Environmental

A major aim in the genetic modification of agricultural crops2 has been to reduce the use of environmentally harmful inputs, creating crops which are cheaper to grow and more environmentally friendly. Use of agricultural chemicals/biologics (such as pesticides and herbicides) poses a threat to the environment and often to human health as well and so a reduction in the use of these products will be beneficial. Some of the negative environmental effects of pesticides are listed by (Dinham 1993, p. 64) as: ‘water pollution, soil degradation, insect resistance and resurgence, the destruction of native flora and fauna, and some, as ozone depleters, contribute to the greenhouse effect’.

Two examples of plant genetic engineering for this purpose are the creation of crops that tolerate the application of glyphosate herbicides such as Roundup Ready™ soybeans, and crops with a ‘Bt’ gene inserted. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, spores of which, when ingested by certain insects, produce a toxin that kills the insect. The gene transferred to Bt crops is that which codes for production of this toxin. When crops have the Bt gene inserted they gain enhanced resistance to attack by certain pests and the need for applications of insecticide is significantly reduced.

Worldwide in 2009 almost 16.1 million hectares of GM cotton and 69.2 million hectares of GM soybeans were grown (ISAAA 2009). Data from the United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) indicate a reduction in the use of Bt on cotton and a switch to glyphosate herbicides (from more toxic alternatives) for soybeans since these new crops were introduced. The percentage of cotton acreage treated with Bt in the United States fell from 15 per cent in 1995 to 3 per cent in 2000 (no statistics are provided after 2000), and the percentage of soybean acreage treated with glyphosate rose from 20 per cent in 1995 to 91 per cent in 2006, while at the same time three more toxic alternatives fell in usage from 20 per cent to 2 per cent, from 26 per cent to 3 per cent and from 44 per cent to 3 per cent (respectively for trifluralin, pendimethalin and imazethapyr) (National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) ND). However, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has reported that, after the first few years of planting in the United States, glyphosate-tolerant crops have required increasing amounts of herbicide in comparison to conventional crops as weed resistance has become a significant problem (Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) 2004, pp. 35–6).

Genetic engineering of crops appears to have been successful in reducing the use of harmful agricultural pesticides, which should have environmental benefits, but it is unclear whether these benefits will persist in the long term.

Health

Advances in genomics (deciphering the genetic codes of living organisms) are providing greater understanding of diseases, which should lead to the development of better treatments and preventative measures. It is the opinion of the World Health Organisation (WHO) 2002 that, ‘Given the huge burden of infectious diseases in developing countries, this research has the potential to change the lives of millions of people’. Understanding of individual differences in susceptibility to diseases and in responses to treatments should allow tailoring of drugs to meet individual needs, providing more effective treatment and reducing undesirable side effects.

One disease to which modern biotechnology is being applied is malaria. The genome sequences of the mosquito Anopheles gambiae and of the most deadly malarial parasite Plasmodium falciparum were both published in October 2002. This information should enable more effective targeting of drugs and increase understanding of resistance mechanisms so drugs can be produced to work around them. Projects building on this information3 include attempts to eradicate the malarial parasite, to make mosquitoes resistant to the parasite and to make the mosquitoes infertile, as well as creating ‘new drugs, mosquito-repellents, insecticides and vaccines’ (Young 2002).

According to recent figures published by the World Health Organisation, malaria caused approximately 247 million cases of acute illness and over 880,000 deaths in 2006 (World Health Organisation (WHO) 2008a, World Health Organisation (WHO) 2008a) and is estimated to account for up to 40 per cent of public health expenditure in the worst affected countries (Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) 2006). Clearly finding a means of preventing transmission of this disease will be hugely beneficial. And this is only one of the diseases that modern biotechnology has the potential to help prevent, treat, eradicate or cure. Additionally, gene therapies (therapies that aim to correct expression of faulty genes) may help combat or prevent genetic diseases such as Huntington's disease, thalassaemia and sickle cell anaemia. Modern biotechnology has the potential to bring huge benefits to human health.

