Transgenics

In H.G. Wells’ The Island of Dr. Moreau, the titular doctor conducts a series of experiments to create humans from various animals. When the book was written in 1896, the science behind transplanting parts from different species was purely speculative. Recently, however, new technology has emerged, making it possible to incorporate genes from one species into another to create a modified organism. Such transgenic transplants are still highly experimental, but already have potential medical and economic benefits.

There are two broad categories of transgenic organisms—those including humans that those excluding humans. For the most part, experiments not involving humans are less controversial and have more scientific backing. Transplants into humans are still in the investigational stages, but may be viable in the near future.

Technically speaking, a transgenic animal is one that has DNA from a different organism incorporated into its genome. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, the most common of which is DNA microinjection. In this method, the desired gene is placed into the animal’s reproductive cells. These cells are then allowed to germinate in a lab before they are injected into the animal. 

 Cell with modified gene being inserted into host organism.

Transgenic animals are useful for a variety of reasons. First, genetically-modified animals can have a large impact on the farming and agriculture industry. For example, cows can be modified to produce more milk or milk without lactose, and pigs and cattle can be modified to produce more meat. Furthermore, animals can be modified to be disease resistant. This is already a common practice in agriculture, as farmers use crops that are resistant to various diseases and insects. 

Traditionally, favorable traits have been selectively bred in farm animals to produce fitter stock. This process takes a long time and requires a lot of resources. Transgenic transplants allow the same effects in a much shorter time. If this technology becomes widespread, farmers will be able to save time and money while making a better product. 

Transgenic organisms can also serve a medical benefit. These animals have been useful in the study and treatment of human diseases. For instance, there is a specific strain of rat that is modified to develop different types of human cancers. By studying these rats, it is possible to better understand the cancers and how to treat them. Transgenic cows and goats have been used to produce milk that is enriched with various nutrients, such as proteins, insulin, or anticoagulants. This can be useful for supplementing humans or to provide nutrients to those with special dietary needs. 

Various animals with a bioluminsecent gene from jellyfish inserted into their genome.

Most interestingly, there have been a few experiments concerning human transgenic transplants. It is widely known that there is a shortage of organs needed for human transplant patients, including hearts, livers, and kidneys. One possible way to supplement this demand is by using organs from different animals. Pig hearts, for example, are very similar in size and structure to the human heart. Most of the experiments involving transgenic transplants have been unsuccessful, however, due to the human body’s immune system rejecting the foreign organs. It is believed that transgenic transplantation can be successful if various identity proteins in the animal organ are replaced with human proteins. These experiments are still developing, but have the potential to be very useful to the medical field. 

Finally, there is a bit of controversy surrounding the transgenics field. Just like with hybrids, opponents argue that it is unnatural to be incorporating genes from different species into each other. Doing so may create dangerous or unstable organisms that would not occur in nature. Additionally, the wellbeing of the animals has to be taken into consideration; incorporation of new genes may make animals more likely to suffer or die. 

Another important criticism is the observation that transgenics may cause an outbreak of viruses or diseases. For example, it is believed that AIDS was originally transmitted from monkeys to humans. By combining genes from different species, mutations in diseases may occur and spread to organisms that would normally not be infected. This could result in wide-spread epidemics affecting both humans and animals alike. Thus is it important to proceed with caution as more experiments are conducted.

Though still a young field, transgenics shows a lot of potential for various sectors of society. Modifying livestock can results in cows that produce more, nutrient-rich milk or pigs that have more meat. Transgenic mice can be used as disease models for various human diseases and help better our understanding of symptoms and treatments. Eventually, it may even be possible to transplant organs from animals to humans to meet the growing demand from transplant patients. Transgenics is not without its risks and ethical considerations, however, so it is important to weigh the various dangers and benefits involved as the field progresses.  

Hybrid Animals

Under normal circumstances in nature, two different species will not mate with each other. There are various biological barriers that prevent this, such as genetic incompatibility or anatomical incongruity. Every once in a while, however, two closely-related species manage to mate, resulting in odd hybrid offspring. Moreover, in the past century scientists and animal enthusiasts have been pushing the limits of creating hybrid creatures by intentionally crossing two different species. The results of these experiments often produce animals that would be more appropriate for the island of Dr. Moreau than in a zoo. 

