question: Why do ethics outweigh the benefits when it comes to genetic engineering of humans?
comment: If science starts generically engineering babies, it will go in two main ways - - extremely rich people will make extremely perfect humans - smarter, prettier, better than everyone else which will further create class divides worldwide - military superpowers and wanna-be military superpowers will make super soldiers - maybe not clone wars bad or marvel bad, but as close as they can get - as fast, as strong, as immoral and as obedient as possible. Basically the world has decided that we can’t be trusted with this technology, which... seems about right, at least historically.
passages: Transhumanists and other supporters of human genetic engineering do not dismiss practical concerns out of hand, insofar as there is a high degree of uncertainty about the timelines and likely outcomes of genetic modification experiments in humans. However, bioethicist James Hughes suggests that one possible ethical route to the genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages is the building of computer models of the human genome, the proteins it specifies and the tissue engineering he argues that it also codes for. With the exponential progress in bioinformatics, Hughes believes that a virtual model of genetic expression in the human body will not be far behind and that it will soon be possible to accelerate approval of genetic modifications by simulating their effects on virtual humans. Public health professor Gregory Stock points to artificial chromosomes as an alleged safer alternative to existing genetic engineering techniques.
   Genetic engineering has many applications to medicine that include the manufacturing of drugs, creation of model animals that mimic human conditions and gene therapy. One of the earliest uses of genetic engineering was to mass-produce human insulin in bacteria. This application has now been applied to, human growth hormones, follicle stimulating hormones (for treating infertility), human albumin, monoclonal antibodies, antihemophilic factors, vaccines and many other drugs. Mouse hybridomas, cells fused together to create monoclonal antibodies, have been adapted through genetic engineering to create human monoclonal antibodies. In 2017, genetic engineering of chimeric antigen receptors on a patient's own T-cells was approved by the U.S. FDA as a treatment for the cancer acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Genetically engineered viruses are being developed that can still confer immunity, but lack the infectious sequences.
   Bioethics also needs to address emerging biotechnologies that affect basic biology and future humans. These developments include cloning, gene therapy, human genetic engineering, astroethics and life in space, and manipulation of basic biology through altered DNA, RNA and proteins, e.g. "three parent baby, where baby is born from genetically modified embryos, would have DNA from a mother, a father and from a female donor. Correspondingly, new bioethics also need to address life at its core. For example, biotic ethics value organic gene/protein life itself and seek to propagate it. With such life-centered principles, ethics may secure a cosmological future for life.
   As a practical matter, however, international protocols on human subject research may not present a legal obstacle to attempts by transhumanists and others to improve their offspring by germinal choice technology. According to legal scholar Kirsten Rabe Smolensky, existing laws would protect parents who choose to enhance their child's genome from future liability arising from adverse outcomes of the procedure.
   The lack of clear international regulation has lead to researchers across the globe attempting to create an international framework of ethical guidelines. Current framework lacks the requisite treaties among nations to create a mechanism for international enforcement. At the first International Summit on Human Gene Editing in December 2015 the collaboration of scientists issued the first international guidelines on genetic research. These guidelines allow for the pre-clinical research into the editing of genetic sequences in human cells granted the embryos are not used to implant pregnancy. Genetic alteration of somatic cells for therapeutic proposes was also considered an ethnically acceptable field of research in part due to the lack of ability of somatic cells to transfer genetic material to subsequent generations. However citing the lack of social consensus, and the risk of inaccurate gene editing the conference called for restraint on any germline modifications on implanted embryos intended for pregnancy.
   Editing embryos, germ cells and the generation of designer babies is the subject of ethical debate, as a result of the implications in modifying genomic information in a heritable manner. Despite regulations set by individual countries’ governing bodies, the absence of a standardised regulatory framework leads to frequent discourse in discussion of germline engineering among scientists, ethicists and the general public. Arthur Caplan, the head of the Division of Bioethics at New York University suggests that establishing an international group to set guidelines for the topic would greatly benefit global discussion and proposes instating “religious and ethics and legal leaders” to impose well-informed regulations.
   Another very interesting point on the debate of whether or not it is ethical and moral to engineer the human germline is a perspective of looking at past technologies and how they have evolved. Dr. Gregory Stock discusses the use of several diagnostic tests used to monitor current pregnancies and several diagnostic tests that can be done to determine the health of embryos. Such tests include amniocentesis, ultrasounds, and other preimplantation genetic diagnostic tests. These tests are quite common, and reliable, as we talk about them today; however, in the past when they were first introduced, they too were scrutinized.