Development

Another motivation behind the genetic engineering of crops is to increase yields and improve nutritional value, both of which could make significant contributions to food security. The Food and Agriculture Organisation states that: ‘Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’ (Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) NDa). The number of undernourished people worldwide passed 1 billion for the first time in 2008 (Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) 2010). Populations in the developed countries account for less than 2 per cent of this figure.

The above-mentioned engineering of crops for herbicide and pesticide resistance, as well as having positive environmental impacts, should result in a reduction of crop losses and thus increase yield. Nutritional value of crops can be enhanced by inserting genes novel to the plant so that useful additional proteins are produced. A variety of rice known as ‘Golden Rice’ has been created that contains betacarotene (a precursor to vitamin A). Research on enhanced nutritional value is also underway on rice, sorghum, cassava and banana under the Grand Challenges in Grand Challenges in Global Health Programme ND. Micronutrient deficiencies are estimated to account for 1.62 billion cases of anaemia, almost 2 billion cases of iodine deficiency (741 million at clinical levels) and 250 million cases of childhood vitamin A deficiency each year (Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) 2003; World Health Organisation (WHO) 2008b, World Health Organisation (WHO) NDa). The nutritional value of crops used for animal feed can also be enhanced removing the need for and expense of additives. Food security is not only based on the availability of food, but modern biotechnology has great potential to improve that aspect of food security.

Protection against Misuse

In recent years the threat of attacks using biological weapons has been perceived to increase. Terrorist attacks aimed at causing mass casualties have raised awareness of the possibility of attacks with weapons of mass destruction (biological, chemical and radiological). Letters containing anthrax sent in late September and October 2001 in the United States demonstrated the widespread fear and disruption that even a low level, limited casualty, biological attack can have. All of this has led some states, particularly the United States, to increase their research and development into defence against such attacks. Governmental funding for biodefence in the United States has risen from $568 million in 2001 to over $6 billion budgeted for 2010, with a high of over $8 billion in 2005 (Franco 2009).

Genetic and genomic technologies can be extremely useful in such work against biological attack, assisting in creation of detection devices, vaccines, treatments and countermeasures. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) Biodefense Research Agenda released in 2002 ‘focuses on the need for basic research on the biology of the microbe, the host response and basic and applied research aimed at the development of diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines against these agents’ (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) 2002). The agenda particularly recognises the significance of genomics in aiding understanding of human immune responses and susceptibilities to biological agents. Protection against misuse extends beyond biodefence research, including for example health monitoring systems in which genomics can assist in the identification and tracing of disease outbreaks.

Summary

There is clear potential for many, often very important, positive consequences to emerge from the biotechnology revolution. These include improvements to human, animal and plant health, less environmentally damaging forms of agricultural production, enhanced food security and new means of defence against biological attacks. This is not the whole story, however, and there are potentially many negative consequences that should not be ignored when considering governance of the revolution.

Environmental

While the use of GE crops may bring environmental benefits through reduced use of agricultural chemicals, there is concern that they also threaten environmental stability. A prominent concern is that cultivation of GE crops will lead to reductions in biodiversity. Biodiversity is essential for environmental stability, and is recognised to form an essential resource base, valuable for food security and sustainable development. Indeed, as (Madeley 1996, p. 6) explains, ‘This diverse variety is an essential link in the food chain – it is the base for increased productivity and it gives humankind the capacity to adapt and develop crops for the future’.

The Convention on Biodiversity Secretariat defines biodiversitybiodiversitydefinition of as ‘the variety of life on Earth, from the simplest bacterial gene to the vast, complex rainforests of the Amazon’ (14 May 2009). GE crops could threaten biodiversity in several ways.

Current commercial cultivation of GE crops appears to encourage the spread of monocultural farming practices, which reduce the diversity of crops grown. Rather than cultivating a number of different varieties of a particular crop, farmers are encouraged to plant only the specific GE variety. Monocultures are more vulnerable to disease and pests because what affects one plant will affect the entire crop, instead of there being varied resistance (Madeley 1996, p. 9). Zilberman, Ameden and Qaim (January 2007, p. 73) point out that this is likely to be a particular problem for low income countries that have ‘limited capacity to genetically modify local varieties’ and so may rely solely on a limited range of GE varieties.

