetic Engineering Is Playing God and That We Should Leave Life as It Was Created?
• What Are Some Advantages and Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering?
• How Will Genetic Engineering Affect the Human Race?
• When Does Genetic Engineering Go Bad?
• What Are the Benefits of Human Genetic Engineering?
• Does Genetic Engineering Affect the Entire World?
• How Does the Christian Faith Contend With Genetic Engineering?
• What Are the Ethical and Social Implications of Genetic Engineering?
• How Will Genetic Engineering Impact Our Lives?
• Why Should Genetic Engineering Be Extended?
• Will Genetic Engineering Permanently Change Our Society?
• What Are People Worried About Who Oppose Genetic Engineering?
• Do You Worry About Eating GM (Genetically Modified) Food?
• What Do You Think of the Idea of Genetically Engineering New Bodily Organs to Replace Yours When You Are Old?
• Should Genetic Engineering Go Ahead to Eliminate Human Flaws, Such as Violence, Jealousy, Hate, Etc?
• Does the Government Have the Right to Limit How Far We Modify Ourselves?
• Why Is Genetic Food Not Well Accepted?
• What Is the Best in the Genetic Modification of Plants, Plant Cell, or Chloroplasts and Why?
• How Do You Feel About Human Gene Editing?
• Does Climate Change Make the Genetic Engineering of Crops Inevitable?
• What Do You Think About Plant Genetic Modification?
• Gene Drives and Pest Control
• The Benefits of Genetically Modified Organisms
• Challenges of Gene Editing for Rare Genetic Diseases
• The Use of Genetic Engineering to Treat Human Diseases
• Ethical Considerations and Possibilities of Designer Babies
• How Genetic Engineering Can Help Restore Ecosystems
• Basic Techniques and Tools for Gene Manipulation
• Latest Advancements in Genetic Engineering and Genome Editing
• Will Engineering Resilient Organisms Help Mitigate Climate Change?
• Creation of Renewable Resources through Genetic Engineering
• Genetic Engineering Approach to Drought and Pest Resistance
• Genetic Engineering Use in DNA Analysis and Identification
• Synthetic Microorganisms and Biofactories for Sustainable Bioproduction
• Stem Cells’ Potential for Regenerative Medicine
• The Role of Genetic Modification in Vaccine Development
• Can Genetic Engineering Help Eradicate Invasive Species Responsibly?
• Genetic Engineering for Enhancing the Body’s Defense Mechanisms
• Advancements in Transplantation Medicine and Creating Bioengineered Organs
• Genetic Editing of Microbes for Environmental Cleanup
• Is It Possible to Develop Living Detection Systems?
• Infertility Essay Topics
• Bioethics Titles
• Genetics Research Ideas
• Epigenetics Essay Titles
• Morality Research Ideas
• Stem Cell Essay Titles
• Biochemistry Research Topics
• Evolution Topics
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 26). 132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/genetic-engineering-essay-topics/

"132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/genetic-engineering-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 26 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/genetic-engineering-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/genetic-engineering-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "132 Genetic Engineering Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/genetic-engineering-essay-topics/.

• Introduction to genomics
• In the cell
• Health and disease
• Living things
• Methods and technology
• Science in society
• Genomic conversations
• Resources for 5-12 year olds
• Resources for 13-18 year olds
• Resources for 18+ year olds
• Resources for educators
• Careers in Genomics
• Wellcome Genome Campus

Explore Genomics > Living Things

What is genetic engineering?

Genetic engineering refers to the direct manipulation of DNA to alter an organism’s characteristics in a particular way.

• Genetic engineering is the process of altering an organism’s genome.
• This can range from changing one single DNA base to deleting or inserting a whole region of DNA.
• For example, genetic engineering can be used to produce more efficient or nutritious crop plants.
• Genetic engineering, sometimes called genetic modification, is the process of altering the DNA in an organism’s genome.
• This may mean changing one single base (A, T, C or G) to alter the function of a gene or deleting or inserting a whole gene or region of DNA. Read about the different types of genome edits here.
• In some cases, genetic engineering means extracting DNA from another organism’s genome and combining it with the DNA of that individual.
• Genetic engineering is used by scientists to enhance or modify the characteristics of an individual organism.
• For example, genetic engineering can be used to produce plants that have a higher nutritional value or can tolerate exposure to herbicides.
• It can be applied to any organism, although laws and regulations vary.

How does genetic engineering work?

• Genetic engineering tools have evolved since the 1980s, enabling scientists to make increasingly precise edits to an organism’s genome.
• You can read about some of these tools here, including TALENs and CRISPR-Cas9.

Case study: engineering bacteria or yeast cells to produce insulin

• One example of genetic engineering is to make bacteria or yeast cells produce insulin for people with diabetes.
• A small piece of circular DNA is genetically modified to include the gene that codes for human insulin.
• The genetically modified plasmid is introduced into a new bacteria or yeast cell.
• This cell then divides rapidly and starts making insulin.
• To create large amounts of the cells, the genetically modified bacteria or yeast are grown in large fermentation vessels that contain all the nutrients they need. The more the cells divide, the more insulin is produced.
• When fermentation is complete, the mixture is filtered to release the insulin.
• The insulin is then purified and packaged into bottles and insulin pens for distribution to patients with diabetes.

What else is genetic engineering used for?

Genetic engineering has a number of useful applications, including scientific research, agriculture and technology.

For agriculture

• In plants, genetic engineering has been applied to improve the resilience, nutritional value and growth rate of crops such as potatoes, tomatoes and rice.
• For example, ‘golden rice’ is a genetically engineered type of rice that produces high levels of a molecule called beta-carotene, making it a yellow-orange colour. When it is eaten, the human body can convert beta-carotene into vitamin A.

For medicine

• Some animals have been genetically engineered to produce pharmaceutical products, such as hormones, enzymes or vaccines.
• For example, goats have been engineered to produce milk that is rich in a molecule called antithrombin, which is used to prevent heart attacks and strokes in high-risk patients.
• Similarly, sheep can be engineered to produce milk containing a human enzyme called alpha-1 antitrypsin, which can treat people with cystic fibrosis and emphysema.

For research

• The first genetically modified organism to be created was a bacterium, in 1973.
• In 1974, the same techniques were applied to mice. This made it possible to investigate how specific genes function in a model organism.
• Scientists have also made nematode worms that glow in the dark to study conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease.

Case study – Alzheimer’s disease and the worm

• The nematode worm, C. elegans, only has around 300 cells in its entire nervous system. It’s also nearly transparent, making it possible to label different proteins with a fluorescent marker and watch how they affect different cells under the microscope.
• In humans, the APP gene codes for a protein associated with the amyloid plaques that are characteristic of people with Alzheimer’s disease.
• Researchers genetically engineered the nerve cells of the nematode worm to contain the APP gene, effectively giving the worm Alzheimer’s disease.
• They also tagged the resultant APP protein with a fluorescent marker. This showed that every cell that made contact with the APP protein died as the worm got older.
• The researchers were then able to monitor the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in the worm and go on to apply their findings to understanding the role of APP in humans with Alzheimer’s disease.

How do you feel about the use of animals in research? Explore the topic in our conversation here.

13 Advantages and Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering

The process of genetic engineering allows for the structure of genes to be altered. It is a deliberate modification which occurs through the direct manipulation of the genetic material of an organism. DNA is either added or subtracted to produce one or more new traits that were not found in that organism before.

With genetic engineering, it becomes possible to create plants that can resist herbicides while they grow. It also becomes possible to create new threats to our food supply or personal health because viruses and bacteria continue to adapt to the changes that are produced through this process.

Here are the advantages and disadvantages of genetic engineering to consider.

What Are the Advantages of Genetic Engineering?

1. It allows for a faster growth rate. Genetic engineering allows of plants or animals to be modified so their maturity can occur at a quicker pace. Engineering can allow this maturity to occur outside of the normal growth conditions that are favorable without genetic changes as well. Even if there is higher levels of heat or lower levels of light, it becomes possible to expand what can be grown in those conditions.

2. It can create an extended life. Genetic modification can help to create resistance to common forms of organism death. Pest resistance can be included into the genetic profiles of plants so they can mature as a crop without any further additives. Animals can have their genetic profiles modified to reduce the risks of common health concerns that may affect the breed or species. This creates the potential for an extended lifespan for each organism.

3. Specific traits can be developed. Plants and animals can have specific traits developed through genetic engineering that can make them more attractive to use or consumption. Different colors can be created to produce a wider range of produce. Animals can be modified to produce more milk, grow more muscle tissue, or produce different coats so that a wider range of fabrics can be created.

4. New products can be created. With genetic engineering, new products can be created by adding or combining different profiles together. One example of this is to take a specific product, such as a potato, and alter its profile so that it can produce more nutrients per kcal than without the genetic engineering. This makes it possible for more people to get what they need nutritionally, even if their food access is limited, and this could potentially reduce global food insecurity.

5. Greater yields can be produced. Genetic engineering can also change the traits of plants or animals so that they produce greater yields per plant. More fruits can be produced per tree, which creates a greater food supply and more profits for a farmer. It also creates the potential for using modified organisms in multiple ways because there is a greater yield available. Modified corn, for example, can be used for specific purposes, such as animal feed, ethanol, or larger cobs for human consumption.

6. Risks to the local water supply are reduced. Because farmers and growers do not need to apply as many pesticides or herbicides to their croplands due to genetic engineering, fewer applications to the soil need to occur. This protects the local watershed and reduces the risk of an adverse event occurring without risking the yield and profitability that is needed.

7. It is a scientific practice that has been in place for millennia. Humans in the past may not have been able to directly modify the DNA of a plant or animal in a laboratory, but they still practiced genetic engineering through selective breeding and cross-species or cross-breeding. People would identify specific traits, seek out other plants or animals that had similar traits, and then breed them together to create a specific result. Genetic engineering just speeds up this process and can predict an outcome with greater regularity.

What Are the Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering?

1. The nutritional value of foods can be less. When animals grow, and mature quickly, the nutritional value of that product can be reduced. This can be seen in poultry products today with the white striping that is found in meat products. That striping is a fat deposit that was created, often in the breast meat, because of the rapid growth of the bird. In chickens, Good Housekeeping reports that this can increase the fat content of the meat consumed by over 220%. At the same time, the amount of protein that is received is also reduced.

2. Pathogens adapt to the new genetic profiles. Genetic engineering can create a natural resistance against certain pathogens for plants and animals, but the natural evolutionary process is geared toward creating pathways. Bacteria and viruses evolve a resistance to the resistance that is created by the genetic engineering efforts. This causes the pathogens to become stronger and more resistant than they normally would be, potentially creating future health concerns that are unforeseen.

3. There can be negative side effects that are unexpected. Genetic engineering is guaranteed to make a change. Many of those changes are positive, creating more and healthier foods. Some of those changes, however, can be negative and unexpected. Making a plant become more tolerant to drought might also make that plant become less tolerant to direct sunlight. Animals may be modified to produce more milk, but have a shortened lifespan at the same time so farmers suffer a greater livestock.

4. The amount of diversity developed can be less favorable. At some point, genetically engineered plants and animals make it “into the wild” and interact with domestic species. This results in a crossing of “natural” and “artificial” organisms. The engineered organisms often dominate, resulting in only a modified species over several generations, reducing the diversity that is available.

5. Copyrighted genetic engineering can have costly consequences. Many companies copyright their genetic engineering processes or products to maintain their profitability. If a farmer plants genetically modified crops and the pollination process causes another farmer in the field over to have those modified crops grow, there have been precedents for legal actions against the “unauthorized” farmer. This can have several costly consequences, from fewer farmers wanting to work to a higher cost for the seeds that are planted.

6. This knowledge and technology can be easily abused. At the moment, genetic engineering in humans is being used to treat specific disorders that threaten the health or wellbeing of individuals. In time, the approach in humans could be like what is already being done with plants and animals. Genetic engineering can change specific traits, which could create human outcomes that are ethically questionable or easily abused.

The advantages and disadvantages of genetic engineering show that the results can be generally positive, but there must be controls in place to manage the negative when it occurs.