Crossing two different species is a common practice in botany. It is easier to cross two different plant species than animal species due to the genetics of plants; they are more stable as polyploids than animals. Plant genetics have been utilized by farmers and scientists, who have come up with many hybrids that are common today. The majority of the produce offered in supermarkets is derived from plant hybridizations; everything from seedless watermelons to corn are a result of thousands of crosses. 

Until recently, hybrid animals were thought to be much less common than hybrid plants. The first case of natural hybridization was the Lonicera fly, the offspring of two different species of fruit flies. Up until its discovery, it was believed that natural hybridization could only occur in plants. 

It is now known that a variety of animals cross in nature. An example of this is the Grizzly Polar Bear, which results from the natural hybridization of a grizzly and polar bear. The offspring are healthy and fertile and display a mix of characteristics from each parent. The necks, for example, are long like in polar bears, but the shoulders are short like in grizzly bears. 

Although hybrids do occur in nature, the majority of recognized hybrids are man-made by mating two species that would not normally mate in nature. Most often the hybrids are sterile due to an uneven number of genes. Here are some of the most common hybrids:

·         Mule- Mules are often mistaken for a natural species, though in reality they are the result of the cross between a male donkey and a female horse. They are commonly used as beasts of burden on farms.

·        

·         Liger-The liger is the offspring of male lions and female tigers. They date back to at least the 18^th century, where Indian rulers would keep them as a sign of power. Ligers are the largest cats in the world, and look exactly like one would imagine a lion-tiger child to look like.

 

        

·         Leopon- Leopons come from a male leopard and a female lion. Like the liger, they appear much like one would expect the cross to look like. They were first documented in India.

·        

·         Zebroid- These are a mix of a zebra and any member of the equine family. There are many different types, including a Zorse (zebra and horse), Zony (zebra and pony), and Zebonkey (zebra and donkey).

·        

·         Beefalo- One of the more useful species on this list is a hybrid of a cow and a buffalo. Beefalos produce red meat that is lower in fat and cholesterol than beef. Currently beefalo meat is not widely utilized in the United States, though it has the potential to supplement demands for beef.

·         Wolphin- One of the few aquatic hybrids, the wolphin is a cross between a dolphin and a false killer whale. It looks like an intermediate between its two parents. Wolphins are very rare, and there are currently only two in Hawaii.

·         Blood Parrot- This is another aquatic hybrid, coming from two different species of cichlids. The blood parrot is a controversial hybrid because it has various physical malformations, including an excessively small mouth that makes it difficult for the fish to eat. It is prized by fish enthusiasts because of its rarity. 

The creation of hybrids by man has been a subject of debate for bioethicists. Opponents argue that hybrids are unnatural creations made by man for fun. They often result in sterile offspring that cannot reproduce on their own. Thus it is necessary to continually mate the parents from different species to keep the hybrid populations constant. This can be physically taxing for the animals and uses a lot of resources that could otherwise be put to better use. Likewise, not all of the hybrid offspring are physically fit. The blood parrot, for example, has deformities that make eating difficult. This creates a hard life for the fish and results in early deaths. It is argued that it is unfair to create an animal that will struggle throughout its life simply for the enjoyment of man.

Conversely, proponents of hybrid animals state that the crosses are made in the name of science in order to better understand genetics and biology. Hybrids are very useful in studies of the inheritance of various traits as well as ecology. Moreover, many crosses result in offspring that are fitter than either of their parents, such as mules. These hybrids play an important economical and biological role for humans. Other hybrids, such as beefalos, may help to relieve the burden placed on cattle and other food sources. 