GE crops may also threaten biodiversity through effects on other plants both within and across species. GE crops may be advantaged against other wild relatives pushing them out of ecosystems. There is also the risk of horizontal gene transfer (transfer of the novel genetic trait to other plants), which could result in weeds developing insect resistance or herbicide tolerance. Or the genes may transfer to insects or bacteria causing them to take up resistance too. The increased use of glyphosate herbicides on tolerant GE crops has also promoted resistance in weeds (Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) 2004).

There is additional concern about the direct and indirect effects of GE crops on insects and other wildlife. They may affect and kill untargeted insects directly or have indirect effects on other wildlife because if insects are eradicated, this has knock-on effects for the rest of the food chain (Rissler 1996, p. 42). Even though certain insects may be viewed as pests by farmers, they also form part of larger ecosystems, and the effects of their removal from these systems may be extremely damaging (Pilnick 2002, p. 129). There is also the potential for toxic proteins to pass up the food chain.

Some examples of contamination via horizontal gene transfer have been found, including a study conducted in October and November of 2000 in which genetic contamination of non-GE varieties of maize was found in Mexico, which is a natural centre of maize biodiversity (Quist 2001), and reports of contamination of non-GE oilseed rape in Australia and Japan in August 2005 (ABC News Online 2005). Insect resistance to the Bt toxin has also been documented in field and laboratory studies but does not appear to be a significant problem for farmers yet (Griffits 2001; Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) 2004); in fact some studies have shown an increase in insect populations where Bt cotton is grown due to the reduction in use of insecticides (Marvier 2007; Pray 2007).

A complicating factor is that many of the environmental consequences of the introduction of GE crops are likely to be seen only over the longer term. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recognised this problem in its book on 21st Century Technologies (1998, p. 94): ‘Transgenic plants have been on the market only a few years and the effects of cultivation and consumption over a long period are not yet known. It is possible that ecological damage will only occur after ten, twenty or thirty years.’ The insects that affect cotton, for example, have historically taken ten to fifteen years to build resistance to new herbicides (Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) 2004).

Health

While biotechnology has the potential to achieve vast improvements in human health, current side effects to gene therapies have brought its use into question. This may just be a temporary obstacle until further advances are made, but it is a reminder that there is still a lot that is not known about the working of genes, exactly how a living organism reacts to genetic interventions and that ‘trying to alter genes without fully understanding their functions could have disastrous consequences’ (Pilnick 2002, p. 108).

An example of problematic side effects can be seen in the case of gene therapy given to several boys suffering from severe combined immunodeficiency disorder (SCID): ‘Gene therapy in this case involved providing a normal copy of the defective gene which causes SCID, so enabling the normal growth and development of the immune system’ (Pilnick 2002, p. 109). While the therapy seemed successful in treating the condition, it is also believed to have been responsible for causing leukaemia in two of the patients. The reason for the children developing cancer is suggested to be ‘because the gene inserted next to an oncogene, called Lmo2, in a single white blood cell. This could have triggered the cell to proliferate uncontrollably, causing the disease’ (McDowell 2003).

As well as problems in controlling the targeting of inserted genetic material, concerns have also been raised about the type of vectors used to carry the material into cells. These are generally modified viruses. The Human Genome Project (HGP) in its information on gene therapy (Department of Energy (DOE) 2009) states that the use of viral vectors ‘present[s] a variety of potential problems to the patient – toxicity, immune and inflammatory response, and gene control and targeting issues. In addition there is always the fear that the viral vector, once inside the patient, may recover its ability to cause disease’. Current gene therapies have not involved interventions that can be inherited; concerns are even higher about the effects of gene therapies where the genetic manipulation can be passed on from generation to generation.