This page has been archived and is no longer updated

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Transgenic Crops and Recombinant DNA Technology

People have been altering the genomes of plants and animals for many years using traditional breeding techniques. Artificial selection for specific, desired traits has resulted in a variety of different organisms, ranging from sweet corn to hairless cats. But this artificial selection , in which organisms that exhibit specific traits are chosen to breed subsequent generations, has been limited to naturally occurring variations. In recent decades, however, advances in the field of genetic engineering have allowed for precise control over the genetic changes introduced into an organism . Today, we can incorporate new genes from one species into a completely unrelated species through genetic engineering, optimizing agricultural performance or facilitating the production of valuable pharmaceutical substances. Crop plants, farm animals, and soil bacteria are some of the more prominent examples of organisms that have been subject to genetic engineering.

Current Use of Genetically Modified Organisms

Table 1: Examples of GMOs Resulting from Agricultural Biotechnology

The pharmaceutical industry is another frontier for the use of GMOs. In 1986, human growth hormone was the first protein pharmaceutical made in plants (Barta et al ., 1986), and in 1989, the first antibody was produced (Hiatt et al ., 1989). Both research groups used tobacco, which has since dominated the industry as the most intensively studied and utilized plant species for the expression of foreign genes (Ma et al ., 2003). As of 2003, several types of antibodies produced in plants had made it to clinical trials. The use of genetically modified animals has also been indispensible in medical research. Transgenic animals are routinely bred to carry human genes, or mutations in specific genes, thus allowing the study of the progression and genetic determinants of various diseases.

Potential GMO Applications

Many industries stand to benefit from additional GMO research. For instance, a number of microorganisms are being considered as future clean fuel producers and biodegraders. In addition, genetically modified plants may someday be used to produce recombinant vaccines. In fact, the concept of an oral vaccine expressed in plants (fruits and vegetables) for direct consumption by individuals is being examined as a possible solution to the spread of disease in underdeveloped countries, one that would greatly reduce the costs associated with conducting large-scale vaccination campaigns. Work is currently underway to develop plant-derived vaccine candidates in potatoes and lettuce for hepatitis B virus (HBV), enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC), and Norwalk virus. Scientists are also looking into the production of other commercially valuable proteins in plants, such as spider silk protein and polymers that are used in surgery or tissue replacement (Ma et al ., 2003). Genetically modified animals have even been used to grow transplant tissues and human transplant organs, a concept called xenotransplantation. The rich variety of uses for GMOs provides a number of valuable benefits to humans, but many people also worry about potential risks.

Risks and Controversies Surrounding the Use of GMOs

Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are unknown consequences to altering the natural state of an organism through foreign gene expression . After all, such alterations can change the organism's metabolism , growth rate, and/or response to external environmental factors. These consequences influence not only the GMO itself, but also the natural environment in which that organism is allowed to proliferate. Potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora.

Horizontal gene transfer of pesticide, herbicide, or antibiotic resistance to other organisms would not only put humans at risk , but it would also cause ecological imbalances, allowing previously innocuous plants to grow uncontrolled, thus promoting the spread of disease among both plants and animals. Although the possibility of horizontal gene transfer between GMOs and other organisms cannot be denied, in reality, this risk is considered to be quite low. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally at a very low rate and, in most cases, cannot be simulated in an optimized laboratory environment without active modification of the target genome to increase susceptibility (Ma et al ., 2003).

In contrast, the alarming consequences of vertical gene transfer between GMOs and their wild-type counterparts have been highlighted by studying transgenic fish released into wild populations of the same species (Muir & Howard, 1999). The enhanced mating advantages of the genetically modified fish led to a reduction in the viability of their offspring . Thus, when a new transgene is introduced into a wild fish population, it propagates and may eventually threaten the viability of both the wild-type and the genetically modified organisms.

Unintended Impacts on Other Species: The Bt Corn Controversy

One example of public debate over the use of a genetically modified plant involves the case of Bt corn. Bt corn expresses a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis . Prior to construction of the recombinant corn, the protein had long been known to be toxic to a number of pestiferous insects, including the monarch caterpillar, and it had been successfully used as an environmentally friendly insecticide for several years. The benefit of the expression of this protein by corn plants is a reduction in the amount of insecticide that farmers must apply to their crops. Unfortunately, seeds containing genes for recombinant proteins can cause unintentional spread of recombinant genes or exposure of non-target organisms to new toxic compounds in the environment.

The now-famous Bt corn controversy started with a laboratory study by Losey et al . (1999) in which the mortality of monarch larvae was reportedly higher when fed with milkweed (their natural food supply) covered in pollen from transgenic corn than when fed milkweed covered with pollen from regular corn. The report by Losey et al . was followed by another publication (Jesse & Obrycki, 2000) suggesting that natural levels of Bt corn pollen in the field were harmful to monarchs.

Debate ensued when scientists from other laboratories disputed the study, citing the extremely high concentration of pollen used in the laboratory study as unrealistic, and concluding that migratory patterns of monarchs do not place them in the vicinity of corn during the time it sheds pollen. For the next two years, six teams of researchers from government, academia, and industry investigated the issue and concluded that the risk of Bt corn to monarchs was "very low" (Sears et al ., 2001), providing the basis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to approve Bt corn for an additional seven years.

Unintended Economic Consequences

Another concern associated with GMOs is that private companies will claim ownership of the organisms they create and not share them at a reasonable cost with the public. If these claims are correct, it is argued that use of genetically modified crops will hurt the economy and environment, because monoculture practices by large-scale farm production centers (who can afford the costly seeds) will dominate over the diversity contributed by small farmers who can't afford the technology. However, a recent meta-analysis of 15 studies reveals that, on average, two-thirds of the benefits of first-generation genetically modified crops are shared downstream, whereas only one-third accrues upstream (Demont et al ., 2007). These benefit shares are exhibited in both industrial and developing countries. Therefore, the argument that private companies will not share ownership of GMOs is not supported by evidence from first-generation genetically modified crops.

GMOs and the General Public: Philosophical and Religious Concerns

In a 2007 survey of 1,000 American adults conducted by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), 33% of respondents believed that biotech food products would benefit them or their families, but 23% of respondents did not know biotech foods had already reached the market. In addition, only 5% of those polled said they would take action by altering their purchasing habits as a result of concerns associated with using biotech products.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, public acceptance trends in Europe and Asia are mixed depending on the country and current mood at the time of the survey (Hoban, 2004). Attitudes toward cloning, biotechnology, and genetically modified products differ depending upon people's level of education and interpretations of what each of these terms mean. Support varies for different types of biotechnology; however, it is consistently lower when animals are mentioned.

Furthermore, even if the technologies are shared fairly, there are people who would still resist consumable GMOs, even with thorough testing for safety, because of personal or religious beliefs. The ethical issues surrounding GMOs include debate over our right to "play God," as well as the introduction of foreign material into foods that are abstained from for religious reasons. Some people believe that tampering with nature is intrinsically wrong, and others maintain that inserting plant genes in animals, or vice versa, is immoral. When it comes to genetically modified foods, those who feel strongly that the development of GMOs is against nature or religion have called for clear labeling rules so they can make informed selections when choosing which items to purchase. Respect for consumer choice and assumed risk is as important as having safeguards to prevent mixing of genetically modified products with non-genetically modified foods. In order to determine the requirements for such safeguards, there must be a definitive assessment of what constitutes a GMO and universal agreement on how products should be labeled.

These issues are increasingly important to consider as the number of GMOs continues to increase due to improved laboratory techniques and tools for sequencing whole genomes, better processes for cloning and transferring genes, and improved understanding of gene expression systems. Thus, legislative practices that regulate this research have to keep pace. Prior to permitting commercial use of GMOs, governments perform risk assessments to determine the possible consequences of their use, but difficulties in estimating the impact of commercial GMO use makes regulation of these organisms a challenge.

History of International Regulations for GMO Research and Development

In 1971, the first debate over the risks to humans of exposure to GMOs began when a common intestinal microorganism, E. coli , was infected with DNA from a tumor-inducing virus (Devos et al ., 2007). Initially, safety issues were a concern to individuals working in laboratories with GMOs, as well as nearby residents. However, later debate arose over concerns that recombinant organisms might be used as weapons. The growing debate, initially restricted to scientists, eventually spread to the public, and in 1974, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to begin to address some of these issues.

In the 1980s, when deliberate releases of GMOs to the environment were beginning to occur, the U.S. had very few regulations in place. Adherence to the guidelines provided by the NIH was voluntary for industry. Also during the 1980s, the use of transgenic plants was becoming a valuable endeavor for production of new pharmaceuticals, and individual companies, institutions, and whole countries were beginning to view biotechnology as a lucrative means of making money (Devos et al ., 2007). Worldwide commercialization of biotech products sparked new debate over the patentability of living organisms, the adverse effects of exposure to recombinant proteins, confidentiality issues, the morality and credibility of scientists, the role of government in regulating science, and other issues. In the U.S., the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment initiatives were developed, and they were eventually adopted worldwide as a top-down approach to advising policymakers by forecasting the societal impacts of GMOs.

Then, in 1986, a publication by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), called "Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations," became the first intergovernmental document to address issues surrounding the use of GMOs. This document recommended that risk assessments be performed on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approach to risk assessment for genetically modified products has been widely accepted; however, the U.S. has generally taken a product-based approach to assessment, whereas the European approach is more process based (Devos et al ., 2007). Although in the past, thorough regulation was lacking in many countries, governments worldwide are now meeting the demands of the public and implementing stricter testing and labeling requirements for genetically modified crops.

Increased Research and Improved Safety Go Hand in Hand

Proponents of the use of GMOs believe that, with adequate research, these organisms can be safely commercialized. There are many experimental variations for expression and control of engineered genes that can be applied to minimize potential risks. Some of these practices are already necessary as a result of new legislation, such as avoiding superfluous DNA transfer (vector sequences) and replacing selectable marker genes commonly used in the lab (antibiotic resistance) with innocuous plant-derived markers (Ma et al ., 2003). Issues such as the risk of vaccine-expressing plants being mixed in with normal foodstuffs might be overcome by having built-in identification factors, such as pigmentation, that facilitate monitoring and separation of genetically modified products from non-GMOs. Other built-in control techniques include having inducible promoters (e.g., induced by stress, chemicals, etc.), geographic isolation, using male-sterile plants, and separate growing seasons.

GMOs benefit mankind when used for purposes such as increasing the availability and quality of food and medical care, and contributing to a cleaner environment. If used wisely, they could result in an improved economy without doing more harm than good, and they could also make the most of their potential to alleviate hunger and disease worldwide. However, the full potential of GMOs cannot be realized without due diligence and thorough attention to the risks associated with each new GMO on a case-by-case basis.

References and Recommended Reading

Barta, A., et al . The expression of a nopaline synthase-human growth hormone chimaeric gene in transformed tobacco and sunflower callus tissue. Plant Molecular Biology 6 , 347–357 (1986)

Beyer, P., et al . Golden rice: Introducing the β-carotene biosynthesis pathway into rice endosperm by genetic engineering to defeat vitamin A deficiency. Journal of Nutrition 132 , 506S–510S (2002)

Demont, M., et al . GM crops in Europe: How much value and for whom? EuroChoices 6 , 46–53 (2007)

Devlin, R., et al . Extraordinary salmon growth. Nature 371 , 209–210 (1994) ( link to article )

Devos, Y., et al . Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A (re)quest for sense and sensibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 , 29–61 (2007) doi:10.1007/s10806-007-9057-6

Guerrero-Andrade, O., et al . Expression of the Newcastle disease virus fusion protein in transgenic maize and immunological studies. Transgenic Research 15 , 455–463(2006) doi:10.1007/s11248-006-0017-0

Hiatt, A., et al . Production of antibodies in transgenic plants. Nature 342 , 76–79 (1989) ( link to article )

Hoban, T. Public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology. ESA working papers nos. 4-9. Agricultural and Development Economics Division, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2004)

Jesse, H., & Obrycki, J. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: Lethal effects on the monarch butterfly. Oecologia 125 , 241–248 (2000)

Losey, J., et al . Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399 , 214 (1999) doi:10.1038/20338 ( link to article )

Ma, J., et al . The production of recombinant pharmaceutical proteins in plants. Nature Reviews Genetics 4 , 794–805 (2003) doi:10.1038/nrg1177 ( link to article )

Muir, W., & Howard, R. Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: Sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 , 13853–13856 (1999)

Sears, M., et al . Impact of Bt corn on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 , 11937–11942 (2001)

Spurgeon, D. Call for tighter controls on transgenic foods. Nature 409 , 749 (2001) ( link to article )

Takeda, S., & Matsuoka, M. Genetic approaches to crop improvement: Responding to environmental and population changes. Nature Reviews Genetics 9 , 444–457 (2008) doi:10.1038/nrg2342 ( link to article )

United States Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program. Human Genome Project information: Genetically modified foods and organisms, (2007)

• Add Content to Group

Article History

Flag inappropriate.

