The thought of genetic engineering may seem as if it is something out of a science fiction novel, impossible and risky. Only the latter is true. Genetic engineering is a way to alter the parts or genes of a child in utero that has been developing over decades, and now it is a feasible option. When geneticists began testing out this innovation, the primary objective of genetic engineering was to prevent hereditary defects before a child is born. There are some people who believe that this modification has the opposite intended effect - harming the people. Although these intentions are favorable, many do not believe that this modification will be able to achieve them. Genetic modification has the potential to change society, and those against the idea believe this change would be extremely damaging - for society and those genetically modified. Human genetic engineering should not be legalized because it would result in extreme societal consequences and future health and discrimination issues in the long-term.

             The idea of genetic modification was to help people and prevent hereditary diseases, but there are unintended consequences that come with this good intention. To describe what genetic engineering is, the School of Medicine in the University of Missouri explains that “genetic engineering aims to modify the genes to enhance the capabilities of the organism beyond what is normal” (Gene par 2). Enhancing the functionality of the body regarding physical defects is how genetic engineering originated. It was the goal of the scientists to improve the lives of those with these complications. Although the aim was to benefit the people, the long-term outcomes have the increased potential to harm them. It could result in detrimental social hierarchies, increased risk to infections, and exacerbated disparities. These advancements in the scientific field will hurt others more than they can help, which is why genetic engineering cannot be legalized. As The UN elaborates, “[g]ene editing has opened a Pandora’s Box. While it presents great hopes for curing disease and eliminating hunger, gene editing is still imprecise, which could lead to inadvertent and undesirable changes to a genome” (Genes 4). This type of modification will drastically change society as it is today. It will have the ability to change appearance, be mainly available to the wealthy, and could be extremely unpredictable. Many scientific advancements have derived from the goal to help people, similar to genetic engineering, but the result does not always match the aim. It may appear as an innovative method to rehabilitate people, but its risks outweigh the gains.

             Genetic engineering could have unintended health-related consequences. There has not been nearly enough testing to ensure that it will not harm the people more in the long-term. The Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee found that there was not enough data “regarding the risks and potential benefits to…the children who would be the study's subjects” (Dresser 200). If they cannot handle the inevitable outcomes, scientists should not allow this to happen. Since geneticists cannot guarantee that these children will be protected from the side effects of these modifications, legalizing it would be dangerous and irresponsible. Not legalizing genetic engineering would preclude any future harms to the subjects of the modification, avoiding these dangerous practices. Rebecca Dresser, an author for The Milbank Quarterly emphasizes that, “Significant policy gaps exist…[and] inconsistent coverage reflects the limits of federal policies governing gene transfer research, human embryo research, and the protection of human research participants” (Dresser 199). This displays clearly that scientists cannot prevent any disadvantages from genetic modification, and is not useful to the people. Making genetic engineering legal could result in major long-term side-effects for the children, and can only do more harm than good. The possibility of helping someone is not greater than the risk that they would be taking. Professor Kevin Eggan of Harvard’s Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology agrees that without “understand[ing] any off-target effects of replacing or removing a particular gene, it is inappropriate to apply the technology in the clinical field” (Bergman par 38). Even though genetic engineering is a feasible option, the potential domino effects still exist. These effects could include, but are not limited to, more susceptibility to other diseases and issues with any modifications made (Bergman par 37). This tool increases the probability of complications, overriding the profits. Just because genetic engineering can be done does not mean that it should be.

             One of the main arguments for legalizing genetic engineering is that it centers on benefitting the people. Those in support of doing this believe that not only can germline modification help the individual, but that it also has the potential to cure future generations of the same hereditary diseases (Walton 1509). They are under the impression that this is the best way to prevent certain complications from happening to these future children. Utilizing this tool, they say, is the best way to prevent more harm to those with hereditary defects. People continue to claim that genetic engineering is worth the threat to reap the advantages. They insist that if people have the ability to correct defects in these unborn children that could improve their quality of life drastically, it would be immoral not to (Liao 102). Ignoring the risks that could result from genetic modification, some scientists are fighting to prove that this advancement is crucial for improving the lives of many people. Instead of perceiving that modifying genes is unethical because people would be altering nature, they feel that not implementing this would be wrong.