Concerns about the health effects of consumption of GM foods have also been voiced. These include concern that allergens might be transferred along with intended traits or that new allergens could be created, and that antibiotic resistant, or other, genes may transfer to human gut bacteria, resulting in harmful combinations. These concerns are reflected in paragraphs 47 and 51 of the Codex Alimentarius Commission's (CAC) Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Produced Using Recombinant-DNA Microorganisms (2003a): ‘Genes derived from known allergenic sources should be assumed to encode an allergen and be avoided unless scientific evidence demonstrates otherwise’; ‘strains in which antibiotic resistance is encoded by transmissible genetic elements should not be used where such strains or these genetic elements are present in the final food’.

Very few long-term assessments of the effects of GM foods on human (or animal) health have been conducted, but in many cases there are unlikely to be additional negative impacts to those of the ‘conventional counterpart’4.

Development

While biotechnologies may provide benefits in the area of food security, there may also be negative effects stemming from the way in which they are applied. These could, for example, result from reductions in biodiversity (mentioned above) and also through changes in the patterns of ownership of seeds. Reductions in biodiversity undermine long-term food security because they reduce the available alternatives to currently cultivated crops. The vast majority of GM plants and seeds are developed by private companies in the United States and Europe. Because of the costs of research and development these companies feel that it is necessary and justified to protect their inventions through patents and other forms of intellectual property rights. It is the view of the International Chamber of Commerce 2002 that: ‘As with any emerging industry, the protection of intellectual property rights and progressive trade policies are essential to ensure continued innovation and to stimulate investment in biotechnology.’

Farmers wishing to use particular GE seeds will, therefore, generally have to buy them from private producers and in many cases will be prohibited from saving seed from one year to the next and from exchanging seeds with other farmers. Saving of seed is a widespread and long-standing practice in many developing countries and helps to keep the costs of farming down. Some GE seeds were developed with so-called ‘terminator technology’ which created sterile seeds that could be used for only one season. Due to resistance this technology has not yet been commercially applied.

If farmers are left with little choice but to use corporately owned seeds and plant varieties, at higher cost than traditional sources (such as exchange), this is likely to increase poverty, while pushing out indigenous varieties, leaving little to fall back on. The additional costs of GM seeds may thus be prohibitive, particularly to small-scale farmers in the developing world, meaning that they are unable to use the technology or gain any benefit from it. Indeed, a UCS report points to greater yield increases being achievable by, for example, a switch to organic methods in developing countries than through the use of GE crops (Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) 2009, p. 5). It is also the case that ‘the traits that have been introduced in GM crops to date tend to largely favour the existing farming practices of industrial agriculture, rather than meet the needs of the poor’ (Pray 2007, p. 193).

Misuse

Greater understanding of diseases and their interactions with humans can result in better treatments, but the same knowledge can be misused and many of the same technologies and techniques of modern biotechnology that can be applied to enhance defensive capabilities can also be put to hostile use. Several authors (for example Dando 1999; International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 2002; Meselson 2000; Rifkin 1998) point to the continuing historical trend for scientific developments to be used for hostile purposes.

The characteristics of specificity, environmental persistence, infectiousness and lethality are generally sought in the development of a biological weapon. Genetic engineering technologies have the potential to improve on these aspects, increasing the overall effectiveness of biological weapons, which can only serve to make them more attractive to states and terrorist groups. The International Committee of the Red CrossInternational Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in its initiative on Biotechnology, Weapons and HumanityBiotechnology, Weapons and Humanity (launched in 2002) identifies eight main concerns regarding the use of biotechnology in the production of biowarfare agents. These are:

1. Manipulation of known biological warfare agents

2. Harmless microbes being made dangerous

3. Development of hostile vaccinations

4. Research that may lead to unintended but dangerous outcomes

5. Artificial creation of extremely dangerous viruses

6. Undetected attacks that can alter bodily functions

7. ‘Genetic weapons’

8. Effects on agriculture and infrastructure (International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 2002).

Point 7 of this list relates to the fear that future genetic engineering technology may be able to create biological agents that can target specific groups of people. This possibility increases as genomic knowledge of humans and of disease-causing microorganisms expands. Much of this knowledge is being placed in the public domain. The genomes of several disease-causing microbes – including, controversially, the 1918 influenza virus – have already been sequenced and published and research is underway on establishing the genetic differences between groups that account for different susceptibilities to disease. This work is being carried out inter alia in the Haplotype Map Project of the US National Genome Research Institute. Its website states that ‘The haplotype map, or “HapMap” is a tool that allows researchers to find genes and genetic variations that affect health and disease’ (National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) 2009).

