A Sample Research Paper for English 1302
(Return to the Unit 4 Table of Contents)

---

Shai Mendoza 
English 1302:203 
Spring, 1998 

Lucy and Jack sit in their doctor's office waiting for her to return. They have decided they would like to conceive a child and only one thing stands in their way--Lucy's sister had Cystic Fibrosis. Both Lucy and Jack have witnessed the suffering that Cystic Fibrosis has caused within Lucy's family through repeated lung infections eventually leading to Lucy's sister's death. They have decided that they will not bear a child if Lucy is a carrier to the disease. Even though they wait with sweaty palms, praying that Lucy is not a carrier, they are thankful for the test that allows them this precaution. 

Biotechnology, or genetic engineering, is working for Lucy and Jack. They agree that the genetic research being conducted today will improve the quality of health care tomorrow. Biotechnology has come a long way from pea-plants and fruit flies. The science of genetics has gone full-speed-ahead since Watson and Krick discovered the basic double helical shape of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid). This discovery made genomic research possible, and voila!, the Human Genome Project was born. The debate was on--loud and clear--human genetic manipulation was immoral, playing God. To add fuel to the fire, in February 1997, to the amazement of scientists and the general public, Dolly was born. A testament to modern science stood in the form of a lamb--not just any lamb, but the very first clone of an adult mammal. 

The significance of this event did not escape the press or the scientific community, for Dolly wasn't just any clone. "Not only did her genes come from an adult, six year old sheep but they came from a dead one--from frozen mammary tissue"(Wills 23). The controversy surrounding Dolly shows how fast the field of genetic engineering is moving. To some, it is moving too fast to know how to use the new information. To others, like Lucy and Jack, the technology is not moving fast enough, after all Lucy's sister's life was cut short by a disease that may be treatable in only a few short years. 

There is some discussion concerning the topic of bioethics. Some critics to the biotech cause are quick to accuse the genetics community of lack of ethics in practice. Their accusation is that there is a "lack of recognition of social prejudices" within the fabric of the science itself (Spallone 178). Another issue in the face of modern science is that of human genetic manipulation. There is huge resistance moving to block research in this area. 

The issues and fears of genetic testing go hand in hand with that of gene therapy. One leads to the other. It is claimed that "prenatal testing's destructive social consequences may prove to be both far-reaching and long-lived"(Kristol 47). In the middle of this criticism, genetics progresses forward, making improvements as it continues to move. The value of genetic support is found in its history of developed treatments, the improvement of quality of life of disease sufferers and the hope for a future with less genetic disorders. 

Opponents of genetic engineering cite the possibility of a resurgence of eugenics as a reason to block biotechnical research attempts. In Generation Games Pat Spallone makes the accusation that medical students and students of genetics learn genetic disease is a burden on the community and that the spread of 'morbid genes' burden the population. Ms. Spallone implies a very close association of eugenics, as practiced by the Nazi's to eliminate Jews, Poles, gypsies, homosexuals and others considered inferior, to modern genetics. She uses the testimonial of Jeanne Stellman to strengthen that implication: "I am a child of a survivor of the Holocaust…and many millions of others suffered very directly and convincingly the results of policies based on dubious genetic traits…While I don't see gas ovens being built in the United States, I do see that many of the premises which led to that terrible time are again beginning to surface here" (Spallone 178). Pat Spallone's fears are commonplace on the biotech subject; however, her accusations concerning medical students and students of genetics is false. 

Today, Bioethics is a subject offered and often required at medical schools, and just recently the American Association for the Advancement of Science sponsored a conference which centered on the bioethics of genetic therapy. The speakers at this conference devoted time to both sides of the debate sharing ideas and possible solutions acceptable to both sides (Henig 58). Spallone's concerns about eugenics, however, has merit. The Nazi's were not the only society to institute eugenics as a philosophy. Back in 1927, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes found in favor of a lower-courts decision in Buck vs. Bell leading to the sterilization of Carrie Buck, her sister Doris and Carrie's seven-month-old, illegitimate daughter, Vivian, on the basis of "feeblemindedness." Justice Holmes pronounced upon his decision, "three generations of imbeciles are enough." Carrie was interviewed in 1980, and was found enjoying the daily newspaper and crossword puzzles, not at all the picture of the 'imbecile' as she was portrayed.¹ 

These cases are grizzly, and reaction to them is and should be repulsion, for these eugenic practices are laden with discrimination, coercion and division of traits. However, we have learned much since the 1920's about ethics and morality. Since that time, we have addressed on an ongoing basis, the issues of discrimination across the board. It is undisputed that the society of the 90's is more tolerant than the society of the 20's. Today, upon receiving word that a fetus has an extra Chromosome 21--Down's Syndrome--the woman, or couple, knows that the life of the child she is carrying will be met with extreme limitations. However, the parents of the child also know that with love, nurturing and support, the possibility exists that the child might beat the odds and defy the predictions. The choices before the parents are difficult ones, to say the very least, but they are educated choices, made individually by those personally involved. 