             Although it may appear that genetic engineering is advantageous, it can be extremely harmful in the long run. It often hurts people more than it can help. People wrongly claim that using this new method to help people is the best way to help them, but scientists cannot ensure these treatments. Genetic engineering affects people in different ways, there is not a guarantee that they can solve the problems that people refer to (Kozubek par 5). Times illustrates this concept when it claims, “The severity of the enhancing or diminishing effects [of] [gene] [editing] may also vary, depending on the [person’s] genetic background [and] the other genetic variants they’re inherited with” (Kozubek par 7). This is showing how even the gains of genetic modification are not guaranteed. Because every person will react to genetic engineering differently, scientists cannot pinpoint the best methods to help the people. They should not utilize these treatments if they cannot ensure the well-being of those being modified. Why should people risk a child’s health, the way society would change, and significant wealth disparities for a treatment that might not work? Those who believe that people should legalize genetic engineering are living in an ideal world. They have the incorrect impression that genetic defects can be fixed without side-effects. There will be long-term social, economic, and even health-related consequences. They only look at the short-term gains rather than the long-term issues. From another perspective, people will claim that gene-editing methods are thought of to be the way to make a perfect person, but who decides what is perfect? Ruha Benjamin, an Associate Professor at Princeton, explains that as gene editing methods continue to be developed, “they will easily reproduce existing hierarchies, including assumptions about which lives are worth living and which are worth "editing" out of existence” (Benjamin 52). Scientists that are in the field of genetics infrequently ask those who would be most affected by these treatments for their opinion. There is less advocacy for these people, so geneticists assume that they know what is best (Benjamin 52). This is extremely problematic for the people because genetic engineering will eventually become a societal norm – changing how people perceive themselves. They also need to understand how genetic engineering cannot only affect those on an individual level, but also on a societal level.

             The intention of genetic engineering was created for the welfare of everyone, but actually implementing it would make social hierarchies based on who has been genetically modified highly probable. Legalizing this advancement would allow the enhancement of unborn children that is not limited to changing hereditary defects. Doing so would be opening a door to unwanted remodeling. According to Douglas Walton, who works in the Centre for Research in Reasoning at the University of Windsor, “Children who do not have the benefit of genetic enhancement technology will increasingly lose in the competition for social and financial goods” (Walton 1518). This new hierarchy would divide countries even more - separating them in various ways. Those who cannot access this treatment cannot access any of the services of genetic engineering. These hierarchies are able to be generated more easily with this tool. When people have the opportunity to genetically modify others, they can change physical attributes, creating new ways of separation. This inadvertently would lead to increased discrimination and division throught nations. Trait modification by parents can be used to advance their children in society. This would create a hierarchy - with those genetically modified at the top (Walton 1516). This is tremendously detrimental to everyone. If parents can modify the appearance of their children, they could change certain features that are associated with different races or ethnicities. This could affect discrimination and defining what the perfect person should look like. Sarah Conner, a writer from NC State University, explained how people historically used sterilization tactics to prevent so-called “unwanted” features from being passed on (Conner par 4). Genetic engineering can be used to replicate the same concept - perpetuating racial superiority. Not only is this dangerous for many races, but these ideas will become further ingrained in society. Allowing human genetic engineering would be a disastrous mistake, harming our society in staggering ways.

             Genetic modification will hurt low-income and disabled individuals. Since it is a fairly new and advanced tool, the price of it will match its abilities. Many of the genetic engineering resources will only be available to middle and upper class individuals - exacerbating inequalities (Benjamin 52). This would hurt many people, and contribute to the appalling social hierarchy that genetic engineering will cause. This hierarchy would be based not only on varying traits, but also on wealth, and those who cannot afford these new advancements will be negatively affected. 

