For the first time in history, evolution has taken a backseat to the meddling of humankind with their own genetic makeup. There is an "ongoing realization that humanity is capable of directly shaping its own and other species' evolution".
As we ease into the twenty-first century, we realize that genetic engineering is undoubtedly going to have a dramatic effect on our lives. It seems that "with genetic engineering, science has moved from exploring the natural world and its mechanisms to redesigning it." Now, we must ask ourselves this, will that influence be for better, or for worse?
However, even the responses of science differ in this topic. Scientists remain divided in their opinions. Some have warned against the hazards of genetic engineering, while others have dismissed these perils as inconsequential. Two opposing viewpoints, which is right?
Lewis Wolpert, professor of biology as applied to medicine at University College London, says that, "There are no ethical issues because you are not doing any harm to anyone." And indeed, the gist of his statement is staunchly supported by James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner and president of Cold Spring Habour Laboratory. "If we can make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we do it? The biggest ethical problem is not using our knowledge." They are both extremely critical of excuses that genetic engineering is a bad idea. Are they absolutely right? Are the predictions of "doomsday" just insubstantial bits of fluff with no proof to support these claims? Are we truly so confident as to proceed with no holds barred?
Both scientists seem not to have the slightest bit of anxiety regarding potential glitches. They have found a fascinating "playground" in genetic engineering, and appears that it is not only a way for them to earn their livelihood, but also gain fame and fortune. Is their attitude towards this serious issue too cavalier or biased? Are they too unclear about the likelihood of threats to civilization?
In contrast, two other prominent scientists have displayed their displeasure about genetic engineering. They have made no secret of the rather strong feelings against genetic engineering. George Wald, Nobel Prize-winning biologist and Harvard professor, wrote:
"Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of some three billion years of evolution. It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain... For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."
Erwin Chargoff, an eminent geneticist who is sometimes called the father of modern microbiology too echoed Wald's concerns. He commented:
"...The principle question to be answered is whether we have the right to put an additional fearful load on generations not yet born. Our time is cursed with the necessity for feeble men, masquerading as experts, to make enormously far-reaching decisions. Is there anything more far-reaching than the creation of forms of life? You can stop splitting the atom; you can stop visiting the moon; you can stop using aerosols; you may even decide not to kill entire populations by the use of a few bombs. But you cannot recall a new form of life. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard-of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish that mine had not been guilty...