Regardless of one’s opinions on the ethics of hybrids, it is commonly accepted that hybrids form a very intriguing subsection of animals. They are the result of mankind’s natural curiosity about life and the desire to create. As science and technology advances, so too will the variety of hybrids that can be created. As this progress continues it is important to remember that even though they were created by man, hybrids are still creatures of nature and will act as such. Care and caution need to be taken to ensure that this science experiment does not face the same fate as seen on Dr. Moreau’s island.

Populations Controls in China

To most Westernized countries, the idea of the government controlling the size of your family seems absurd. For Chinese parents, however, this is a reality. The Chinese Policy on Family Planning was first implemented in 1978, and restricts urban couples from having more than one child.  The policy was originally instated under economic pretenses, aiming to decrease unemployment caused by an oversaturation of workers. It also aimed to conserve natural resources and provide a stable job rate for workers. Furthermore, Chinese officials hoped the policy would decrease population growth and problems associated with overpopulation such as disease, overcrowding, and decreased quality of life.

A Chinese poster promoting the one-child policy.

"Carry out family planning."

In order to enforce this policy, China imposes fines on families with more than one child. These “social maintenance fines” serve to offset the economic and environmental impact the extra child has on society. Despite this, many Chinese choose to pay this fine and have extra children anyway. In addition to the fine, families with multiple children have to pay for their schooling and the entire family’s healthcare, both of which are normally subsidized by the government. Parents that have multiple children may be discriminated against in other ways; they may get unequal benefits at work or be less likely to earn a promotion or raise. 

There are a variety of exceptions to the one-child policy. Families who live in rural areas, parents who do not have any siblings, and minorities can all have more than one child. Likewise, parents whose first child is physically or mentally disabled are allowed to have another child. This again suggests the idea that the disabled are considered less-worthy humans in today’s society, and is another example of the stigma associated with the disabled.

Since the introduction of the one-child policy, the fertility rates in China have dramatically decreased, from five births per woman in the 1970s to 1.5 in 2011. This decrease in fertility is accompanied by a decrease in the prevalence of females. In Asian society, males are seen as more valuable than females. This originated with the idea that males can do more work on a farm than females, and can also provide more financial stability than females. Because of this, and the pressure from the government to have only one child, many female fetuses are aborted or female infants are abandoned or put up for adoption. The same trend is seen in India, where between 4 million and 12 million females have been aborted since 1980. This disturbing fact illustrates the lack of value Asian culture has for females. The regular abandonment and abortion of females in China can be viewed as a genocide of sorts. Millions of innocent lives are taken or devalued, simply because they are not males. Despite this, the Chinese government says it will not repeal the policy until at least 2015. 

U.S.A. stats for 2005, Alan Guttmacher Institute; Australian stats for 2003, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; Canadian stats for 2005, Statistics Canada; China stats from China Daily, 2009; U.K. stats for 2004, U.K. Department of Health (The Epoch Times)

The one-child policy can be seen as encroaching on the human rights of Chinese parents to choose the family size and composition that they want. By promoting phrases like “One is good, two is okay, three is too many,” the Chinese government imposes its idea of the ideal family onto its citizens, forcing them to conform to the rules they deem fit. Limiting child size to one is unfair and unwise, from both a biological and sociological point of view. By decreasing the amount of offspring produced, parents are unable to spread their genes and increase genetic diversity. Having multiple children also ensures that at least one survives to reproductive age, whereas a single child may die early. Moreover once parents reach old age and need to be taken care of, the burden falls upon the single child. This can be taxing to the child both financially and emotionally. Having multiple children would spread the responsibility, leading to greater care for the parents and less stress for the children.

China’s one-child policy has caused a marked decrease in the number of females, and has placed an unnecessary pressure on families to produce males. Rather than creating the family that they want, parents are forced to conform to the government’s strict standards and limit their procreation. 

Although the policy has been effective at moderating population levels, there are less restrictive ways to limit growth, such as requiring parents to space out births. Unfortunately, the one-child policy in China will be around in China for at least a few more years, during which time an innumerable number of females will be aborted or abandoned.

The Eugenics of Prenatal Screenings

If you had the ability to design your child, would you?