   One major worry among scientists, including Marcy Darnovsky at the Center for Genetics and Society in California, is that permitting germline engineering for correction of disease phenotypes is likely to lead to its use for cosmetic purposes and enhancement. Meanwhile, Henry Greely, a bioethicist at Stanford University in California, states that “almost everything you can accomplish by gene editing, you can accomplish by embryo selection”, suggesting the risks undertaken by germline engineering may not be necessary. Alongside this, Greely emphasises that the beliefs that genetic engineering will lead to enhancement are unfounded, and that claims that we will enhance intelligence and personality are far off – “we just don’t know enough and are unlikely to for a long time – or maybe for ever”.
   Section::::Human germline engineering.:CRISPR/Cas9.:Regulation on CRISPR use.
  
  In 2015, the International Summit on Human Gene Editing was held in Washington D.C., hosted by scientists from China, the UK and the U.S.. The summit concluded that genome editing of somatic cells using CRISPR and other genome editing tools would be allowed to proceed under FDA regulations, but human germline engineering would not be pursued.
   When considering support for research into germline engineering, ethicists have often suggested that it can be considered unethical not to consider a technology which could improve the lives of children who would be born with congenital disorders. Geneticist George Church claims that he does not expect germline engineering to increase societal disadvantage, and recommends lowering costs and improving education surrounding the topic to dispel these views. He emphasises that allowing germline engineering in children who would otherwise be born with congenital defects could save around 5% of babies from living with potentially avoidable diseases. Jackie Leach Scully, professor of social and bioethics at Newcastle University, acknowledges that the prospect of designer babies could leave those living with diseases and unable to afford the technology feeling marginalised and without medical support. However, Professor Leach Scully also suggests that germline editing provides the option for parents “to try and secure what they think is the best start in life” and does not believe it should be ruled out. Similarly, Nick Bostrom, an Oxford philosopher known for his work on the risks of artificial intelligence, proposed that “super-enhanced” individuals could “change the world through their creativity and discoveries, and through innovations that everyone else would use”, highlighting not only a personal but societal benefit.
   Since genetic modification poses risk to any organism, researchers and medical professionals must give the prospect of germline engineering careful consideration. The main ethical concern is that these types of treatments will produce a change that can be passed down to future generations and therefore any error, known or unknown, will also be passed down and will affect the offspring. Some bioethicists, including Ronald Green of Dartmouth College, raise concern that this could result in the accidental introduction of new diseases in future.
   Genetic engineering has potential applications in conservation and natural area management. Gene transfer through viral vectors has been proposed as a means of controlling invasive species as well as vaccinating threatened fauna from disease. Transgenic trees have been suggested as a way to confer resistance to pathogens in wild populations. With the increasing risks of maladaptation in organisms as a result of climate change and other perturbations, facilitated adaptation through gene tweaking could be one solution to reducing extinction risks. Applications of genetic engineering in conservation are thus far mostly theoretical and have yet to be put into practice.
   In putting ethics so soon into the genome agenda, I was responding to my own personal fear that all too soon critics of the Genome Project would point out that I was a representative of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory that once housed the controversial Eugenics Record Office. My not forming a genome ethics program quickly might be falsely used as evidence that I was a closet eugenicist, having as my real long-term purpose the unambiguous identification of genes that lead to social and occupational stratification as well as genes justifying racial discrimination.
   Genetic engineering could be used to cure diseases, but also to change physical appearance, metabolism, and even improve physical capabilities and mental faculties such as memory and intelligence. Ethical claims about germline engineering include beliefs that every fetus has a right to remain genetically unmodified, that parents hold the right to genetically modify their offspring, and that every child has the right to be born free of preventable diseases. For parents, genetic engineering could be seen as another child enhancement technique to add to diet, exercise, education, training, cosmetics, and plastic surgery. Another theorist claims that moral concerns limit but do not prohibit germline engineering.
   One problem in this case may have been that the goals were "terminal" (i.e. in contrast, ultimate human motives typically have a quality of requiring never-ending learning). The robots were grouped into clans and the successful members' digital genetic code was used for the next generation. After 50 successive generations, one clan's members discovered how to indicate food instead of poison. At the same time there were selfless robots who signaled danger and died to save others.These adaptations could have been the result of the genetic code or their human creators. (See also Genetic algorithm.)