Email your Friend

•  |  Lead Editor:  Bob Moss

Within this Subject (34)

• Applications in Biotechnology (4)
• Discovery of Genetic Material (4)
• DNA Replication (6)
• Gene Copies (5)
• Jumping Genes (4)
• RNA (7)
• Transcription & Translation (4)

Other Topic Rooms

• Gene Inheritance and Transmission
• Gene Expression and Regulation
• Nucleic Acid Structure and Function
• Chromosomes and Cytogenetics
• Evolutionary Genetics
• Population and Quantitative Genetics
• Genes and Disease
• Genetics and Society
• Cell Origins and Metabolism
• Proteins and Gene Expression
• Subcellular Compartments
• Cell Communication
• Cell Cycle and Cell Division

© 2014 Nature Education

• Press Room |
• Terms of Use |
• Privacy Notice |

Visual Browse

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)
• v.60(10); 2020 Oct

Historic Overview of Genetic Engineering Technologies for Human Gene Therapy

Ryota tamura1.

1 Department of Neurosurgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

Masahiro TODA

The concepts of gene therapy were initially introduced during the 1960s. Since the early 1990s, more than 1900 clinical trials have been conducted for the treatment of genetic diseases and cancers mainly using viral vectors. Although a variety of methods have also been performed for the treatment of malignant gliomas, it has been difficult to target invasive glioma cells. To overcome this problem, immortalized neural stem cell (NSC) and a nonlytic, amphotropic retroviral replicating vector (RRV) have attracted attention for gene delivery to invasive glioma. Recently, genome editing technology targeting insertions at site-specific locations has advanced; in particular, the clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated-9 (CRISPR/Cas9) has been developed. Since 2015, more than 30 clinical trials have been conducted using genome editing technologies, and the results have shown the potential to achieve positive patient outcomes. Gene therapy using CRISPR technologies for the treatment of a wide range of diseases is expected to continuously advance well into the future.

Introduction

Gene therapy is a therapeutic strategy using genetic engineering techniques to treat various diseases. 1 , 2) In the early 1960s, gene therapy first progressed with the development of recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology, 1) and was further developed using various genetic engineering tools, such as viral vectors. 3 – 5) More than 1900 clinical trials have been conducted with gene therapeutic approaches since the early 1990s. In these procedures, DNA is randomly inserted into the host genome using conventional genetic engineering tools. In the 2000s, genome editing tootls, including zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and the recently established clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated-9 (CRISPR/Cas9) technologies, were developed, which induce genome modifications at specific target sites. 5) Genome editing tools are efficient for intentional genetic engineering, which has led to the development of novel treatment strategies for a wide range of diseases, such as genetic diseases and cancers. Therefore, gene therapy has again became a major focus of medical research. However, because gene therapy involves changing the genetic background, it raises important ethical concerns. In this article, we review the brief history of gene therapy and the development of genetic engineering technologies.

History of Genetic Engineering Technologies

Ethical issues.

In 1968, the initial proof-of-concept of virus- mediated gene transfer was made by Rogers et al. 6) who showed that foreign genetic material could be transferred into cells by viruses. In the first human gene therapy experiment, Shope papilloma virus was transduced into two patients with genetic arginase deficiency, because Rogers et al. hypothesized that the Shope papilloma virus genome contained a gene that encodes arginase. However, this gene therapy produced little improvement in the arginase levels in the patients. 7) Sequencing of the Shope papilloma virus genome revealed that the virus genome did not contain an arginase gene. 7)

This experiment prompted public concerns about the risks and ethical issues of gene therapy. In 1972, Friedman et al. 8) proposed ethical standards for the clinical application of gene therapy to prevent premature application in human. However, in 1980, genetic engineering was unethically performed in patients with thalassemia without the approval of the institutional review board. 9) The patients’ bone marrow cells were harvested and returned into their bone marrow after transduction with the plasmid DNA containing an integrated b-globin gene. 9) This treatment showed no effects, and the experiments were regarded as morally dubious. The gene therapy report of the President's Commission in the United States, Splicing Life , emphasized the distinction between somatic and germline genome editing in humans, and between medical treatment and non-medical enhancement. 10) An altered gene inserted into sperm or egg cells (germ cells) would lead to changes not only in the individual receiving the treatment but also in their future offspring. Interventions aimed at enhancing “normal” people also are problematic because they might lead to attempts to make “perfect” human beings.

Beginning of gene therapy using viral vector

In 1980, only nonviral methods, such as microinjection and calcium-phosphate precipitation, were used for gene delivery. Nonviral methods showed some advantages compared with viral methods, such as large-scale production and low host immunogenicity. However, nonviral methods yielded lower levels of transfection and gene expression, resulting in limited therapeutic efficacy. 11) In 1989, the rDNA Advisory Committee of the National Institutes of Health proposed the first guidelines for the clinical trials of gene therapy. In 1990, retroviral infection, which is highly dependent on host cell cycle status, was first performed for the transduction of the neomycin resistance marker gene into tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes that were obtained from patients with metastatic melanoma. 3 , 4) Then, the lymphocytes were cultured in vitro and returned to the patients’ bodies. 3 , 4) The first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)- approved gene therapy using a retroviral vector was performed by Anderson et al. in 1990; the adenosine deaminase (ADA) gene was transduced into the white blood cells of a patient with ADA deficiency, resulting in temporary improvements in her immunity. 2 , 12)

First severe complications

A recombinant adenoviral (AV) vector was developed after advances in the use of the retroviral vector. In 1999, a clinical trial was performed for ornithine transcarbamylase (OTC) deficiency. A ubiquitous DNA AV vector (Ad5) containing the OTC gene was delivered into the patient. Four days after administration, the patient died from multiple organ failure that was caused by a cytokine storm. 13 , 14) In 1999, of the 20 patients enrolled in two trials for severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID)-X1, T-cell leukemia was observed in five patients at 2–5.5 years after the treatment. Hematopoietic stem cells with a conventional, amphotropic, murine leukemia virus-based vector and a gibbon-ape leukemia virus-pseudotyped retrovirus were used for gene transduction in those trials. 15 , 16) Although four patients fully recovered after the treatment, one patient died 15 , 16) because oncogene activation was mediated by viral insertion. 15 , 16)

Development of viral vectors

Viral vectors continued to be crucial components in the manufacture of cell and gene therapy. Adeno- associated viral (AAV) vectors were applied for many genetic diseases including Leber’s Congenital Amaurosis (LCA), and reverse lipoprotein lipase deficiency (LPLD). In 2008, remarkable success was reported for LCA type II in phase I/II clinical trials. 17) LCA is a rare hereditary retinal degeneration disorder caused by mutations in the RPE65 gene (Retinoid Isomerohydrolase RPE65), which is highly expressed in the retinal pigment epithelium and encodes retinoid isomerase. 17) These trials confirm that RPE65 could be delivered into retinal pigment epithelial cells using recombinant AAV2/2 vectors, resulting in clinical benefits without adverse events. 17) Recently, the FDA approved voretigene neparvovec-rzyl (Luxturna, Spark Therapeutics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) for patients with LCA type II. Alipogene tiparvovec Glybera (uniQure, Lexington, MA, USA) is the first gene-therapy-based drug to reverse LPLD to be approved in Europe in 2012. The AAV1 vector delivers an intact LPL gene to the muscle cells. 18) To date, more than 200 clinical trials have been performed using AAV vectors for several genetic diseases, including spinal muscular atrophy, 19) retinal dystrophy, 20) and hemophilia. 21)

Retrovirus is still one of the mainstays of gene therapeutic approaches. Strimvelis (GlaxoSmithKline, London, UK) is an FDA-approved drug consisting of an autologous CD34 (+)-enriched cell population that includes a gammaretrovirus containing the ADA gene that was used as the first ex-vivo stem cell gene therapy in patients with SCID because of ADA deficiency. 22) Subsequently, retroviral vectors were often used for other genetic diseases, including X-SCID. 23)

Lentivirus belongs to a family of viruses that are responsible for diseases, such as aquired immunodeficiency syndrome caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that causes infection by inserting DNA into the genome of their host cells. 24) The lentivirus can infect non-dividing cells; therefore, it has a wider range of potential applications. Successful treatment of the patients with X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy was demonstrated using a lentiviral vector with the deficient peroxisomal adenosine triphosphate–binding cassette D1. 25) Despite the use of a lentiviral vector with an internal viral long terminal repeat, no oncogene activation was observed. 25)

A timeline showing the history of scientific progress in gene therapy is highlighted in Table 1 .

ADA: adenosine deaminase, ALD: adrenoleukodystrophy, B-ALL: B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, CAR: chimeric antigen receptor-modified, DLBCL: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, GT: gene therapy, LCA: Leber’s congenital amaurosis, LPL: lipoprotein lipase deficiency, OTC: ornithine transcarbamylase, SCID: severe combined immunodeficiency, SMA: spinal muscular atrophy, TCR: T cell receptor, TIL: tumor infiltrating lymphocyte

Gene Therapeutic Strategies for Brain Tumor

A variety of studies were performed to apply gene therapy to malignant tumors. The concept of gene therapy for tumors is different from that for genetic diseases, in which new genes are added to a patient's cells to replace missing or malfunctioning genes. In malignant tumors, the breakthrough in gene therapeutic strategy involved designing suicide gene therapy, 26) which was first applied for malignant glioma in 1992. 26 , 27) The first clinical study was performed on 15 patients with malignant gliomas by Ram et al (phase I/II). 27) Stereotactic intratumoral injections of murine fibroblasts producing a replication-deficient retrovirus vector with a suicide gene (herpes simplex virus-thymidine kinase [HSV-TK]) achieved anti-tumor activity in four patients through bystander killing effects. 27) Subsequently, various types of therapeutic genes have been used to treat malignant glioma. Suicide genes (cytosine deaminase [CD]), genes for immunomodulatory cytokines (interferon [IFN]-β, interleukin [IL]-12, granulocyte- macrophage colony-stimulating factor [GM-CSF]), and genes for reprogramming (p53, and phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted from chromosome [PTEN]) have been applied to the treatment of malignant glioma using viral vectors. 28 , 29)

Recently, a nonlytic, amphotropic retroviral replicating vector (RRV) and immortalized human neural stem cell (NSC) line were used for gene delivery to invasive glioma. 30 – 32) In 2012, a nonlytic, amphotropic RRV called Toca 511 was developed for the delivery of a suicide gene (CD) to tumors. 32) A tumor-selective Toca 511 combined with a prodrug (Toca FC) was evaluated in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma in phase I clinical trial. 30) The complete response rate was 11.3% in 53 patients. 30) In addition, the sub-analysis of this clinical trial revealed that the objective response was 21.7% in the 23-patient phase III eligible subgroup. 33) However, in the recent phase III trial, treatment with Toca 511 and Toca FC did not improve overall survival compared with standard therapy in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma. A further combinational treatment strategy using programmed cell-death ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint blockade delivered by TOCA-511 was evaluated in experimental models, which may lead to future clinical application. 34) Since 2010, intracranial administration of allogeneic NSCs containing CD gene (HB1.F3. CD) has been performed by a team at City of Hope. Autopsy specimens indicate the HB1.F3. CD migrates toward invaded tumor areas, suggesting a high tumor-trophic migratory capacity of NSCs. 31) No severe toxicities were observed in the trial. Generally, it is difficult to obtain NSCs derived from human embryonic or fetal tissue. The use of human embryos for research on embryonic stem cells is ethically controversial because it involves the destruction of human embryos, and the use of fetal tissue associated with abortion also raises ethical considerations. 35) Recently, the tumor-trophic migratory activity of NSCs derived from human-induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) was shown using organotypic brain slice culture. 36) Moreover, hiPSC-derived NSCs with the HSV-TK suicide gene system demonstrated considerable therapeutic potential for the treatment of experimental glioma models. 36) Furthermore, iPSCs have the ability to overcome ethical and practical issues of NSCs in clinical application.