The fear of the reemergence of the eugenics philosophy is one of the major arguments against biotechnology. Philip Kitcher tells a story in The Lives To Come:The Genetic Revolution And Human Possibilities which places this fear in the proper perspective for the 1990's: In the spring of 1994, at a public discussion on the impact of the Human Genome Project in Washington, D.C., a man in late middle age protested the tendency to see only the problems of the Project, relating how his daughter had given birth to two children with neurofibromatosis. His tone, not his words, conveyed the grief of his family as well as his conviction that abstract fears of eugenic consequences should not block attempts to spare others similar agonies."(Kitcher 192) In Pat Spallone's world, due to fear alone, there would be no attempt at the genetic research necessary to break this cycle of hereditary disease that might otherwise spare this man's great-great grandchildren. 

Other critics of biotechnical advancement warn that genetic testing, at any level, will become a tool of increased oppression for those already struggling with this issue in their lives. In The Secret Of Life, Jeremy Rifkin, longtime opponent of genetic research, warns: Increasingly in the 1990's we are going to see a virulent new form of prejudice and discrimination emerge, based on one's genetic type. This is going to be a much more dangerous form of discrimination than skin color, than religion, than ethnicity."(Morris 59) Rifkin implies that genetic testing would be so widespread that the results would dictate our treatment in society. 

Along these same lines, there is concern that "as genetic screening tests increase in accuracy, there will be many more opportunities to intervene in childbearing. These options could create pressure to tailor one's reproductive decisions to the prevailing norms of what is considered 'desirable' in children"(Henig 61). The fact of the matter is, pre-natal genetic testing already exists and has existed for some time now. This testing continues to be a most valuable tool when parents are faced with the knowledge that they, themselves, are carriers of a genetic disease and are concerned of the risk of transmission to a fetus. Pre-natal testing allows these couples, who may have otherwise avoided childbearing altogether, a chance to have a child. Pre-natal testing can detect over 300 hereditary defects including cystic fibrosis, trisomy 21, B-Thalassema, and neural tube defects (which include anencephaly and spina bifida)(Morris 58). 

Genetic testing was successful at targeting Tay-Sachs disease: Properly designed and implemented genetic screening procedures can have positive results, as evidenced by a program aimed at Tay-Sachs disease. As many as one in twenty-five Jews of Eastern European descent is a carrier of this disorder, characterized by nervous system degeneration, uncontrollable convulsions, total loss of sensory input, and death, usually by age four…The screening program succeeded in lowering the incidence of the disease by 90 percent between 1970 and 1992 (Morris 59). Currently, genetic testing is accepted as a preventative measure and an important means for diagnosis and treatment of genetic diseases. 

The prediction of Rifkin has not come to pass, we are not a society of genetically engineered supremacists, and there is no absolute evidence of the development of this attitude in the near future. Treatments are currently being formulated and developed for those currently suffering from genetic disease. This technology, though growing at an increasingly accelerated rate, is still in its infancy. Opposition to gene therapy usually pairs their argument with horrific images of deformation and defect of a procedure gone badly. These arguments against gene therapy are based on germ-line gene transfer, which occurs at the gamete level of the chromosome (sex-cell level). "We know from our experience with a wide range of species that germ-line gene transfer can have some very unexpected consequences," said Huntington Willard. Among these are gross physical abnormalities and birth defects- malformed limbs, for instance- and the eventual development of cancer, even in animals that at first seemed to be successfully gene-corrected. "You might call those consequences 'interesting' when you see them in flies or mice," Willard said. "But the same surprises can be nothing short of disastrous when they occur in humans."(Henig 62) 

Pretty scary stuff, and meant to have that effect, but it is necessary to know that there are far too many problems that need to be worked out in somatic-cell gene therapy before serious germ-line gene therapy research and development can be applied. Malcolm Brenner of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston concedes that "talking about germ-line gene transfer today is a bit like the Mir spacecraft designers agonizing over whether their craft is fit for interstellar travel"(Henig 61). Nevertheless, it is these types of statements that facilitate the ideas of mad scientists secretly creating abominations in dark labs, and the Frankenstein or Brave New World images. 