Summary

Due to the international context, while the impacts of the biotechnology revolution are and will continue to be globally felt they are not evenly distributed. Research and development for many applications of biotechnology is dominated by private companies based in the developed world and the products of biotechnology are focused on the needs of their populations. Such uneven distribution of the consequences of modern biotechnology seems likely to further widen existing gaps between rich and poor within and between the developing and developed worlds. In turn this will cause tensions that could impede the progress of the biotechnology revolution. Most importantly it is likely to prevent the much-needed advances in food security and health becoming a reality for the world's poor.

Developments in Human Genetics

Advances in human genetics have centred on two main areas: genomics which has provided and continues to provide new knowledge and understanding of the human genome, of the functions of certain genes, and their interaction with diseases and environmental influences; and genetic engineering which provides the tools to apply this knowledge, most successfully at present through genetic testing and screening, but also in the form of gene therapy.

Genomics is the study of genomes, i.e. the complete genetic sequences of organisms. Significant advances in the study of the human genome have taken place in the international, publicly funded, HGP and its private rival Celera, which both published draft sequences of the human genome in February 2001. The final draft of the human genome was announced in April 2003. The HGP is now concentrating on discovering and mapping the functions of genes and on understanding how they interact with each other and with external factors. A particular purpose of human genomics is to facilitate understanding of disease mechanisms and genetic disorders, and to identify the particular genes involved so that they can be targeted for treatment. Pharmacogenomics, a sub-discipline of genomics, is the study of how genes interact with certain pharmaceutical drugs. This work is done to improve the effectiveness of drugs, to avoid adverse reactions and to minimise side effects. This has the potential to lead to ‘tailor-made’ drug treatments designed to be safe and optimally effective for a particular individual's physiological responses.

New knowledge of human genes and their role in disease is already being applied through genetic screening, testing and gene therapy. The terms genetic screening and genetic testing are often used interchangeably, although they can be differentiated with genetic screening applying to whole population groups and genetic testing applying to individuals. Genetic testing is carried out to find out whether ‘abnormal’ genes or harmful genetic mutations are present and is done to test the individual for a particular disease/disorder, for the risk of developing a particular disease or for carrying a gene for a hereditary disorder. Genetic testing can be carried out on foetuses in the first few months of pregnancy, giving the option of termination if the foetus is shown to be carrying the mutation. More recently there has emerged the possibility of testing embryos in vitro and selecting only the ‘healthy’ embryos to be implanted. This technique is known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).

Once a gene has been identified as having a fault that makes it responsible for causing a disease or disorder and it has been located on the genome, then there is the possibility (at least for single-gene genetic disorders) of intervention to correct that fault. This can be done through the provision of ‘correct’ copies of the gene transmitted, usually through a viral vector, into the cells of the patient. This is known as gene therapy. While gene therapy has had little success so far and has run into some problems, there is still a lot of research being conducted in this area, and it will probably have more widespread application in the future. Gene therapy is, so far, being limited to interventions in somatic cells (e.g. cells that are not involved in reproduction) so that the genetic changes cannot be inherited.