New Genetic Engineering Technologies for Gene Therapy

Genetic engineering technologies using viral vectors to randomly insert therapeutic genes into a host genome raised concerns about insertional mutagenesis and oncogene activation. Therefore, new technology to intentionally insert genes at site-specific locations was needed. Genome editing is a genetic engineering method that uses nucleases or molecular scissors to intentionally introduce alterations into the genome of living organisms. 6) As of 2015, three types of engineered nucleases have been used: ZFNs, TALENs, and CRISPR/Cas ( Table 2 ). 6)

CRISPR/Cas9: clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated proteins 9, PAM: protospacer adjacent motif, TALENs: transcription activator-like effector nucleases, ZFNs: zinc finger nucleases

Genome editing tools

ZFNs are fusions of the nonspecific DNA cleavage domain of the Fok I restriction endonuclease and zinc-finger proteins that lead to DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). Zinc-finger domains recognize a trinucleotide DNA sequence ( Fig. 1 ). However, design and selection of zinc-finber arrays is difficult and time-consuming. 37)

Genome editing tools. Three types of genome editing tools including ZFNs, TALENs, and CRISPR/Cas9 are shown. ZFNs are hybrid proteins using zinc-finger arrays and the catalytic domain of FokI endonuclease. TALENs are hybrid proteins containing the TAL effector backbone and the catalytic domain of FokI endonuclease. The CRISPR/Cas9 system is composed of Cas9 endonuclease and sgRNA. Cas9: CRISPR-associated-9, CRISPR: clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats, sgRNA: single-guide RNA, TALENs: transcription activator-like effector nucleases, ZFNs: zinc-finger nucleases.

TALENs are fusions of the Fok I cleavage domain and DNA-binding domains derived from TALE proteins. TALEs have multiple 33–35 amino acid repeat domains that recognizes a single base pair, leading to the targeted DSBs, similar to ZFNs ( Fig. 1 ). 38)

The CRISPR/Cas9 system consists of Cas9 nuclease and two RNAs (CRISPR RNA [crRNA] and trans- activating CRISPR RNA [tracrRNA]). 39) The crRNA/tracrRNA complex (gRNA) induces the Cas9 nuclease and cleaves DNA upstream of a protospacer-adjacent motif (PAM, 5’-NGG-3’ for S. pyogenes ) ( Fig. 1 ). 40) Currently, Cas9 from S. pyogenes (SpCas9) is the most popular tool for genome editing. 40)

Critical issues in geneome editing

Several studies have demonstrated the off-target effects of Cas9/gRNA complexes. 41) It is important to select unique target sites without closely homologous sequences, resulting in minimum off-target effects. 42) Additionally, other CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing tools were developed to mitigate off-target effects, including gRNA modifications (slightly truncated gRNAs with shorter regions of target complementarity <20 nucleotides) 43) and SpCas9 variants, such as Cas9 paired nickases (a Cas9 nickase mutant or dimeric Cas9 proteins combined with pairs of gRNAs). 44) The type I CRISPR-mediated distinct DNA cleavage (CRISPR/Cas3 system) was developed recently in Japan to decrease the risk of off-target effets. Cas3 triggered long-range deletions upstream of the PAM (5'-ARG). 45)

A confirmatory screening of off-target effects is necessary for ensuring the safe application of genome editing technologies. 46) Although off-target mutations in the genome, including the noncoding region, can be evaluated using whole genome sequencing, this method is expensive and time-consuming. With the development of unbiased genome-wide cell-based methods, GUIDE-seq (genome-wide, unbiased identification of DSBs enabled by sequencing) 47) and BLESS (direct in situ breaks labeling, enrichment on streptavidin; next-generation sequencing) 48) were developed to detect off-target cleavage sites, and these methods do not require high sequencing read counts.

Applications of Genome Editing Technologies

Gene therapy has in- vivo and ex- vivo strategies. For the in- vivo strategy, vectors containing therapeutic genes are directly delivered into the patients, and genetic modification occurs in situ . For the ex- vivo strategy, the harvested cells are modified by the appropriate gene delivery tools in vitro (e.g., recombinant viruses and genome editing technologies). The modified cells are then delivered back to the patient via autologous or allogeneic transplantation after the evaluation of off-target effects ( Fig. 2 ).

In- vivo and ex- vivo strategies of gene therapy. In- vivo and ex- vivo gene transfer strategies are shown. For in- vivo gene transfer, genetic materials containing therapeutic genes, such as viral vectors, nanoparticles, and ribosomes, are delivered directly to the patient, and genetic modification occurs in situ . For ex- vivo gene transfer, the harvested cells are modified by the appropriate gene delivery tools in vitro (e.g., recombinant viruses genome editing technologies). The modified cells are then delivered back to the patient via autologous or allogeneic transplantation after the evaluation of off-target effects.

HIV-resistant T cells were established by ZFN- mediated disruption of the C-C chemokine receptor (CCR) 5 coreceptor for HIV-I, which is being evaluated as an ex- vivo modification in early-stage clinical trials. 49 , 50) Disruption of CCR5 using ZFNs was the first-in-human application of a genome editing tool. Regarding hematologic disorders, since 2016, clinical trials have attempted the knock-in of the factor IX gene using AAV/ZFN-mediated genome editing approach for patients with hemophilia B. 51)

In addition to these promising ongoing clinical trials for genetic diseases, CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN technologies have improved the effect of cancer immunotherapy using genome-engineered T cells. Engineered T cells express synthetic receptors (chimeric antigen receptors, CARs) that can recognize epitopes on tumor cells. The FDA approved two CD19-targeting CAR-T-cell products for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. 52 , 53) Engineered CARs target many other antigens of blood cancers, including CD30 in Hodgkin's lymphoma as well as CD33, CD123, and FLT3 of acute myeloid leukemia. 54) Recent research has shown that Cas9-mediated PD-1 disruption in the CAR-T cells improved the anti-tumor effect observed in in- vitro and in- vivo experimental models, leading to the performance of a clinical trial. 55 , 56) All other ongoing clinical trials using genome-editing technologies are highlighted in Table 3 .

AAV: adeno-associated virus, CAR: chimeric antigen receptor, CRISPR/Cas9: clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated 9 proteins, HIV: human immunodeficiency virus, HPV: human papillovirus, MPS: mucopolysaccharidosis, N/A: not available, PD-1: programmed cell death-1, TALEN: transcription activator-like effector nucleases, ZFN: zinc finger nucleases

Future Direction

Gene therapy has advanced treatments for patients with congenital diseases and cancers throughout recent decades by optimizating various types of vectors and the introduction of new techniques including genome editing tools. The CRISPR/Cas9 system is considered one of the most powerful tools for genetic engineering because of its high efficiency, low cost, and ease of use. CRISPR technologies have progressed and are expected to continuously advance. Although there are still many challenging obstacles to overcome to achieve safe clinical application, these methods provide the possibility of treatment for a wide variety of human diseases.

Acknowledgement

We thank Lisa Kreiner, PhD, from Edanz Group (https://en-author-services.edanzgroup.com/) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

The authors declare no conflicts of interest associated with this manuscript. This work was supported in part by grants from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (18K19622 to M.T.). All authors have registered online Self-reported COI Disclosure Statement Forms through the website for JNS members.

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

Genetically modified organisms.

A genetically modified organism contains DNA that has been altered using genetic engineering. Genetically modified animals are mainly used for research purposes, while genetically modified plants are common in today’s food supply.

Biology, Ecology, Genetics, Health

Photo of a genetically engineered Salmon. Created so that it continuously produces growth hormones and can be sold as a full size fish after 18 months instead of 3 years.

Photograph by Paulo Oliveira/Alamy Stock Photo

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an animal, plant, or microbe whose DNA has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.

For thousands of years, humans have used breeding methods to modify organisms . Corn, cattle, and even dogs have been selectively bred over generations to have certain desired traits . Within the last few decades, however, modern advances in biotechnology have allowed scientists to directly modify the DNA of micro organisms , crops, and animals.

Conventional methods of modifying plants and animals— selective breeding and crossbreeding —can take a long time. Moreover, selective breeding and crossbreeding often produce mixed results, with unwanted traits appearing alongside desired characteristics. The specific targeted modification of DNA using biotechnology has allowed scientists to avoid this problem and improve the genetic makeup of an organism without unwanted characteristics tagging along.

Most animals that are GMOs are produced for use in laboratory research. These animals are used as “models” to study the function of specific genes and, typically, how the genes relate to health and disease. Some GMO animals, however, are produced for human consumption. Salmon, for example, has been genetically engineered to mature faster, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated that these fish are safe to eat.

GMOs are perhaps most visible in the produce section. The first genetically engineered plants to be produced for human consumption were introduced in the mid-1990s. Today, approximately 90 percent of the corn, soybeans, and sugar beets on the market are GMOs. Genetically engineered crops produce higher yields, have a longer shelf life, are resistant to diseases and pests, and even taste better. These benefits are a plus for both farmers and consumers. For example, higher yields and longer shelf life may lead to lower prices for consumers, and pest-resistant crops means that farmers don’t need to buy and use as many pesticides to grow quality crops. GMO crops can thus be kinder to the environment than conventionally grown crops.

Genetically modified foods do cause controversy, however. Genetic engineering typically changes an organism in a way that would not occur naturally. It is even common for scientists to insert genes into an organism from an entirely different organism. This raises the possible risk of unexpected allergic reactions to some GMO foods. Other concerns include the possibility of the genetically engineered foreign DNA spreading to non-GMO plants and animals. So far, none of the GMOs approved for consumption have caused any of these problems, and GMO food sources are subject to regulations and rigorous safety assessments.

In the future, GMOs are likely to continue playing an important role in biomedical research. GMO foods may provide better nutrition and perhaps even be engineered to contain medicinal compounds to enhance human health. If GMOs can be shown to be both safe and healthful, consumer resistance to these products will most likely diminish.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, specialist, content production, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

• Introduction to Genomics
• Educational Resources
• Policy Issues in Genomics
• The Human Genome Project
• Funding Opportunities
• Funded Programs & Projects
• Division and Program Directors
• Scientific Program Analysts
• Contact by Research Area
• News & Events
• Research Areas
• Research investigators
• Research Projects
• Clinical Research
• Data Tools & Resources
• Genomics & Medicine
• Family Health History
• For Patients & Families
• For Health Professionals
• Jobs at NHGRI
• Training at NHGRI
• Funding for Research Training
• Professional Development Programs
• NHGRI Culture
• Social Media
• Broadcast Media
• Image Gallery
• Press Resources
• Organization
• NHGRI Director
• Mission & Vision
• Policies & Guidance
• Institute Advisors
• Strategic Vision
• Leadership Initiatives
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Partner with NHGRI
• Staff Search

​Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering (also called genetic modification) is a process that uses laboratory-based technologies to alter the DNA makeup of an organism. This may involve changing a single base pair (A-T or C-G), deleting a region of DNA or adding a new segment of DNA. For example, genetic engineering may involve adding a gene from one species to an organism from a different species to produce a desired trait. Used in research and industry, genetic engineering has been applied to the production of cancer therapies, brewing yeasts, genetically modified plants and livestock, and more.

Genetic engineering. Genetic engineering has changed over the years, from cloning for analysis and laboratory use to truly synthetic biology for understanding and new biomedical capabilities.

Former Program Director, Genome Technology Program

Division of Genome Sciences

• Academic Departments
• Centers, Institutes & Labs
• Faculty Directory
• Offices & Programs
• Patient Care
• Student Resources
• Faculty Resources

Can't find what you're looking for?