Stepping back into the real world, gene therapy is being used to benefit society. In the late 1970's, Genentech, a huge biotech corporation in San Francisco launched the first genetically engineered drug into the marketplace. They had developed a way to clone the gene coding for human insulin and transfer this coding to bacteria. The bacteria would then produce human insulin, a protein completely foreign to the bacteria prior to introduction (Economist 150). This was a huge advancement in the medical community and has made insulin readily available to diabetics nationwide and beyond. 

More recently, September 14, 1990, America became the first country to allow the introduction of new genes into humans. French Anderson, Michael Blaese and Ken Culver, from the National Institute of Health (NIH) treated a four-year old girl with a new gene therapy. She was suffering from severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), the 'Boy-In-The-Bubble' disease. Her body lacked the gene required to synthesize adenosine deaminase (ADA) which stimulates natural immune response. Prior to Dr. Anderson's treatment, it was necessary for her to live in a sanitized plastic bubble. The procedure was repeated again in 1991, with a nine-year-old girl suffering with ADA. In May 1993, both girls were well enough to attend a press conference and "appeared healthy and happy"(Economist 152). 

The facts speak for themselves, as do the human benefactors of the technology. Huge advancements in medicine are being made through biotechnological research. The scientific community is striving hard to maintain a bioethical balance, through consortiums and conferences, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science's conference. The community is especially involved in trying to maintain the integrity of the science through the encouragement to integrate bioethics classes into medical schools across the nation. 

Biotechnology gives us the resources to make educated decisions concerning the possible transmission of inherited disease from parent to fetus through the valuable tool of pre-natal testing. For some, this means choices concerning childbearing are returned to them that thought these types of choices were gone forever. Imagine, for a moment, the smile on a new mother's face as she cradles her newborn in her arms, knowing, without a doubt, that the child does not have neurofibromatosis, even though the mother herself is a carrier of the disease. 

Gene therapy benefits society by improving quality of life issues. Gene therapy has made it possible to contain the cost of insulin and increase its availability, two very important factors to a diabetic. Modern medicine has used gene therapy to free two very young girls from their plastic prison. It must have been incredible for them to walk outdoors and experience the sun's kiss upon their face for the first time. It must have been even more incredible for the parents of these young girls to hold them close without the barrier of cold plastic between them. 

Biotechnology, even in its infant stages, has made significant positive changes in the lives of those whom it has helped. For others who wait for a treatment to be developed, it is a source of hope in an otherwise hopeless situation. The majority of the arguments against the furthering of biotechnology are based on fear of the unknown, instead of its possible promises. And while these opponents stand gathered, preaching doom and gloom, scientists are sailing forth, despite the criticism, propelled by the winds of hope and on the belief that beyond the horizon there lies a discovery that might make for a better world. 

¹Carrie Buck's mother had been diagnosed as "feebleminded", Carrie, after undergoing a Stanford-Binet intelligence test, was placed in the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded. It was said by a Red Cross worker that seven month old Vivian had 'a look' about he, and Vivian was also classified as feebleminded after a member of the Eugenics Records Officer claimed her intelligence was below-average according to a test for infants. 

"Economist" Genetic Engineering: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996. 150-155. 

Henig, Robin. "Tempting Fates" Discover May 1998:58-64. 

Kitcher, Philip. The Lives To Come: The Genetic Revolution And Human Possibilities. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996. 

Kristol, Elizabeth. "Prenatal Genetic Testing Is Harmful." Genetic Engineering: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996. 47-56. 

Morris, David. "Prenatal Genetic Testing Should Be Universally Available." Genetic Engineering: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996. 57-64. 

Spallone, Pat. "The Benefits of Gene Therapy Are Exaggerated." Genetic Engineering: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996. 174-180. 

Wills, Christopher. "A Sheep In Sheep's Clothing?" Discover January 1998:22-23.

(Reprinted by permission from Shai Mendoza)

(Return to the Top)

This page was last modified on July 9, 2005,
and is maintained by Dr. Geoffrey A. Grimes.
.