Concerns about Possible Eugenic Outcomes

One concern that is frequently raised is that new genetic knowledge and technologies will be used for eugenic purposes. The literal meaning of eugenic is good gene. The idea behind eugenics is the improvement of the human gene pool by promoting the inheritance of ‘good’ genes (known as positive eugenics) and removing ‘bad’ genes from the gene pool (known as negative eugenics). Eugenic practices have a long but generally troubled history having been used to justify genocide and human rights abuses. The ability of new genetic technologies to be put to eugenic uses has raised alarm over a potential return to past abuses. (Appleyard 1999, p. 47) outlines the reasons for such concern:

Precisely because a belief in fundamental biological differences has led to such horrors in the past, and precisely because it is obvious that such knowledge was deliberately rigged to provide a spurious basis for bigotry, we should be very, very, cautious about using biological differences to explain behaviour, personality or even disease. The history of biological justifications is a bloody one, far too bloody for us ever to contemplate taking such risks again.

This is an extremely complicated issue; there are different types of eugenics and not all are perceived (by everyone) as bad. Societies face the problem of deciding where and how to draw the line when it comes to selecting ‘good’ genes over ‘bad’ genes. That sort of selection is already implicit in genetic testing, screening and therapy, where there is always some notion of a ‘faulty’ or ‘abnormal’ gene involved. Indeed (Rifkin 1998, p. 128) raises the point that all genetic engineering decisions are inherently eugenic choices involving the selection of one gene over another – ‘Everytime a genetic change of this kind is made, the scientist, corporation or state is implicitly, if not explicitly, making a decision about which are the good genes that should be inserted and preserved and which are the bad genes that should be altered or deleted.’

Current proponents of eugenics differentiate between past compulsory and enforced state-run eugenics programmes and the current opportunity to have voluntary eugenics based on individual choice. However, the idea of voluntary eugenics is also problematic if you recognise that society can exert a great deal of influence over individual choices and that lack of or mis-information about the meaning of test results and the quality of life of individuals suffering from certain diseases may also skew decisions. Several authors (for example Appleyard 1999; Hindmarsh 1998; Pilnick 2002) raise the point that many individual choices may have the cumulative effect of a national eugenics practice. In the words of (Hindmarsh 1998, p. 102): ‘one person's personal preference – when part of a broader trend involving many people – creates the injustice of discrimination against a whole class or category of other people’.

It is also necessary to look at the implications that determining certain traits (disease-causing or otherwise) as undesirable may have for people already living with those traits. What happens to their right to life? Will they feel fully valued by society? And will the state provide the social services necessary for them to take part in society? The WHO in its 2002 report Genomics and World Health explains why many disabled people object to prenatal genetic testing – ‘Disabled people see society's message in supporting genetic testing for the conditions they have as being that it would have been better if they had never been born, a message that they and others quite understandably reject.’

If we accept that genetic selection may be permissible under certain circumstances and for certain purposes (e.g. the provision of a stem-cell donor match for a seriously ill sibling) difficulties still arise over what should count as a genetic ‘fault’ that may be corrected, who gets to decide this and what the implications of this decision will be. While current uses of PGD and prenatal genetic screening have so far mainly been limited to avoiding serious genetic diseases or helping to save the life of an existing child, exactly the same techniques could be used to select embryos on the basis of a whole range of other traits, some of which have nothing to do with disease or impairment, such as sex or eye colour. (Appleyard 1999, p. 18) argues that this technology could in the future be used to create ‘designer’ babies:

More rapid DNA sequencing techniques and greater knowledge about the effects of specific genes would mean that a much larger range of conditions could be sought in the embryonic cell. These conditions need not be what we now classify as serious diseases. In time they could, for example, forecast anything from the eye colour, to the likely intelligence or sexual orientation of the child. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis could offer, to those who could afford it, a choice of what kind of child they would like.

If further research identifies such genes (and it seems likely that it will), selection could take place on the basis of intelligence or behavioural traits. There is even disagreement over what should count as a serious disease. The British Human Genetics Commission (HGC) in its first annual report Debating the Ethical Future of Human Genetics advised that: ‘PGD should be limited to specific and serious conditions’, while at the same time stating that ‘it has proved impossible to define what “serious” should mean in this context’ (Human Genetics Commission (HGC) 2001, pp. 45–6).