• Centers, Institutes & Labs
• Offices & Programs

This is a site-wide search. if you already know what you're looking for, try visiting a section of the site first to see A-Z listings.

Results for " "

Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering

Section menu, introduction.

The cells of a human being or other organism have parts called “genes” that control the chemical reactions in the cell that make it grow and function and ultimately determine the growth and function of the organism.  An organism inherits some genes from each parent and thus the parents pass on certain traits to their offspring.

Gene therapy and genetic engineering are two closely related technologies that involve altering the genetic material of organisms. The distinction between the two is based on purpose. Gene therapy seeks to alter genes to correct genetic defects and thus prevent or cure genetic diseases. Genetic engineering aims to modify the genes to enhance the capabilities of the organism beyond what is normal.

Ethical controversy surrounds possible use of the both of these technologies in plants, nonhuman animals, and humans.  Particularly with genetic engineering, for instance, one wonders whether it would be proper to tinker with human genes to make people able to outperform the greatest Olympic athletes or much smarter than Einstein.

Confusing Terminology

If genetic engineering is meant in a very broad sense to include any intentional genetic alteration, then it includes gene therapy.  Thus one hears of “therapeutic genetic engineering” (gene therapy) and “negative genetic engineering” (gene therapy), in contrast with “enhancement genetic engineering” and “positive genetic engineering” (what we call simply “genetic engineering”).

We use the phrase “genetic engineering” more narrowly for the kind of alteration that aims at enhancement rather than therapy.  We use the term “gene therapy” for efforts to bring people up to normalcy and “genetic engineering” or “enhancement genetic engineering” for efforts to enhancement people’s capabilities beyond normalcy.

Somatic Cells and Reproductive Cells

Two fundamental kinds of cell are somatic cells and reproductive cells. Most of the cells in our bodies are somatic – cells that make up organs like skin, liver, heart, lungs, etc., and these cells vary from one another.  Changing the genetic material in these cells is not passed along to a person’s offspring.  Reproductive cells are sperm cells, egg cells, and cells from very early embryos.  Changes in the genetic make-up of reproductive cells would be passed along to the person’s offspring.  Those reproductive cell changes could result in different genetics in the offspring’s somatic cells than otherwise would have occurred because the genetic makeup of somatic cells is directly linked to that of the germ cells from which they are derived.

Techniques of Genetic Alteration

Two problems must be confronted when changing genes.  The first is what kind of change to make to the gene.  The second is how to incorporate that change in all the other cells that are must be changed to achieve a desired effect.

There are several options for what kind of change to make to the gene.  DNA in the gene could be replaced by other DNA from outside (called “homologous replacement).  Or the gene could be forced to mutate (change structure – “selective reverse mutation.”)  Or a gene could just be added.  Or one could use a chemical to simply turn off a gene and prevent it from acting.

There are also several options for how to spread the genetic change to all the cells that need to be changed.  If the altered cell is a reproductive cell, then a few such cells could be changed and the change would reach the other somatic cells as those somatic cells were created as the organism develops.  But if the change were made to a somatic cell, changing all the other relevant somatic cells individually like the first would be impractical due to the sheer number of such cells.  The cells of a major organ such as the heart or liver are too numerous to change one-by-one.  Instead, to reach such somatic cells a common approach is to use a carrier, or vector, which is a molecule or organism.  A virus, for example, could be used as a vector.  The virus would be an innocuous one or changed so as not to cause disease.  It would be injected with the genetic material and then as it reproduces and “infects” the target cells it would introduce the new genetic material.  It would need to be a very specific virus that would infect heart cells, for instance, without infecting and changing all the other cells of the body.  Fat particles and chemicals have also been used as vectors because they can penetrate the cell membrane and move into the cell nucleus with the new genetic material.

Arguments in Favor of Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering

Gene therapy is often viewed as morally unobjectionable, though caution is urged.  The main arguments in its favor are that it offers the potential to cure some diseases or disorders in those who have the problem and to prevent diseases in those whose genes predisposed them to those problems.  If done on reproductive cells, gene therapy could keep children from carrying such genes (for unfavorable genetic diseases and disorders) that the children got from their patients.

Genetic engineering to enhance organisms has already been used extensively in agriculture, primarily in genetically modified (GM) crops (also known as GMO --genetically modified organisms).  For example, crops and stock animals have been engineered so they are resistant to herbicides and pesticides, which means farmers can then use those chemicals to control weeds and insects on those crops without risking harming those plants.  In the future genetic enhancement could be used to create crops with greater yields of nutritional value and selective breeding of farm stock, race horses, and show animals.

Genetically engineered bacteria and other microorganisms are currently used to produce human insulin, human growth hormone, a protein used in blood clotting, and other pharmaceuticals, and the number of such compounds could increase in the future.

Enhancing humans is still in the future, but the basic argument in favor of doing so is that it could make life better in significant ways by enhancing certain characteristics of people.  We value intelligence, beauty, strength, endurance, and certain personality characteristics and behavioral tendencies, and if these traits were found to be due to a genetic component we could enhance people by giving them such features.  Advocates of genetic engineering point out that many people try to improve themselves in these ways already – by diet, exercise, education, cosmetics, and even plastic surgery.  People try to do these things for themselves, and parents try to provide these things for their children.  If exercising to improve strength, agility, and overall fitness is a worthwhile goal, and if someone is praised for pursuing education to increase their mental capabilities, then why would it not be worthwhile to accomplish this through genetics? 

Advocates of genetic engineering also see enhancement as a matter of basic reproductive freedom.  We already feel free to pick a mate partly on the basis of the possibility of providing desirable children.  We think nothing is wrong with choosing a mate whom we hope might provide smart, attractive kids over some other mate who would provide less desirable children.  Choosing a mate for the type of kids one might get is a matter of basic reproductive freedom and we have the freedom to pick the best genes we can for our children.  Why, the argument goes, should we have less freedom to give our children the best genes we can through genetic enhancement?

Those who advocate making significant modification of humans through technology such as genetic engineering are sometimes called “transhumanists.”

Arguments Against Gene Therapy

Three arguments sometimes raised against gene therapy are that it is technically too dangerous, that it discriminates or invites discrimination against persons with disabilities, and that it may be becoming increasingly irrelevant in some cases.

The danger objection points out that a few recent attempts at gene therapy in clinical trials have made headlines because of the tragic deaths of some of the people participating in the trials.  It is not fully known to what extent this was due to the gene therapy itself, as opposed to pre-existing conditions or improper research techniques, but in the light of such events some critics have called for a stop to gene therapy until more is known.  We just do not know enough about how gene therapy works and what could go wrong.  Specific worries are that

• the vectors may deliver the DNA to cells other than the target cells, with unforeseen results
• viruses as vectors may not be as innocuous as assumed and may cause disease
• adding new genes to a nucleus does not guarantee they will go where desired, with potentially disastrous results if they insert in the wrong place
• if the changes are not integrated with other DNA already in the nucleus, the changes may not carry over to new cells and the person may have to undergo more therapy later
• changing reproductive cells may cause events not seen until years later, and undesirable effects may have already been passed on to the patient’s children

The discrimination objection is as follows.  Some people who are physically, mentally, or emotionally impaired are so as the result of genetic factors they have inherited.  Such impairment can result in disablement in our society.  People with disabilities are often discriminated against by having fewer opportunities than other people.  Be removing genetic disorders, and resulting impairment, it is true that gene therapy could contribute to removing one of the sources of discrimination and inequality in society.  But the implicit assumption being made, the objection claims, is that people impaired through genetic factors need to be treated and made normal.  The objection sees gene therapy as a form of discrimination against impaired people and persons with disabilities.

The irrelevance objection is that gene therapy on reproductive cells may in some cases already be superseded by in-vitro fertilization and selection of embryos.  If a genetic disorder is such that can be detected in an early embryo, and not all embryos from the parent couple would have it, then have parents produce multiple embryos through in-vitro fertilization and implant only those free from the disorder.  In such a case gene therapy would be unnecessary and irrelevant.

Arguments Against Genetic Engineering

Ethicists have generally been even more concerned about possible problems with and implications of enhancement genetic engineering than they have been about gene therapy.  First, there are worries similar to those about gene therapy that not enough is known and there may be unforeseen dangerous consequences.  These worries may be even more serious given that the attempts are made not just toward normalcy but into strange new territory where humans have never gone before.  We just do not know what freakish creatures might result from experiments gone awry.

Following are some other important objections:

• Genetic engineering is against the natural or supernatural order.  The thought here is that God, or evolution, has created a set of genes for human beings that are either what we should have or that offer us the best survival value.  It is against what God or nature intended to tinker with this genetic code, not to bring it up to normal (as in gene therapy), but to create new kinds of beings. This type of objection is compatible both with “creationism,” the belief that God created humans just as they are, and also the belief in evolution.  On the latter view, humans consciously enhancing their genes is considered different than allowing the natural process of evolution to “choose” the genes we have.
• Genetic engineering is dehumanizing because it will create nonhuman, alienated creatures.  Genetically engineered people will be alienated from themselves, or feel a confused identify, or no longer feel human, or the human race will feel alienated from itself.  Genetically engineered people won’t have a sense of being part of the human race but they will not have enough in common with other such creatures to feel like they belong with any of them either.  People will be alienated even from their radically different genetically engineered children, who could very well be a separate species.
• Genetic engineered creatures will suffer from obsolescence.  Computers become obsolete quickly as newer models are introduced.  But this could happen to genetically engineered people.  The hot gene enhancement of one year will be old news several years later.  Parents will be obsolete by the standards of their children, and teenagers will be hopelessly outclassed by their younger siblings.
• Genetic engineering is a version of eugenics and evokes memories of the historical eugenics movement of the earlier part of the twentieth century in America and Nazi Germany.  “Eugenics” is the view that we should improve the genetics of the human race; often advocated are such practices as selective breeding, forced sterilization of “defectives” and “undesirables” (people with genetic disorders or undesirable characteristics or traits, people with disabilities, people of other races, people of other ethnic groups, homosexuals), and euthanasia of such populations.  It probably reached an extreme form in Nazi Germany, where mass exterminations took place, but eugenics sentiments existed prior to that in the U.S.  These practices are now largely viewed as morally abhorrent.  Critics of genetic engineering see it as an attempt at eugenics through technology.

Gene therapy is becoming a reality as you read this.  Genetic engineering for enhancement is still a ways off.  Plenty of debate is sure to occur over both issues.

More Centers, Institutes and Labs

• Baker Research Lab
• Becevic Telehealth Lab
• Biomedical Informatics
• Cardiac Cell Physiology Lab
• Center for Education and Development
• Center for Health Ethics
• Center for Health Policy
• Center for Medical Epidemiology and Population Health (CMEPH)
• Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
• Center for Precision Medicine
• Child Health Research Institute
• Christopher S. Bond Life Sciences Center
• Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory
• Cosmopolitan International Diabetes Center
• Craniofacial Research Center
• Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center
• Electron Microscopy Core Facility
• Ellis Fischel Cancer Center
• Fay Research Lab
• Functional Assessment Screening Team
• Health Informatics in Diabetes Research (HIDR) Core
• Health Intervention and Treatment Research Lab
• Immunity & Autoimmunity Research Lab
• International Institute of Nano and Molecular Medicine
• Lei Research Lab
• Microcirculation Laboratory
• Missouri Orthopaedic Bioskills Laboratory
• Mizzou OneHealth Biorepository
• Mizzou Sleep Research Lab
• MU Center for Translational Neuroscience
• MU Student Health Center
• MU Surgical Center for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (MUSCORE)
• Narrative Medicine and Health Innovation Lab
• Pulmonary Imaging Research Lab
• Rural Health Research Center
• Shelden Clinical Simulation Center
• Subramanian Research Lab
• Thompson Center for Autism and Neurodevelopment
• Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics

Happenings at MU School of Medicine

Stories that inspire.