             Wealth disparities would drastically increase as a result of genetic modification - and could in turn lead to more inequality between the various wealth classes (Benjamin 53). This inequality is exactly what people should be working to prevent. Legalizing genetic engineering will harm disabled people as well as lower-income people. There is a concern, as stated by Ruha Benjamin, an Associate Professor at Princeton, “that people with disabilities would be less valued at a societal level as genetic technologies become more common, especially in the absence of public education and media campaigns on disability and genetics” (Benjamin 53). This is because people believe that eugenics is necessary to change perceived flaws in others, but this is mistaken. Genetic engineering should only focus on fixing what is damaging for the people, not wrongly identified imperfections. Considering the opinions of those that would be using this tool is crucial. Ruthie Weiss, someone who was born with a genetic disorder that could be addressed by genetic modification, explained that “she would not choose a different life for herself, even if she had the chance to fix the gene mutation…[n]or…would she edit her children [if] [given] [the] [option]” (Hafner par 30). Even if those with disabilities appear to have a choice in whether or not to use genetic modification on their children, societal norms will impact their decisions. They will feel the need to change part of who they are if everyone around them believes that they are impaired. The wealth disparities will be aggravated, and the prejudice against the disabled will worsen and be wielded into a weapon that pressures people to resort to eugenics for their disabilities.

             Legalizing genetic engineering in humans would be harmful to the people. It would not only negatively affect the health of those modified, but it would also aggravate societal problems and disparities. Any potential health benefits would result in a tradeoff. Helping one genetic disorder through genetic modification could result in people becoming increasingly at the risk of other diseases (Bergman par 37). This tool would not improve the physical health of people, but it would deteriorate their well-being. Genetic engineering would create unseen social hierarchies and increase several types of prejudice (Walton 1517). These hierarchies would incentivize and pressure many to go through genetic modification to gain higher positions in it. This would lead to more discrimination against those that society would deem to be in need of enhancing, specifically the disabled (Conner par 4). This increased prejudice would not only affect those with disabilities but also lower-income individuals. The scientific advancement would be widely inaccessible as a result of its unaffordability - increasing wealth disparities exponentially (Benjamin 52). Genetic engineering on humans cannot be legalized because of its major harmful effects, and the negative ways it would change lives around the world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                           Works Cited

Benjamin, Ruha. “Interrogating Equity: A Disability Justice Approach to Genetic Engineering.” 

           Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 32, no. 3, Apr. 2016, pp. 51–54. EBSCOhost.

Bergman, Mary Todd. “Harvard Researchers Share Views on Future Ethics of Gene Editing.” 

           Harvard Gazette, 28 Oct. 2019, news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/

           01/perspectives-on-gene-editing/.

Connor, Sarah Kate. “From Eugenics to Genetic Engineering: The Evolution of Scientific 

           Racism.” Biotechnology Program BIT, 20 Jan. 2021,

           biotech.ncsu.edu/2021/01/20/from-

           eugenics-to-genetic-engineering-the-evolution-of-scientific-racism/.

Dresser, Rebecca. “Genetic Modification of Preimplantation Embryos: Toward Adequate 

            Human Research Policies.” The Milbank Quarterly, vol. 82, no. 1, Jan. 2004, pp. 

            195–214. EBSCOhost.

“Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering.” MU School of Medicine, 2020, 

           medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/gene-therapy.

Hafner, Katie. “Once Science Fiction, Gene Editing Is Now a Looming Reality.” The New York 

           Times, 22 July 2020, nytimes.com/2020/07/22/style/crispr-gene-editing-

           ethics.html.

Kozubek, Jim. “How CRISPR and Gene Editing Could Ruin Human Evolution.” Time, 9    

           Jan. 2017, time.com/4626571/crispr-gene-modification-evolution/.

Liao, Matthew. “Designing Humans: A Human Rights Approach.” Bioethics, vol. 33, no. 1, 

           Jan. 2019, pp. 98–104. EBSCOhost.

“Playing with Genes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” UN.org, May 2019,

           un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-

           content/uploads/sites/45/publication/FTQ_May_2019.pdf.

Walton, Douglas. “The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic 

           Engineering of Humans.” Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 23, no. 6, Dec. 2017, pp.

           1507–1528. EBSCOhost.