The Unforseeable Harm in Genetically Modifying Organisms

The topic of genetic engineering has historically been controversial, and as technology advances the possibilities of genetic experimentation widen. From the first cloned sheep to implanting genes into targeted eye-tissue cells for macular regeneration in humans, science has allowed us to manipulate parts of our genetic makeup and that of other organisms in laboratory settings to achieve a higher rate of expression of desirable genes in those organisms. This controversial science of modifying, inserting, and removing genes has been done until today on organisms with many positive effects, but the risks and consequences of such experimentation should be considered when dealing with such a vital and essential part of life on Earth: the genetic makeup of all species. Corporations like Monsanto and Aventis have developed crops such as the BT corn, incorporating genes from other organisms (Bacillus thuringiensis being one of them) that give the corn desirable traits, in this case resistance to the European Corn Borer predator. This is an insect that burrows itself into the stem of corn plants and causes the plants to fall over and die and it traditionally has to be sprayed against with pesticides. Many positive effects like the resistance of the BT corn to the European Corn Borer have been seen with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, but it is the unforeseeable negative effects that are the dangers to our Earth, mostly because of our inability to foreshadow the events that take place when a crop or organism like this is introduced to the environment and allowed to interact with every other surrounding organism.

With this in mind, I am going to argue that:
• If humans genetically engineer, then there would likely be very bad consequences.
• It is morally impermissible to do things that would likely have very bad consequences.
• Therefore, genetic engineering should be impermissible.
• If benefits are gained by genetically engineering organisms, then they must outweigh the negative consequences of such actions, and only then should genetic engineering be morally permissible.

To provide support I will exemplify the Unforeseeable Harm argument, dividing it into two parts:
• The Case of Overpopulation
• The Loss of Intra-Species Biodiversity

These two arguments are some of the more discussed arguments in the topic of biology and genetic engineering, but they are not inclusive of every aspect of genetic engineering and the likely consequences of it. They are merely a framework to show why genetic engineering is currently simply not worth the risk when compared to the benefits, which in my opinion suffices for the argument.

The Loss of Intra-Species Biodiversity
Plants require many parameters in their environment to be adequate for their growth, and only then will they germinate, grow, and harbor the capacity to give life to future generations. What if, for example, we were to remove those requirements and let certain traits in genetically modified organisms experience unrestricted growth? Plants like the BT corn (where corn traditionally had to have certain pesticides and herbicides as a defense against natural predators) now produce the chemicals in those herbicides and pesticides to have their own protection from these predators. The intricate relationship that developed between the unmodified corn crop and the wildlife that occupies the same niche has now been severed, and the BT corn has the capacity to evolve into much more than simply a pest-resistant crop. The European Corn Borer burrows itself into the stem of the corn plant and causes the stem to snap, making the plant fall over and die. In parts of the world where BT corn is in use, the population of other organisms in the same family as the Corn Borer predator is also affected, even though those organisms are not natural predators of the corn like the Corn Borer. The Monarch Butterfly, another related Lepidoptera, comes in contact with the corn, but it used to not be a problem that such contact occurred. Instead of the corn being damaged or consumed, now, the Monarch Butterflies are losing their population stability in areas surrounding fields with the GMO corn because of the toxicity of the BT corn’s toxins that act as pesticides and herbicides. With less predators and ways for nature to restrict the growth of the BT corn crop, and the added unnatural advantage of pest-resistance, it makes sense that the corn crop would do nothing but succeed. Instead, the world’s corn supply has the potential of being monopolized by this single strain. The corn without the BT gene is now naturally disadvantaged and is still prone to being killed by the Corn Borer. The BT corn does not have to worry about this, and it can grow into the areas the non-GMO corn used to occupy. This takeover of the corn crop means the genetic diversity that has developed over the course of corn’s existence on Earth is being greatly reduced, and some of the valuable genes that are present in these other strains are being lost. What eventually results from all of this is the potential for a catastrophic loss: the potential that most of the corn in agriculture will be genetically very similar. This opens up countless doors to possibilities such as the evolution of the Corn Borer gaining capacity to be resistant to the toxins in the BT corn, just like scientists engineered the corn to be resistant to the pest. Then the only crop we produced to fight mainly this organism will now be greatly reduced by that same organism, and suddenly a staple crop in the world is in imminent danger. Such consequences have fortunately not been experienced yet with the BT corn, but it is evident that is the path of this crop. Risking losing the very essence of the corn crop by modifying its genetic makeup for added pest resistance simply does not warrant the possible consequences of the loss of genetic diversity in corn. We must preserve the library of inactive genes in all the strains of all species because some day these genes may become active and play a part in naturally defending the species or allowing the species to survive in difficult conditions. An objection to this may be that if have the technology to change the genetic makeup of an organism by introducing a foreign gene or modifying the DNA to express or repress certain genes then we should be able to revert the process. Though this may be true and possible, it is still too sensitive of a system for humans to fully understand and control. Even though reverting a species’ genetically modified genes to their original state could be a remedy for an unwanted strain, the effects the original changes have on the other species occupying the same niches as the genetically modified organisms are far too unpredictable for us to be able to control them. When a genetic modification is done, it is not only the target organism that is affected, but instead that organism as well as its whole niche.