Alumni Spotlight: Benson Hsu ‘05 and Jennifer Hsu ‘05

Ellis Fischel Cancer Center celebrates 2024 Cancer Research Day

University of Missouri Partnering with State to Address Childhood Immunizations

COVID-19 Virus Could Damage Vision

See All News

Columbia, MO 65212 Contact

Emergency Information

Sign up for our monthly newsletter

Copyright © 2023 — Curators of the University of Missouri . All rights reserved. DMCA and other copyright information . Equal Opportunity/Access/Affirmative Action/Pro Disabled & Veteran Employer . For website issues, contact MU Health Care Communications . Contact the MU School of Medicine .

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Human Enhancement

The scientific and ethical dimensions of striving for perfection.

H uman enhancement is at least as old as human civilization. People have been trying to enhance their physical and mental capabilities for thousands of years, sometimes successfully – and sometimes with inconclusive, comic and even tragic results.

Up to this point in history, however, most biomedical interventions, whether successful or not, have attempted to restore something perceived to be deficient, such as vision, hearing or mobility. Even when these interventions have tried to improve on nature – say with anabolic steroids to stimulate muscle growth or drugs such as Ritalin to sharpen focus ­– the results have tended to be relatively modest and incremental.

But thanks to recent scientific developments in areas such as biotechnology, information technology and nanotechnology, humanity may be on the cusp of an enhancement revolution. In the next two or three decades, people may have the option to change themselves and their children in ways that, up to now, have existed largely in the minds of science fiction writers and creators of comic book superheroes.

Both advocates for and opponents of human enhancement spin a number of possible scenarios. Some talk about what might be called “humanity plus” – people who are still recognizably human, but much smarter, stronger and healthier. Others speak of “post-humanity,” and predict that dramatic advances in genetic engineering and machine technology may ultimately allow people to become conscious machines – not recognizably human, at least on the outside.

This enhancement revolution, if and when it comes, may well be prompted by ongoing efforts to aid people with disabilities and heal the sick. Indeed, science is already making rapid progress in new restorative and therapeutic technologies that could, in theory, have implications for human enhancement.

It seems that each week or so, the headlines herald a new medical or scientific breakthrough. In the last few years, for instance, researchers have implanted artificial retinas to give blind patients partial sight . Other scientists successfully linked a paralyzed man’s brain to a computer chip , which helped restore partial movement of previously non-responsive limbs. Still others have created synthetic blood substitutes , which could soon be used in human patients.

One of the most important developments in recent years involves a new gene-splicing technique called “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats.” Known by its acronym, CRISPR , this new method greatly improves scientists’ ability to accurately and efficiently “edit” the human genome, in both embryos and adults.

To those who support human enhancement, many of whom call themselves transhumanists, technological breakthroughs like these are springboards not only to healing people but to changing and improving humanity. Up to this point, they say, humans have largely worked to control and shape their exterior environments because they were powerless to do more. But transhumanists predict that a convergence of new technologies will soon allow people to control and fundamentally change their bodies and minds. Instead of leaving a person’s physical well-being to the vagaries of nature, supporters of these technologies contend, science will allow us to take control of our species’ development, making ourselves and future generations stronger, smarter, healthier and happier.

The science that underpins transhumanist hopes is impressive, but there is no guarantee that researchers will create the means to make super-smart or super-strong people. Questions remain about the feasibility of radically changing human physiology, in part because scientists do not yet completely understand our bodies and minds. For instance, researchers still do not fully comprehend how people age or fully understand the source of human consciousness.

There also is significant philosophical, ethical and religious opposition to transhumanism. Many thinkers from different disciplines and faith traditions worry that radical changes will lead to people who are no longer either physically or psychologically human.

Even minor enhancements, critics say, may end up doing more harm than good. For instance, they contend, those with enhancements may lack empathy and compassion for those who have not chosen or cannot afford these new technologies. Indeed, they say, transhumanism could very well create an even wider gap between the haves and have-nots and lead to new kinds of exploitation or even slavery.

Given that the science is still at a somewhat early stage, there has been little public discussion about the possible impacts of human enhancement on a practical level. But a new survey by Pew Research Center suggests wariness in the U.S. public about these emerging technologies. For example, 68% of Americans say they would be “very” or “somewhat” worried about using gene editing on healthy babies to reduce the infants’ risk of serious diseases or medical conditions. And a majority of U.S. adults (66%) say they would “definitely” or “probably” not want to get a brain chip implant to improve their ability to process information.

And yet, perhaps ironically, enhancement continues to captivate the popular imagination. Many of the top-grossing films in recent years in the United States and around the world have centered on superheroes with extraordinary abilities, such as the X-Men, Captain America, Spiderman, the Incredible Hulk and Iron Man. Such films explore the promise and pitfalls of exceeding natural human limits.

HUMAN ENHANCEMENT IN POPULAR CULTURE

[flipcards images=”https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/PS_2016.07.26_Human-Enhancement-Essay_Daedalus-250px.jpg, https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/PS_2016.07.26_Human-Enhancement-Essay_Frankenstein-250px.jpg, https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/PS_2016.07.26_Human-Enhancement-Essay_Gattaca-250px.jpg, https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/PS_2016.07.26_Human-Enhancement-Essay_Cap-250px.jpg” backs=”In the Greek myth, Daedalus fashioned wax and feather wings so that he and son Icarus could fly. But Icarus fell to his death because he flew too close to the sun, melting the wax., In Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” a scientist creates a new man only to ultimately die while trying to destroy his creation., The film Gattaca takes place in a future where non-genetically enhanced humans are considered “invalid.”, In the movies and comics, Captain America is a genetically-enhanced superhuman created to fight in America’s wars.”]

Not only is enhancement unquestionably part of today’s cultural zeitgeist, questions about humanity’s quest to move beyond natural limits go back to our earliest myths and stories. The ancient Greeks told of Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods, and Daedalus, the skilled craftsman, who made wings for himself and his son, Icarus. In the opening chapters of Genesis, the Hebrew Bible depicts a successful incident of human enhancement, when Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because the Serpent told them it would make them “like God.”

Of course, while Adam and Eve gained a new awareness and self-understanding, their actions also led to their expulsion from paradise and entry into a much harder world full of pain, shame and toil. This theme – that hidden dangers may lurk in something ostensibly good – runs through many literary accounts of enhancement. In Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” (1818), for instance, a scientist creates a new man, only to eventually die while trying to destroy his creation.

Whether these fears surrounding human enhancement are real or unfounded is a question already being debated by ethicists, scientists, theologians and others. This report looks at that debate, particularly in light of the diverse religious traditions represented in the United States. First, though, the report explains some of the scientific developments that might form the basis of an enhancement revolution.

[chapter title=”Where does the science stand?” background_image=”16058″]

O n Feb. 25, 2014, President Barack Obama met with Army officials and engineers at the Pentagon to discuss plans to create a new super armor that would make soldiers much more dangerous and harder to kill. The president joked that “we’re building ‘Iron Man,’” but Obama’s jest contained more than a kernel of truth: The exoskeleton, called the Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit (TALOS), does look vaguely like the fictional Tony Stark’s famous Iron Man suit. The first prototypes already are being built, and if all goes as planned, American soldiers may soon be much stronger and largely impervious to bullets.

A little more than a year later and an ocean away, scientists with the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) announced that by 2017, they plan to begin giving human subjects synthetic or artificial blood . If the NHS moves ahead with its plans, it would be the first time people receive blood created in a lab. While the ultimate aim of the effort is to stem blood shortages, especially for rare blood types, the success of synthetic blood could lay the foundation for a blood substitute that could be engineered to carry more oxygen or better fight infections.

In April 2016, scientists from the Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, revealed that they had implanted a chip in the brain of a quadriplegic man. The chip can send signals to a sleeve around the man’s arm, allowing him to pick up a glass of water, swipe a credit card and even play the video game Guitar Hero .

Roughly around the same time, Chinese researchers announced they had attempted to genetically alter 213 embryos to make them HIV resistant. Only four of the embryos were successfully changed and all were ultimately destroyed. Moreover, the scientists from the Guangzhou Medical University who did the work said its purpose was solely to test the feasibility of embryo gene editing, rather than to regularly begin altering embryos. Still, Robert Sparrow of Australia’s Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics said that while editing embryos to prevent HIV has an obvious therapeutic purpose, the experiment more broadly would lead to other things. “Its most plausible use, and most likely use, is the technology of human enhancement,” he said, according to the South China Morning Post .

As these examples show, many of the fantastic technologies that until recently were confined to science fiction have already arrived, at least in their early forms. “We are no longer living in a time when we can say we either want to enhance or we don’t,” says Nicholas Agar , a professor of ethics at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, and author of the book “Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement.” “We are already living in an age of enhancement.”

The road to TALOS, brain chips and synthetic blood has been a long one that has included many stops along the way. Many of these advances come from a convergence of more than one type of technology – from genetics and robotics to nanotechnology and information technology. These technologies are “intermingling and feeding on one another, and they are collectively creating a curve of change unlike anything we humans have ever seen,” journalist Joel Garreau writes in his book “ Radical Evolution : The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies – and What It Means to Be Human.”

The combination of information technology and nanotechnology offers the prospect of machines that are, to quote the title of Robert Bryce’s recent book on innovation, “Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper.” And as some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil argue, these developments will occur at an accelerated rate as technologies build on each other. “An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense ‘intuitive linear’ view,” writes Kurzweil , an American computer scientist and inventor whose work has led to the development of everything from checkout scanners at supermarkets to text-reading machines for the blind. “So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century – it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate).”

[icon_headline headline=”GENETIC EDITING AND ENGINEERING” image=”16088″ align=”aligntop”]

In the field of biotechnology, a big milestone occurred in 1953, when American biologist James Watson and British physicist Francis Crick discovered the molecular structure of DNA – the famed double helix – that is the genetic blueprint for life. Almost 50 years later, in 2003, two international teams of researchers led by American biologists Francis Collins and Craig Venter succeeded in decoding and reading that blueprint by identifying all of the chemical base pairs that make up human DNA.

Finding the blueprint for life, and successfully decoding and reading it, has given researchers an opportunity to alter human physiology at its most fundamental level. Manipulating this genetic code – a process known as genetic engineering – could allow scientists to produce people with stronger muscles, harder bones and faster brains. Theoretically, it also could create people with gills or webbed hands and feet or even wings – and, as Garreau points out in his book, could lead to “an even greater variety of breeds of humans than there is of dogs.”

In recent years, the prospect of advanced genetic engineering has become much more real, largely due to two developments. First, inexpensive and sophisticated gene mapping technology has given scientists an increasingly more sophisticated understanding of the human genome.

[than existing methods]

CRISPR is already dramatically expanding the realm of what is possible in the field of genetic engineering. Indeed, on June 21, 2016, the U.S. government announced that it had approved the first human trials using CRISPR, in this case to strengthen the cancer-fighting properties of the immune systems of patients suffering from melanoma and other deadly cancers. “CRISPR’s power and versatility have opened up new and wide-ranging possibilities across biology and medicine,” says Jennifer Doudna , a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley and a co-inventor of CRISPR.

According to Doudna and others, CRISPR could provide new treatments or even cures to some of today’s most feared diseases – not only cancer, but Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and others.

Jennifer Doudna, UC Berkeley

CRISPR’s power and versatility has opened up new and wide-ranging possibilities across biology and medicine.

[/pullquote]

An even more intriguing possibility involves making genetic changes at the embryonic stage, also known as germline editing. The logic is simple: alter the gene lines in an embryo’s eight or 16 cell stage (to, say, eliminate the gene for Tay-Sachs disease) and that change will occur in each of the resulting person’s trillions of cells – not to mention in the cells of their descendants. When combined with researchers’ growing understanding of the genetic links to various diseases, CRISPR could conceivably help eliminate a host of maladies in people before they are born.

But many of the same scientists who have hailed CRISPR’s promise, including Doudna, also have warned of its potential dangers. At a National Academy of Sciences conference in Washington, D.C., in December 2015, she and about 500 researchers, ethicists and others urged the scientific community to hold off editing embryos for now, arguing that we do not yet know enough to safely make changes that can be passed down to future generations.