Since eugenics labels (implicitly or explicitly) particular traits as normal/abnormal, good/bad, desirable/undesirable it carries with it an implied relationship of superiority and inferiority between people which may well undermine the fundamental concept of humans being equal and worthy of equal respect, treatment and rights. (Appleyard 1999, p. 49) draws attention to the dangers of this:

The point is that once people decide you are a lesser creature, for whatever reason, either superstitious or scientific, there appears to be no limit to what cruelty they may inflict on you. And they are likely to inflict that cruelty feeling justified, because it is but a small step from believing another human being is inferior to believing that he is bad, dangerous or threatening to ‘superior’ beings.

Concerns about Discrimination

New genetic knowledge will provide opportunities for new forms of discrimination. If it is discovered that a particular gene makes someone susceptible to a particular disease, and that gene can be tested for, then insurers and employers (among others) may wish to discriminate on the basis of the presence of the gene in an individual's genome, whether or not the disease actually develops. Insurance premiums may be set higher or cover refused for individuals carrying certain genes. An example of this is a British woman who found herself unable to get insurance due to carrying the BRCA2 gene which has been implicated in some cancers (Boseley 2003). However, for the moment, most insurers have placed a moratorium on use of genetic test results. Employers may wish to avoid later litigation if a potential employee is found to have a gene that interacts with the particular working environment to cause a disease.

If genes are found that affect intelligence this may exclude certain people from mainstream schooling. A gene for a behavioural trait like aggression may lead to the refusal to employ someone, as could a gene for mental illness or a propensity to alcoholism. This is despite the fact that such traits are largely socially defined/constructed. Hindmarsh 1998, p. 101) state that: ‘A real danger therefore exists that a focus upon genetic factors will result in some people being classified in a manner which excludes them from employment, from education, from access to credit and other financial services, and even from being able to marry and form a family.’ They also point out that, ‘significantly, a person who is denied access may often not become ill or incapacitated and might never be so’ (1998, p. 101).

This same genetic knowledge may well be, in medical terms, extremely beneficial to the individual, allowing early diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease. For medical purposes some governments are encouraging the collection of individual genetic information. For example the British Department of Health stated in its Genetics White Paper (2003) that it would consider whether to collect genetic blueprints from all babies at birth. However, societies need to decide who should have access to the information, and what it should be used for. There is also a need to consider that an individual may not want to have this information (and may not want their doctor to have it either) – will they be given a choice? This is a real possibility. At present some people who may have Huntington's disease choose not to be tested for it because they do not want to know if they have it, since it cannot be treated. Also what would happen if an individual refuses to act on the genetic information by for example refusing to follow dietary and lifestyle advice despite being shown to have an increased risk of heart disease – would they be refused state funded health care/private health insurance?

New genetic knowledge is expected to revolutionise health care and may be very beneficial to society, but it carries many pitfalls and raises new and difficult dilemmas. It is also open to abuse and challenges ideas of privacy, confidentiality and informed consent.

Changes to Values and Concepts

The sanctity of life, particularly human life, is a powerful, fundamental and widely held concept and not only for religious reasons. It is a central concept of many, if not all, societies and the ‘right to life’ is seen as a basic and core human right (Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). Modern genetics and genomic technologies challenge some widely held ideas about life as they allow basic life processes to be manipulated and exploited in a deliberate manner. The right to patent genes (including human genes) is seen by many as an unwanted and unwarranted commodification of life. Genomics can reduce ‘life’ to a code, a form of information, open to intervention and ‘improvement’ by human hands. (Appleyard 1999, p. 134) explains what effect this might have: ‘There is no sanctity attached to the individual; rather he or she becomes a collection of characteristics, each of which can be judged on some scale of relative significance. At this point it becomes difficult to distinguish human beings from consumer goods.’ Many people thus view genetic technologies and particularly human genetics as fundamentally wrong.

