Is genetic modification ethical?

To what extent does genetic modification involve moral dilemmas?

The word "transgenic" is stigmatized by many sectors of society.. Complex terms alienate the more skeptical population from the disciplines that use them, because the foreign, in many cases, generates fear and rejection. In a world in which we believe that almost everything we consume is transgenic, genetic modification has been labeled as "unnatural", "unethical" and even sentences related to the existence of a superior being: "human beings cannot play God".

Before diving into complex issues of genetics and bioethics, we must establish an indisputable basis: the natural no longer exists in human society. One need only look at a purebred dog, a park or a production farm. For centuries, our species has moved away from natural selection, taking with it a series of species and ecosystems in which, fortunately or unfortunately, naturalness is conspicuous by its absence.

Nature, defined as inert matter generated as part of processes without human intervention, is not part of the population in which we develop. Making clear this harsh but immovable reality, we invite you to answer with us the following question: Is genetic modification ethical?

What are transgenics?

On everyone's lips, yes, but do you know what this term really means? A transgenic food is one that has been produced from a genetically modified organism, i.e. genes from another living being have been incorporated into it to produce the desired characteristics.. This is achieved through processes of transgenesis and cisgenesis, the insertion of one or more genes into the genetic information of the target species.

Based on this definition, we cannot include within the term "transgenic" most of the animal species we consume. For example, a laying hen is not transgenic as such: it is a product of genetic selection. In this process, differential breeding between individuals is encouraged, so that the desired trait is amplified over generations. Like pedigree dogs, hens have been selected on the basis of their reproductive capacity, but their genome has not been modified at any time at the individual level.

You will therefore be shocked to learn that 95% of the transgenic animals on Earth are rats and mice, whose purpose is to serve as experimental models for elucidating and learning to elucidate and learn how to treat human pathologies. If you put a GMO in your mouth, in almost all cases it will be of plant origin. It is necessary to take this into account before posing the ethical dilemma.

Is it ethical to genetically modify living beings?

Perhaps the question is not whether it is ethical or not, since the real question is whether we could remain as a species over time without doing so. There are more than 7,500 billion of us on this planet, a fact that cannot be explained without considering its consequences. According to UNHCR and WHO, almost 690 million people suffer from hunger on Earth, of which 20.5 million are children. This translates into 45% of infants under 5 years of age dying from lack of food.

Once again, we are setting the scene clearly: the question is not whether to resort to GMOs or not, because there is really no other way to meet the world's population demand without changing lifestyle habits. The question is, no doubt, to what extent the ethics and morals of society are willing to cross the limits of Biological impositions in order to solve the problems of clear overpopulation. to solve the problems derived from a clear overpopulation.

Benefits of transgenics

As we have said before, when we talk about transgenics we are almost always referring to plants. The United States leads the way when it comes to this issue, since the area of transgenic crops cultivated in this country corresponds to 69% of the total area worldwide.. It is followed by Argentina, with 20% of the total.

Why are transgenics being used? According to the biannual publication Acta Bioethica, these are some of the benefits of transgenics in agricultural practice:

• Creation of disease and pest resistant plants: if plants do not succumb to viruses and invertebrates, less money and arable land is lost.
• Reduction in the use of herbicides and pesticides: this is beneficial for human health and for the well-being of ecosystems.
• Creation of plants with resistance to drought, high or low temperature, acidic or saline soils. In a world where climate change is a fact of life, this becomes more than necessary.
• Production of industrial, nutritional or pharmaceutical molecules based on plant crops. Golden rice (which contains high rates of beta-carotenes, producers of vitamin A) is an example of this.
• Alteration to delay ripening to allow more time for transport and storage.

These data look good in a list, but, fortunately, they can also be contrasted with reliable and observable facts in the environment. For example, the AGRObio foundation demonstrated that, in Colombia, 209 million liters of water were saved between 2003 and 2015 due to the cultivation of transgenic plants.. This represents the annual water consumption of 4,780 people. Beyond this, diesel consumption in machinery was also reduced by 3.1 million liters and the environmental CO2 footprint was drastically reduced.

Genetic modification in non-human and human animals: an ethical dilemma

The line of benefits and harms becomes blurred when we enter the realm of animals.. We are no longer talking about plants, but about sentient beings with consciousness in many cases. Of course, at this point it is no longer optimal to look only at monetary and production benefits, because, for better or worse, animals feel and are aware of their surroundings.

In the non-human animal field, the discussion is more or less settled in the professional field. When taking modules that train the student to handle and euthanize animals in a laboratory setting, the legislation is clear: an animal model may not be used unless it is explicitly demonstrated that there is no other option.. On the other hand, all criteria for the handling of living beings in this environment are controlled at the European level, and no research is given the green light if it will not preserve animal rights.

Things get even more complicated if we talk about human beings. Let us quote you a very important concept before continuing:

"Research, treatment or diagnosis relating to an individual's genome may only be undertaken after a thorough assessment of the risks and benefits involved and in accordance with any other requirements of national law" (Universal Declaration on the Genome and Human Rights, Article 4a).

For example, prenatal genetic testing (made possible by the knowledge of genetic modification) is currently only performed to determine whether the fetus is carrying a disabling chromosomal abnormality and, if so, to prevent possible future therapeutic interventions. In most cases, however, the outcome is different: these tests are used to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

This opens up a range of questions, moral dilemmas and hypotheses. What would happen if an infant were allowed to be genetically modified before birth? Would the birth of a "perfect" entity be possible in the eyes of its parents? What would be the social consequences of this type of tool? It is clear that, if these are the questions that arise in the general population, something is being done wrong at the level of scientific communication.

A final thought

Sometimes, those of us who have dedicated ourselves to research get lost in numbers and feasible data: "opinions do not matter, because in the world of mathematics and statistics, only trends and reliability reign". This is not the case at all. Research is a tool conceived by and for society, so when a person does not understand to what extent a discovery will affect him or her, clearly something has not worked at the communication level.

Science is there to serve you and me, people who probably don't wear a lab coat every day.. It is therefore necessary for research and culture to remain in harmony. Genetic modification may be possible beyond current limits, but if today's society is not ready for it, is it really worth stigmatizing a branch of knowledge by exploiting it before its time?

In short, genetic modification is practically a closed issue in the agricultural field, since it will be impossible to live without it in the future. In the animal and human world, on the other hand, the issue is much more complex, especially because society may not yet be ready for it. society may not yet be ready to put certain issues on the table.. It is the job of researchers and communicators alike to explain, pave the way, build bridges and always offer objective data so that the average citizen can understand what is going on around them. Only then will genetic modification beyond plants begin to be viewed favorably.

Bibliographical references:

• Transgenic crops in the world, ecologistasenacción.org. Retrieved February 17 from https://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/3175/cultivos-transgenicos-en-el-mundo/#:~:text=The%20largest%20producer%20of%20crops,area%20worldwide%20of%20transg%20crops%20transg%C3%A9nicos.
• Polo, K. L. (2017). Food safety and transgenic foods. Observatorio Medioambiental, 20, 59-75.
• Rodriguez Yunta, E. (2013). Ethical issues in international research with transgenic foods. Acta bioethica, 19(2), 209-218.
• Transgenics: what are their benefits? Agrobio. Retrieved February 17, from https://www.agrobio.org/beneficios-cultivos-geneticamente-modifcados-colombia/.