Those at the conference also raised another concern: the idea of using the new technologies to edit embryos for non-therapeutic purposes. Under this scenario, parents could choose a variety of options for their unborn children, including everything from cosmetic traits, such as hair or eye color, to endowing their offspring with greater intellectual or athletic ability. Some transhumanists see a huge upside to making changes at the embryonic level. “This may be the area where serious enhancement first becomes possible, because it’s easier to do many things at the embryonic stage than in adults using traditional drugs or machine implants,” says Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute , a think tank at Oxford University that focuses on “big picture questions about humanity and its prospects.”

But in the minds of many philosophers, theologians and others, the idea of “designer children” veers too close to eugenics – the 19th- and early 20th-century philosophical movement to breed better people. Eugenics ultimately inspired forced sterilization laws in a number of countries (including the U.S.) and then, most notoriously, helped provide some of the intellectual framework for Nazi Germany’s murder of millions in the name of promoting racial purity.

There also may be practical obstacles. Some worry that there could be unintended consequences, in part because our understanding of the genome, while growing, is not even close to complete. Writing in Time magazine , Venter, who helped lead the first successful effort to sequence the human genome, warns that “we have little or no knowledge of how (with a few exceptions) changing the genetic code will effect development and the subtlety associated with the tremendous array of human traits.” Venter adds: “Genes and proteins rarely have a single function in the genome and we know of many cases in experimental animals where changing a ‘known function’ of a gene results in developmental surprises.”

[icon_headline headline=”A BETTER BRAIN?” image=”16097″ align=”aligntop”]

For many transhumanists, expanding our capacities begins with the organ that most sets humans apart from other animals: the brain. Right now, cognitive enhancement largely involves drugs that were developed and are prescribed to treat certain brain-related conditions, such as Ritalin for attention deficit disorder or modafinil for narcolepsy. These and other medications have been shown in lab tests to help sharpen focus and improve memory.

But while modafinil and other drugs are now sometimes used (off label) to improve cognition, particularly among test-cramming students and overwhelmed office workers, the improvements in focus and memory are relatively modest. Moreover, many transhumanists and others predict that while new drugs (say, a specifically designed, IQ-boosting “smart pill”) or genetic engineering could result in substantially enhanced brain function, the straightest and shortest line to dramatically augmenting cognition probably involves computers and information technology.

As with biotechnology, information technology’s story is littered with important milestones and markers, such as the development of the transistor by three American scientists at Bell Labs in 1947. Transistors are the electronic signal switches that gave rise to modern computers. By shrinking the electronic components to microscopic size, researchers have been able to build ever smaller, more powerful and cheaper computers. As a result, today’s iPhone has more than 250,000 times more data storage capacity than the guidance computer installed on the Apollo 11 spacecraft that took astronauts to the moon.

One of the reasons the iPhone is so powerful and capable is that it uses nanotechnology, which involves “ the ability to see and to control individual atoms and molecules .” Nanotechnology has been used to create substances and materials found in thousands of products, including items much less complex than an iPhone, such as clothing and cosmetics.

Advances in computing and nanotechnology have already resulted in the creation of tiny computers that can interface with our brains. This development is not as far-fetched as it may sound, since both the brain and computers use electricity to operate and communicate. These early and primitive brain-machine interfaces have been used for therapeutic purposes, to help restore some mobility to those with paralysis (as in the example involving the quadriplegic man) and to give partial sight to people with certain kinds of blindness. In the future, scientists say, brain-machine interfaces will do everything from helping stroke victims regain speech and mobility to successfully bringing people out of deep comas.

Right now, most scientists working in the brain-machine-interface field say they are solely focused on healing, rather than enhancing. “I’ve talked to hundreds of people doing this research, and right now everyone is wedded to the medical stuff and won’t even talk about enhancement because they don’t want to lose their research grants,” says Daniel Faggella , a futurist who founded TechEmergence, a market research firm focusing on cognitive enhancement and the intersection of technology and psychology. But, Faggella says, the technology developed to ameliorate medical conditions will inevitably be put to other uses. “Once we have boots on the ground and the ameliorative stuff becomes more normal, people will then start to say: we can do more with this.”

Doing more inevitably will involve augmenting brain function, which has already begun in a relatively simple way. For instance, scientists have been using electrodes placed on the head to run a mild electrical current through the brain, a procedure known as transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS). Research shows that tDCS, which is painless, may increase brain plasticity, making it easier for neurons to fire. This, in turn, improves cognition, making it easier for test subjects to learn and retain things, from new languages to mathematics. Already there is talk of implanting a tDCS pacemaker-like device in the brain so recipients do not need to wear electrodes. A device inside someone’s head could also more accurately target the electrical current to those parts of the brain most responsive to tDCS.

Anders Sandberg, Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute

[Smart genes]

According to many futurists, tDCS is akin to an early steam train or maybe even a horse-drawn carriage before the coming of jumbo jets and rockets. If, as some scientists predict, full brain-machine interface comes to pass, people may soon have chips implanted in their brains, giving them direct access to digital information. This would be like having a smartphone in one’s head, with the ability to call up mountains of data instantly and without ever having to look at a computer screen.

The next step might be machines that augment various brain functions. Once scientists complete a detailed map of exactly what different parts of our brain do, they will theoretically be able to augment each function zone by placing tiny computers in these places. For example, machines may allow us to “process” information at exponentially faster speeds or to vividly remember everything or simply to see or hear better. Augments placed in our frontal lobe could, theoretically, make us more creative, give us more (or less) empathy or make us better at mathematics or languages. (For data on whether Americans say they would want to use potential technology that involved a brain-chip implant to improve cognitive abilities, see the accompanying survey, see U.S. Public Wary of Biomedical Technologies to ‘Enhance’ Human Abilities .)

Genetic engineering also offers promising possibilities, although there are possible obstacles as well. Scientists have already identified certain areas in human DNA that seem to control our cognitive functions. In theory, someone’s “smart genes” could be manipulated to work better, an idea that almost certainly has become more feasible with the recent development of CRISPR. “The potential here is really very great,” says Anders Sandberg, a neuroscientist and fellow at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute. “I mean scientists are already working on … small biological robots made up of small particles of DNA that bind to certain things in the brain and change their chemical composition.

“This would allow us to do so many different things,” Sandberg adds. “The sky’s the limit.”

In spite of this optimism, some scientists maintain that it will probably be a long time before we can bioengineer a substantially smarter person. For one thing, it is unlikely there are just a few genes or even a few dozen genes that regulate intelligence. Indeed, intelligence may be dependent on the subtle dance of thousands of genes, which makes bioengineering a genius much harder.

Even if scientists find the right genes and “turn them on,” there is no guarantee that people will actually be smarter. In fact, some scientists speculate that trying to ramp up intelligence – whether by biology or machines – could overload the brain’s carrying capacity. According to Martin Dresler, an assistant professor of cognitive neuroscience at Radboud University in the Netherlands, some researchers believe that “evolution forced brains to develop toward optimal … functioning.” In other words, he says, “if there still was potential to optimize brain functioning by adding certain chemicals, nature would already have done this.” The same reasoning could also apply to machine enhancement, Dresler adds.

Even the optimistic Sandberg says that enhancing the brain could prove more difficult than some might imagine because changing biological systems can often have unforeseen impacts. “Biology is messy,” he says. “When you push in one direction, biology usually pushes back.”

[icon_headline headline=”THE FUTURE OF BLOOD” image=”16104″ align=”aligntop”]

Given the brain’s importance, cognitive enhancement might be the holy grail of transhumanism. But many futurists say enhancement technologies will likely be used to transform the whole body, not just one part of it.

This includes efforts to manufacture synthetic blood, which to this point have been focused on therapeutic goals. But as with CRISPR and gene editing, artificial blood could ultimately be used as part of a broader effort at human enhancement. It could be engineered to clot much faster than natural human blood, for instance, preventing people from bleeding to death. Or it could be designed to continuously monitor a person’s arteries and keep them free of plaque, thus preventing a heart attack.

Synthetic white blood cells also could potentially be programmed. Indeed, like virtually any computer, these cells could receive “software updates” that would allow them to fight a variety of threats, such as a new infection or a specific kind of cancer. 1

Scientists already are developing and testing nanoparticles that could enter the bloodstream and deliver medicine to targeted areas. These microscopic particles are a far cry from synthetic blood, since they would be used once and for very specific tasks – such as delivering small doses of chemotherapy directly to cancer cells. However, nanoparticles could be precursors to microscopic machines that could potentially do a variety of tasks for a much longer period of time, ultimately replacing our blood.

It’s also possible that enhanced blood will be genetically engineered rather than synthetically made. “One of the biggest advantages of this approach is that you would not have to worry about your body rejecting your new blood, because it will still come from you,” says Oxford University’s Sandberg.

Regardless of how it is made, one obvious role for enhanced or “smart” blood would be to increase the amount of oxygen our hemoglobin can carry. “In principle, the way our blood stores oxygen is very limited,” Sandberg says. “So we could dramatically enhance our physical selves if we could increase the carrying capacity of hemoglobin.”

According to Sandberg and others, substantially more oxygen in the blood could have many uses beyond the obvious benefits for athletes. For example, he says, “it might prevent you from having a heart attack, since the heart doesn’t need to work as hard, or it might be that you wouldn’t have to breathe for 45 minutes.” In general, Sandberg says, this super blood “might give you a lot more energy, which would be a kind of cognitive enhancement.”

(For data on whether Americans say they would want to use potential synthetic blood substitutes to improve their own physical abilities, see the accompanying survey, U.S. Public Wary of Biomedical Technologies to ‘Enhance’ Human Abilities .)

[icon_headline headline=”HYPE OR PARADIGM SHIFT?” image=”16105″ align=”aligntop”]

So where is all of this new and powerful technology taking humanity? The answer depends on who you ask.

Having more energy or even more intelligence or stamina is not the end point of the enhancement project, many transhumanists say. Some futurists, such as Kurzweil, talk about the use of machines not only to dramatically increase physical and cognitive abilities but to fundamentally change the trajectory of human life and experience . For instance, Kurzweil predicts that by the 2040s, the first people will upload their brains into the cloud, “living in various virtual worlds and even avoiding aging and evading death.”

Kurzweil – who has done more than anyone to popularize the idea that our conscious selves will soon be able to be “uploaded” – has been called everything from “freaky” to “a highly sophisticated crackpot.” But in addition to being one of the world’s most successful inventors, he has – if book sales and speaking engagements are any indication – built a sizable following for his ideas.

Kurzweil is not the only one who thinks we are on the cusp of an era when human beings will be able to direct their own evolution. “I believe that we’re now seeing the beginning of a paradigm shift in engineering, the sciences and the humanities,” says Natasha Vita-More, chairwoman of the board of directors of Humanity+, an organization that promotes “the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities.”

Still, even some transhumanists who admire Kurzweil’s work do not entirely share his belief that we will soon be living entirely virtual lives. “I don’t share Ray’s view that we will be disembodied,” says Vita-More, who along with her husband, philosopher Max More, helped found the transhumanist movement in the United States. “We will always have a body, even though that body will change.”

George Annas, Boston University

In the future, Vita-More predicts, our bodies will be radically changed by biological and machine-based enhancements, but our fundamental sensorial life – that part of us that touches, hears and sees the world – will remain intact. However, she also envisions something she calls a whole-body prosthetic, which, along with our uploaded consciousness, will act as a backup or copy of us in case we die. “This will be a way to ensure our personal survival if something happens to our bodies,” she says.

Others, like Boston University bioethicist George Annas, believe Kurzweil is wrong about technological development and say talk of exotic enhancement is largely hype. “Based on our past experience, we know that most of these things are unlikely to happen in the next 30 or 40 years,” Annas says.

He points to many confident predictions in the last 30 or 40 years that turned out to be unfounded. “In the 1970s, we thought that by now there would be millions of people with artificial hearts,” he says. Currently, only a small number of patients have artificial hearts and the devices are used as a temporary bridge , to keep patients alive until a human heart can be found for transplant.

More recently, Annas says, “people thought the Human Genome Project would quickly lead to personalized medicine, but it hasn’t.”