There are also right to life issues raised by the use of prenatal genetic testing and PGD where the former often has abortion as the only alternative and the latter often entails the disposal of several embryos. Similarly there have been objections raised to the use of embryonic stem cells in research, where they have a huge potential to assist in therapies. Research using embryonic stem cells is banned in many countries at present due to moral and ethical objections, PGD is, however, allowed under certain circumstances, and prenatal genetic testing is now routine in many countries.

There are further problems raised by modern biotechnology for concepts of human rights and human responsibilities. What does the concept of a right to health now entail – does it include the right to have genetic faults corrected? The right to a dignified life is also challenged: what does it mean for someone's dignity if they were selected to be born on the basis that they would save the life of another? Further problems arise if genes are found that influence human behaviour – what does this mean for human autonomy and the concept of responsibility for one's own behaviour? If it is someone's genes that make them aggressive and violent, is it their fault if they murder someone? Are they less culpable? Could they have avoided the particular route they have taken? Should a different term of punishment be applied to such individuals? The example of a gene for aggression is used by (Pilnick 2002, p. 41): ‘Raising the question of what societies might practically do with this knowledge poses some uncomfortable answers. If aggression is linked to genetics alone, aggressive behaviour may be condoned or seen as inevitable. The principle of the individual's responsibility for their own behaviour is undermined.’

New genetic technologies are also redefining the social meaning of concepts such as health and sickness, disease and abnormality. The concept of health is widened beyond being free of symptoms, to being free of genetic defects, and perhaps even not having the propensity to suffer from certain diseases. Since every individual will have some ‘faults’ in their genome, does this then mean that everyone is ill? Some believe that such changes may reduce discrimination, since if everyone carries abnormalities, then this will be perceived as ‘normal’ – ‘Molecular biologists argue that, because the genetic tests they are developing will show that all of us are flawed in one way or another, these tests will bring an end to genetic discrimination’ (Hubbard 1993, p. 36).

But what will it mean for people to view themselves as unhealthy when there is nothing that can be done? Or to be prescribed life-long treatment for a disease that may never afflict them? This is likely to affect the provision of social services (particularly health care). There is also a fear that this focus on genetics as a cause of disease will lead to environmental factors being ignored and yet, basic sanitation, clean water and improved nutrition could save millions of lives each year (UNICEF, no date) and can be achieved at relatively low cost via application of existing technologies.

Concerns about Power and Control

Many of the concerns about the social implications of modern biotechnology stem from issues of power and control. Who will make the decisions? Who will have access to the information? And how will they be able/permitted to use it?

Social divisions may widen if access to the benefits of the new technologies is uneven. (Kitcher 1996, p. 198) raises the prospect of a future where the rich can afford to pay to have genetically guaranteed healthy and intelligent children, while the poor cannot and find that resources have been diverted from social services and national health care to genetic technologies that benefit the few. New social divisions that occur along genetic lines are feared, particularly if some form of eugenics goes ahead. (Hubbard 1993, p. 36) also point out that discrimination is more likely to affect the already disadvantaged: ‘Like other forms of discrimination, genetic discrimination will be felt most by people who are already stigmatised in other ways. People with access to power and resources are more likely to be shielded.’

Summary

Advances in modern biotechnology have many social implications, although it is difficult to be certain of what the precise effects might be. The new technologies make possible a new form of eugenics, they may encourage genetic discrimination, and they challenge core concepts such as the meaning of life, health and normality. They may create new social divisions and/or exacerbate existing ones, and create tensions and clashes of values. And these advances could undermine the ideals of basic human rights, shared by all. (Appleyard 1999, p. 3) provides a good summary point: ‘Genetics is … a historically unique combination of philosophy, science and technology that confronts humanity with the most fundamental questions, our answers to which will determine the human future.’

Like the other impacts of modern biotechnology, the social impacts will be global, but not evenly spread, and some societies are likely to have greater capacities to cope with social change and to diffuse any resulting tensions. While states may choose to prohibit certain uses of the new technologies to protect their social values, the global nature of the biotechnology revolution presents problems for this – research and application of the new technologies can simply move elsewhere. This means that a global response is required.