  
  Section::::Foci.:Machine learning bias.
   I do not think the main problem with enhancement and genetic engineering is that they undermine effort and erode human agency. The deeper danger is that they represent a kind of hyperagency—a Promethean aspiration to remake nature, including human nature, to serve our purposes and satisfy our desires".
   Genetic engineering could potentially fix severe genetic disorders in humans by replacing the defective gene with a functioning one. It is an important tool in research that allows the function of specific genes to be studied. Drugs, vaccines and other products have been harvested from organisms engineered to produce them. Crops have been developed that aid food security by increasing yield, nutritional value and tolerance to environmental stresses.
   International trade law dictates that a country can apply no additional tests in evaluating patentability, and must apply these tests without discriminating against biological inventions. Therefore, ethics-based criteria would not have factored into the USPTO's decision to allow Myriad Genetics to patent the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.
  
  Section::::Operation of gene patents prior to invalidation.:Awarding of BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents in US.:Scope of awarded patents.
   In 1972, Paul Berg created the first recombinant DNA molecules by combining DNA from the monkey virus SV40 with that of the lambda virus. In 1973 Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen created the first transgenic organism by inserting antibiotic resistance genes into the plasmid of an "Escherichia coli" bacterium. A year later Rudolf Jaenisch created a transgenic mouse by introducing foreign DNA into its embryo, making it the world’s first transgenic animal These achievements led to concerns in the scientific community about potential risks from genetic engineering, which were first discussed in depth at the Asilomar Conference in 1975. One of the main recommendations from this meeting was that government oversight of recombinant DNA research should be established until the technology was deemed safe.
   In May 2019, lawyers in China reported, in light of the purported creation by He Jiankui of the first gene-edited humans (see Lulu and Nana controversy), the drafting of regulations that anyone manipulating the human genome by gene-editing techniques, like CRISPR, would be held responsible for any related adverse consequences.
  
  Section::::Major studies of ifluence.
   She has advised governmental leaders and agencies, and she has published numerous articles in professional journals. Some of her better-known articles include Legal and Ethical Issues in Regenerative Nanomedicine, The Moveable Feast: Converging Technologies on our DInner Tables, "Ethical Issues in Transgenics and Genetic Engineering" at Actionbioscience, "Keeping An Open Mind: What Legal Safeguards are needed?” in the "American Journal of Bioethics", "Biotechnology at the Margins of Personhood: An Evolving Legal Paradigm" and "When Pigs Fly? Legal and Ethical Issues in Transgenics and the Creation of Chimeras".
   The most recent, and arguably most successful, experiment in August 2017 attempted the correction of the heterozygous "MYBPC3" mutation associated with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy in human embryos with precise CRISPR–Cas9 targeting. 52% of human embryos were successfully edited to retain only the wild type normal copy of MYBPC3 gene, the rest of the embryos were mosaic, where some cells in the zygote contained the normal gene copy and some contained the mutation.
   The topic of human germline engineering is a widely debated topic. It is formally outlawed in more than 40 countries. Currently, 15 of 22 Western European nations have outlawed human germline engineering. Human germline modification has been for many years heavily off limits. There is no current legislation in the United States that explicitly prohibits germline engineering, however, the "Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2016" banned the use of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) funds to engage in research regarding human germline modifications. In recent years, as new founding is known as "gene editing" or "genome editing" has promoted speculation about their use in human embryos. In 2014, it has been said about researchers in the US and China working on human embryos. In April 2015, a research team published an experiment in which they used CRISPR to edit a gene that is associated with blood disease in non-living human embryos. All these experiments were highly unsuccessful, but gene editing tools are used in labs.
   Scientists using the CRISPR/cas9 system to modify genetic materials have run into issues when it comes to mammalian alterations due to the complex diploid cells. Studies have been done in microorganisms regarding loss of function genetic screening and some studies using mice as a subject. RNA processes differ between bacteria and mammalian cells and scientists have had difficulties coding for mRNA's translated data without the interference of RNA. Studies have been done using the cas9 nuclease that uses a single guide RNA to allow for larger knockout regions in mice which was successful. Altering the genetic sequence of mammals has also been widely debated thus creating a difficult FDA regulation standard for these studies.
   The process of modifying the human genome has raised ethical questions. One of the issues is “off target effects”, large genomes may contain identical or homologous DNA sequences, and the enzyme complex CRISPR/Cas9 may unintentionally cleave these DNA sequences causing mutations that may lead to cell death. 
  