Faggella, the futurist who founded TechEmergence, sees a dramatically different future and thinks the real push will be about, in essence, expanding our consciousness, both literally and figuratively. The desire to be stronger and smarter, Faggella says, will quickly give way to a quest for a new kind of happiness and fulfillment. “In the last 200 years, technology has made us like gods … and yet people today are roughly as happy as they were before,” he says. “So, I believe that becoming a super-Einstein isn’t going to make us happier and … that ultimately we’ll use enhancement to fulfill our wants and desires rather than just make ourselves more powerful.”

What exactly does that mean? Faggella can’t say for sure, but he thinks that enhancement of the mind will ultimately allow people to have experiences that are quite simply impossible with our current brains. “We’ll probably start by taking a human version of nirvana and creating it in some sort of virtual reality,” he says, adding “eventually we’ll transition to realms of bliss that we can’t conceive of at this time because we’re incapable of conceiving it. Enhancing our brains will be about making us capable.”

[chapter title=”Ethics and religion” background_image=”16073″]

[icon_headline headline=”A TALE OF TWO HUXLEYS” image=”16100″ align=”aligntop”]

T o some degree, the ideas and concepts behind human enhancement can be traced to biologist and author Julian Huxley. In addition to being one of the most important scientific thinkers of the mid-20th century, Julian also was the brother of Aldous Huxley, author of the famous scientific dystopian novel “Brave New World . ”

The novel is set in a future where, thanks to science, virtually no one knows violence or want. But this brave new world also is a sterile place, where people rarely feel love, where children are “decanted” in laboratories and families no longer exist, and where happiness is chemically induced. Although there is an abundance of material comforts in this fictional world, the things that people traditionally believe best define our humanity and make life worth living – love, close relationships, joy – have largely been eliminated.

In contrast with his brother Aldous, Julian Huxley was a scientific optimist who believed that new technologies would offer people amazing opportunities for self-improvement and growth, including the ability to direct our evolution as a species. No longer, he said, would a person’s physical and psychological attributes be subject to the capricious whims of nature.

[icon_headline headline=”A COST TO SOCIETY?” image=”16101″ align=”aligntop”]

But like Julian’s brother Aldous Huxley, those who oppose radical enhancement say the road to transcending humanity is paved with terrible risks and dangers, and that a society that embraces enhancement might lose much more in the bargain than it gains. “I think that the enhancement imperative, where we’re going to overcome all limitations including death, seems to me to be a kind of utopianism that we’ll have to break a lot of eggs to realize,” says Christian Brugger, a professor of moral theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver.

According to Brugger and other opponents of radical enhancement, those “broken eggs” might include increased social tensions – or worse – as the rich and privileged gain access to expensive new enhancement treatments long before the middle class or poor and then use these advantages to widen an already wide gap between rich and poor. “The risks here of creating greater inequalities seem to be obvious,” says Todd Daly, an associate professor of theology and ethics at Urbana Theological Seminary in Champaign, Ill. “And I’m not convinced that people who get these enhancements will want to make sure everyone else eventually gets them too, because people usually want to leverage the advantages they have.”

For some thinkers, concerns about inequality go much further than merely widening the existing gap between rich and poor. They believe that radical enhancement will threaten the very social compact that underpins liberal democracies in the United States and elsewhere. “The political equality enshrined in the Declaration of Independence rests on the empirical fact of natural human equality,” writes social philosopher Francis Fukuyama in his 2002 book “Our Posthuman Future.” He adds: “We vary greatly as individuals and by culture, but we share a common humanity.”

Brugger of St. John Vianney Theological Seminary agrees. “Right now, there is a common equality because we are all human,” he says. “But all of this changes once we start giving some people significantly new powers.”

Supporters of human enhancement say the goal is not to create a race of superhumans but to use technological tools to improve humanity and the human condition. Indeed, they say, it is an extension of what humans have been doing for millennia: using technology to make life better. “I don’t believe in utopias and I don’t believe in perfection,” says Vita-More, adding that: “For me, enhancement is a very practical way to give us new options to make our lives better. It’s that simple.”

A good example, Vita-More says, is cognitive enhancement. “By giving people increased memory and problem-solving skills, cognitive enhancement will help us be more creative by giving us the ability to put more things together in new ways,” she says. “It will make us better problem solvers.”

James Hughes, Trinity College

The more ability we have as individuals, the better we become.

Those who support human enhancement also deny that these developments will make social inequalities dramatically worse. New technologies are often socially disruptive and can have a negative impact on certain vulnerable populations, they say. But the problem of inequality is essentially, and will remain, a political one.

“The core Luddite mistake is to point to a social problem and to say that if we add new technologies the problem will get worse,” says James Hughes, executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, a pro-enhancement think tank. “But the way to cure the problem in this case is to make the world more equal, rather than banning the technology.”

Human enhancement is just as likely, or even more likely, to mitigate social inequalities than to aggravate them, says Oxford University’s Bostrom, a leader in the transhumanist movement.  “The enhancement project could allow people who have natural inequalities to be brought up to everyone else’s level,” he says.

Hughes, Bostrom and others also dispute the idea put forth by Fukuyama and Brugger that enhancement could displace the sense of common humanity that has undergirded the democratic social contract for centuries. First, they point out that the history of the modern West has been one of an ever-expanding definition of full citizenship. “The set of individuals accorded full moral status by Western societies has actually increased, to include men without property or noble descent, women and non-white peoples,” Bostrom writes . In addition, supporters of enhancement say, the notion that there will be a distinctive species of enhanced individuals who will try to enslave their unenhanced brothers and sisters might make for good science fiction, but it is not likely to happen. Instead, they say, there will be many different types of people, with different types of enhancements. “It seems much more likely that there would be a continuum of differently modified or enhanced individuals, which would overlap with the continuum of as-yet-unenhanced humans,” Bostrom writes, adding that today there are very different types of people (very tall to very short, very intelligent to intellectually disabled, etc.) who manage to live side by side as moral and legal equals.

Finally, transhumanists and other supporters say, history shows that as people gain more control over their lives, they become more empathetic, not less. “Today we have more health, more intelligence and more lifespan than we did 100 years ago, and we’re more compassionate and more empathetic today then we were then,” Hughes says, pointing to a 2011 book by Harvard University psychology professor Steven Pinker, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.” The book makes the case that as human society has grown richer and more sophisticated, it also has become less violent. “The more ability we have as individuals, the better we become,” Hughes adds.

[icon_headline headline=”A COST TO SELF?” image=”16102″ align=”aligntop”]

Christian Brugger, St. John Vianney Theological Seminary

Happiness is found in marriages, in families, in neighborhoods … None of these are promised by enhancement.

Critics of enhancement question whether people really will be happier if enhancement projects are allowed to come to fruition. According to these critics, philosophers have long held that true happiness does not come from enhanced physical prowess or dramatically longer life, but from good character and virtuous living. “Happiness is found in marriages, in families, in neighborhoods … in people who are willing to sacrifice and suffer for others,” Brugger says. “None of these are promised by enhancement.”

“Happiness also is found in limits, says Agar of Victoria University. “There are things that I value and am proud of in my life, like my recent book,” he says. “But how can I value the writing of my book if I’ve been cognitively enhanced, and doing such a thing becomes much easier?”

But supporters contend that life still will be meaningful and challenging in a world where enhancement is widespread. “The things that have to do with human character and virtue and those things that make life meaningful will not change as a result of human enhancement, just like they haven’t changed as our society has changed,” says Ted Peters, a professor of systematic theology at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley, California. “As long as we are still human, these things will be important.”

Furthermore, an enhanced life will still contain challenges and limits, just different ones, says Ronald Cole-Turner, a professor of theology and ethics at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, which is associated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). “The challenges of life will still be there, they may just be different and harder,” he says. “The goal posts will have moved further down the field, that’s all.”

[icon_headline headline=”TRANSHUMANISM AND FAITH TRADITIONS” image=”16103″ align=”aligntop”]

Because human enhancement is still largely an issue for the future, it has not yet attracted a lot of attention in American religious communities. There is, for instance, no official teaching or statement on human enhancement or transhumanism that has come directly from any of the major churches or religious groups in the United States. However, some theologians, religious ethicists and religious leaders have started to think about the implications of human enhancement in light of their traditions’ teachings, offering a sense of how their churches or religions might respond to radical human enhancement if it became possible.

All of the Abrahamic faiths – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – share the belief that men and women have been created, to some extent, in God’s image. According to many theologians, the idea that human beings in certain ways mirror God make some, but not all, religious denominations within this broad set of connected traditions wary of using new technologies to enhance or change people, rather than heal or restore them.

The Roman Catholic Church, through its large network of educational and other institutions, already has begun formulating an argument against enhancement, based in part on the idea that God’s plan for humanity includes limits and that life’s limits are the very forces that create virtuous, wise and ultimately happy people. “Courage, fidelity, fortitude, generosity, hope, moderation, perseverance, are all cultivated in response to limitations of circumstance and nature,” says John Haldane, a Catholic philosopher who teaches at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.

Todd Daly, Urbana Theological Seminary

…when we attempt to be something more than human, are we running the risk of trying to become, in some ways, like God, as did Adam and Eve?

Catholics actively support medical and technological advances that can restore someone to health, says Brugger. “But the dividing line for the church is the line between therapy and enhancement.”

Concerns about crossing that line already have been expressed by Catholic-affiliated organizations. In 2013, for instance, the church-affiliated International Science and Life Congress met in Madrid and issued a declaration that warned that “new human species, artificially manipulated” would create “a real danger to human life as we know it.”

[evangelical]

According to Daly and others, evangelicals’ opposition to enhancement would be based in part on the notion that man should not “play God.” According to Daly, “when we attempt to be something more than human, are we running the risk of trying to become, in some ways, like God, as did Adam and Eve?” He adds, “This is an important issue for Christians that, I think, will help drive the debate for us.”

John Haldane, University of St. Andrews

Courage, fidelity, fortitude, generosity, hope, moderation, perseverance, are all cultivated in response to limitations of circumstance and nature.

Opposition also would be likely from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which teaches that the body is sacred and thus must not be altered. While small enhancements that do not overtly change the body might be acceptable to Mormon leaders, more significant enhancements would probably be “seen as a problem by the church,” says Steven Peck, a bioethicist at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.

The Hindu tradition probably would approach human enhancement as a potentially dangerous development as well, although for different reasons than Christian churches, says Deepak Sarma, a professor of South Asian religions and philosophy at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. Enhancement is troubling, he says, because it could be used to alleviate suffering, which is necessary to work off bad karma (debt from bad deeds and intents committed during a person’s past lives). Viewed in this light, Sarma says, Hindus could see enhancement as keeping someone from cleansing themselves of these misdeeds from their past lives.

In Islam, according to Sherine Hamdy, an associate professor of anthropology at Brown University, human enhancement would be viewed with concern by some scholars and leaders and embraced by others. Supporters might see new enhancements as a way to help the Muslim world catch up with the West or “at least not get left further behind,” she says. Others would oppose enhancements out of a desire “not to change what God has created.”

According to Lutheran theologian Peters, many mainline churches will view enhancement positively because they will see aspects of it as attempts to improve human well-being and alleviate suffering. “I think they will see much of this for what it is: an effort to take advantage of these new technologies to help improve human life,” he says.

Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, Arizona State University

So long as the improvement alleviates or prevents suffering, it is inherently good …

Similarly, Buddhists would largely accept and even embrace human enhancement because it could help them become better Buddhists, says Hughes, who is an advocate for transhumanism as well as a Buddhist and a former Buddhist monk. Enhancement that extends life and makes people more intelligent “would be seen as good because you’d have more time to work on enlightenment and … you could be more effective in helping others,” he says.

[in Jewish law]

In spite of intense disagreements about the utility and morality of trying to “improve” humanity, many thinkers on both sides of the debate share the belief that if just some of the dreams of today’s transhumanists are realized, human society will change and change significantly. These changes, if they occur, will upend some social norms and possibly religious norms as well. And they will force churches and many other institutions (both religious and secular) to adjust to a new reality. For the first time in human history, the biggest material changes in our society may not be occurring outside of ourselves, in the fields, factories and universities that have shaped human civilization, but inside our bodies – in our brains and muscles and arteries, and even in our DNA.

• Kurzweil, Ray and Terry Grossman. 2004. “Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever,” Pp. 226-227. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

Most Popular

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center