The Case of Overpopulation
The Cane Toad, a foreign species introduced to Australian fields in 1935 to combat the already-present overpopulation of cane beetles, became the overpopulated organism itself. One hundred and two toads were first brought into a lab in Gordonvale, Australia, allowed to multiply and acclimate and then released into the sugar cane fields in the North to fight the cane beetle that was damaging cane plantations. Little did the Australians know, however, that the cane toads would do more than just succeed in their new, non-native environment: the toads would later come to survive, adapt, and spread their population to the entire northern territory of Australia. The success of the cane toad was not expected to be this high, and scientists had predicted that the population of cane toads would develop parallel to the population of the cane beetles they were supposed to eat, so that when all the cane beetles had been consumed by the toads, their population would diminish. Unfortunately, the cane toads quickly adapted to their new environment, figured out ways to survive without the beetles, and are now the main threat to a variety of native Australian species such as the Keelback snake and the Gold and Bell frog. This is one example of where humans predicted certain outcomes for their actions but because of so many unknown factors in the predictions, the outcome was drastically different than they expected. What, then, is the correlation between these non-GMO toads and the impermissibility of genetically modifying organisms? They are relevantly likely to each other in the fact that their genetic and evolutionary makeup is not intended for the non-native environment they are in. If the simple transfer of 102 toads to another environment has caused such catastrophic consequences, the transfer of genetically-modified organisms from a laboratory to the wild could prove just as catastrophic as this event which has already happened, if not worse. If a species that already exists in an environment is genetically modified and reintroduced, this species (through lateral gene transfer and sexual mating) could dominate and take over its non-GMO counterparts that have been part of that environment for millions of years. Now, a species with genes that were not given to it through evolution and adaptation to the environment, but instead artificially in a laboratory, has the capacity to evolve into something with a very high potential to affect the native species in its habitat. An objection to this argument could be built off of the differences between genetically modified organisms and non-native organisms and their impacts on their environments. One could claim that a genetically modified organism would carry specific traits in genes that were programmed and determined to have specific and predictable outcomes, whereas non-native species being introduced to a niche are more of a guess-and-check game. Though this is a valid observation, the introduction of a genetically modified organism into a niche is still a guess-and-check game no matter what, since scientists cannot predict the outcome of every interaction between the GMO and other organisms until they actually expose it to every single species occupying that niche and allow it to interact for an extended period. Australia is now overpopulated with a non-native species and there is no clear remedy in sight. Scientists are working on genetically modifying an iridovirus that affects cane toads in other countries to release into the environment and prevent the cane toad tadpoles from undergoing metamorphosis and reaching sexual maturity. Yet another issue that arises with the genetic modification of such a virus is that many of the parental and first generation cane toads were exposed to the iridovirus in their native lands of Brazil (where I come from!) and Venezuela but did not contract it. Instead, their immune systems developed antibodies to the virus and some frogs became naturally immune. Now some of these frogs and their progeny are in Australia, and if and when they come in contact with the iridovirus that is intended to kill them, they will instead be resistant to it and could potentially not even be affected. The consequences of modifying genes and reintroducing species with a modified genetic makeup have the high potential of being far too catastrophic to warrant genetic engineering in higher-level species.

The possible benefits associated with having a genetically engineered world could outweigh the possible consequences, however. Scientists have worked with gene modifications that have given rise to medical breakthroughs that have helped many people regain sight, hearing, and touch. Many genetically modified crops like maize, rice, wheat, fruits, and vegetables now have higher yields, making the food more accessible to populations that before were not able to have a sustainable supply of affordable food. Though it is evident that there are many benefits to genetically modifying organisms, the advances scientists are making in genetic engineering should be focused on discovering the effects of GMOs on the environment instead of controlling human characteristics or predetermining the traits of a child. Research should be done at a minimal level and very thoroughly to ensure the safety of all species. The world of genetic engineering may one day be the Earth’s saving grace, but it also has a very high potential of offsetting nature’s balance.

The technology we possess which allows us to research and make discoveries in the field of genetic engineering is incredible, but it does not suffice for the level of research we want to do. The laboratory setting is currently the only setting in which genetic experimentation should be done, and even then we have to take immense precautions to contain such experiments. Until we have a broader understanding of genetic engineering and its effects on the ecosystem, such experimentation should be contained and not allowed to occur in the environment. The catastrophic consequences evident in other species’ introduction experiments and genetic modification experiments are too likely and unpredictable to warrant experimentation with genetic engineering in the wild. Though we are capable of genetically modifying thousands of organisms with thousands of potentially revolutionary consequences, we should shift our focus to another direction, instead, and only genetically engineer when it would seem very necessary to the point where the value of the results of such actions outweigh the risk of the consequences. The protection of all species and the remedying of Mother Earth is what our scientists must focus on now if we want to have a future where some day it will be acceptable to genetically engineer species for their improvement and the improvement of the world.

Resources

Gould, Stephen Jay. “Humbled By The Genome’s Mysteries”. The New York Times, 19 Feb. 2001. Accessed 1 Oct. 2008. URL: <http://www.biotech-info.net/humbled.html>

World Health Organization. “General Information about Biotechnology (GM Foods)”. Accessed 1 Oct. 2008. URL: <http://www.who.int/foodsafety/biotech/general/en/index.html>