Prenatal screenings have been around since the early 1980s, and have traditionally been used to check for birth defects or medical complications in fetuses. Recent technology, however, has made some genetic alterations to fetuses possible. As this technology grows, so does a host of ethical and moral issues concerning how far parents should go when screening for various traits.

The majority of prenatal tests serve a positive role for both the parents and the babies. They are used to determine various fetal traits such as blood type, nutrient levels, and gender, and are also used to monitor the general health of the developing baby. Some prenatal tests look for various genetic or birth defects, such as Down syndrome, cleft palate, cystic fibrosis, or spina bifida. These early screenings allow doctors to plan for surgery if necessary, and also give parents a chance to prepare emotionally and financially if their baby has a serious disease. This is all fine and well as far as ethics are concerned.

Things quickly get sticky, however, once the option of abortion comes into play. With the knowledge that their child will have a difficult and financially-costly life, parents may choose to end a pregnancy if they find out their child has a major disease such as Down syndrome. While the ethics of abortion are a completely different argument, the main issue raised here is whether it is right or not to judge the future life of a child based on a disease or defect. It also brings into question the role of disabled persons in our society and the stigmas associated with them.

As sad as it may sound, disabled people generally are not treated as equals in modern American society. Those with genetic defects, particularly Down syndrome, are viewed as less-competent humans and are treated as such by others, whether intentionally or not. If parents decide to end a pregnancy once it is established that their child has Down syndrome, they are indirectly admitting that disabled people are less worthy of life than healthy people. Such a viewpoint, even if it is not explicitly expressed by the parents, is a form of modern eugenics. It is a way to promote healthier genes by preventing “inferior” genes from proliferating in the gene pool.  

Terminating a pregnancy based on prenatal tests also implies that the life of the disabled child would not be fulfilling or worth the work. Yes, raising a disabled person in society comes with its fair share of challenges; but so does raising any child. A recent study in the American Journal of Medical Genetics (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajmg.a.34293/full) surveyed parents of Down syndrome children. It was found that “79% of parents felt their outlook on life was more positive because of their Down syndrome child.” Furthermore, the “overwhelming majority of parents surveyed reported that they are happy with their decision to have their child with Down syndrome.” Thus despite the stigma associated with disabled children, they can actually have a positive effect on their environment. 

Aside from disease screenings, other prenatal technologies exist that are less vital to fetal health. Emerging technology allows for the selection of a small number of traits to be present in a baby. For example, it is possible to greatly increase the chances of having either a boy or a girl, depending on the parents’ preference. Although limited to a few traits now, it is possible that in the near future genetic modifications will allow anything from physical aspects to personality to be chosen before birth. 

Is this really a good idea though? One problem with choosing physical traits is that it is a way for parents to force their ideals onto their children. Affinity for cosmetic features such as eye or hair color is completely subjective and varies with culture. By choosing these traits, parents are essentially asserting that one trait is superior to another. For instance, German parents might all choose babies that have blonde hair and blue eyes. This can lead to a phasing out of other traits from the gene pool, and is another form of modern eugenics.

Opponents to genetic modification raise another point—is it right for the parents to choose what their baby looks like? By predetermining what the baby will look like, the parents play God. Obviously choosing the look of your baby is not a natural processes; it deprives the feeling of surprise and wonder from having a child. Moreover, it violates the rights of the unborn baby; the baby did not get a say in whether it wanted to be modified or not. This argument is countered by the idea that unborn babies are the property of the parents. Regardless of the side taken, genetically modifying a baby changes it forever, as the modification cannot be undone. 

Finally, if parents go through the processes of designing their baby and it does not end up like they wanted, they will be disappointed. This might cause them to resent the baby or treat it differently than if they had not chosen its traits.

Prenatal screenings have been very helpful in discovering diseases in babies and preparing parents for any complications that might arise. But these technologies are being used for increasingly superficial reasons, and may eventually culminate in designer babies. With prenatal technology continuing to improve every day, the ongoing ethical debates associated with genetic modification of fetuses will not come to an end anytime soon. It is important to stay informed on all sides of this debate in order to make an educated decision when the time comes to have a baby of your own.