The benefits of, and peoples concerns about, the use of recombinant DNA technology Essay Example

emerging. This was demonstrated when a pig bacterium that was unintentionally created proved fatal and was stolen from a laboratory in September 2002, underscoring the need for immediate action.

The Dean of the veterinary school, S. Lonnie King, stressed the importance of maintaining biosecurity measures while conducting crucial research and stated that "we need more biosecurity, but at the same time we must keep doing this kind of research" (New Scientist 14th September 2002). The theft incident serves as proof of how easily dangerous pathogens can be obtained, supporting the ICRC's call for restricted access to hazardous microbes and knowledge.

In September of 2002, the ICRC's Robin Coupland stressed the importance of taking precautionary measures to prevent catastrophic events. Due to incidents like the anthrax attacks and 9/11, governments worldwide are urging biologists to refrain from publishing their findings - a previously rare practice. In 2018, American researchers discussed how they used DNA ordered through mail to create a polo virus and cautioned that this method could be applied to even more dangerous viruses. Scientists funded by the US Department of Defense were informed in February 2002 that they may need their research scrutinized before publication. However, some believe this could limit freedom of speech and academic liberty beyond weapons research. On January 18th, 2003, The New Scientist published an article stating that although scientists usually keep their work confidential, maintaining secrecy may pose risks as rogue states or terrorists may obtain sensitive information intended only for authorized parties.

According to Claire Fraser, the President of the Institute for Genomic Research in Maryland, the constantly growing databases of microbial genomes offer a partial list of all potential

genes associated with pathogenicity and virulence. This provides a vast array of options for selecting the most deadly combinations.

) The ease of obtaining information on bio weapons is demonstrated once again. Crop plants are modified by inserting genes for herbicide resistance, allowing them to survive when strong herbicides are applied. There are worries that this resistance gene could spread to closely related weed species, producing an "invincible superweed". Almost 70% of conventional crops in the US now contain genetically modified material, which has dire consequences for organic agriculture and poses a significant health risk in the future, according to Geoffrey Lean. This type of weed control promotes the extensive use of herbicides, for which we know none of the long-term effects on soil, organisms or humans.

In a groundbreaking study, British scientists dealt a major blow to the argument in favor of genetically modified crops, demonstrating that their growth could have negative impacts on the environment (Michael McCarthy). The majority of crop research is frequently conducted by chemical-producing companies, who stand to profit from extensive chemical usage. However, given that these chemicals require significant energy to produce and have a finite supply, a reliance on them is not sustainable in the long term. These companies generally do not explore alternative methods of farming that utilize fewer fertilizers and pesticides.

It is possible that genetically modified plants designed for herbicide resistance could escape test plots through either pollen or seeds. These plants may develop into "super weeds" that are difficult to manage. Recently, a fungus has been genetically altered to be more potent in killing weeds. However, it also harms crop plants and cannot be

used to combat velvetleaf weed due to its similarity to cotton which makes it hard to attack with herbicides.

According to the New Scientist publication from September 28th, 2002, diseases are suitable candidates for bio control since they typically only impact one type of plant. However, the potential consequences of genetic modification were displayed when a genetically modified fungus caused unpredictable results and demonstrated the importance of careful containment, even though it was not released. Jane Rissler from the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC expressed concern about the unexpected outcomes of genetic engineering and perceived toxin insertions as a warning sign.

Experts warn that biotechnology could be used to develop crop-targeting weapons. By introducing pesticide-producing genes, transgenic crop plants could hasten the evolution of insect populations that are resistant to pesticides, posing a potential hazard to the environment. Despite these concerns, some argue that the risk is not greater than the widespread use of chemical pesticides. Regardless, it is crucial that comprehensive field tests be conducted before genetically modified crops are permitted for commercial cultivation in the UK.

Days before ministers are expected to approve the commercial planting of a type of GM maize, Members of Parliament (MPs) have told the government that trials on the maize were invalid as the ordinary maize used as a comparison in tests with its GM equivalent was sprayed with atrazine, a powerful weed killer that is soon to be banned across the European Union. The trials have been deemed as "an unsatisfactory, indeed invalid comparison" by a unanimous all-party committee report, which has called for new trials to last at least four years. Despite this, it is believed

that the drought resistant crop is less harmful to wildlife than its conventional version. (BBC News Online by Alex Kirby)

Transgenic salmon populations have been created, resulting in faster growth rates and quicker harvests. However, there is concern that these fish could outcompete other species for food, leading to their extinction and disrupting the natural balance of food webs. Controversy surrounds genetic modification, particularly among certain religious groups who may object to consuming products derived from specific transgenic organisms. For instance, Hindus view cows as sacred animals and Jews and Muslims consider pigs to be unclean. Additionally, genetic engineering presents the possibility of inserting genes into human eggs or sperm.

The act of altering human characteristics in order to prevent premature death and achieve desirable traits is morally wrong due to the unpredictability of the consequences. It could result in the creation of a privileged genetically modified race, potentially leaving natural society as a lower class. Furthermore, concerns arise around the strict drug regime that GM humans may need to follow, the impact on their mental and physical well-being, and the strain on the already over-stretched NHS. Additionally, such alterations remind some people of past programmes aimed at eradicating less dominant ethnic groups. The dilemma faced by parents after foetus screening - whether to abort a baby with a genetic disorder - may extend to adult screening for genes that predispose individuals to genetic disorders.

Insurance companies may discriminate against individuals who have certain disorders, despite being perfectly healthy. Cissy Bennett explains that individuals considered "at risk" for Huntington's are often denied health insurance, and genetic screening for the disease costs approximately $5,000 and can be very emotionally

taxing. While there are many concerns surrounding recombinant DNA, efforts are being made to mitigate some of the risks as awareness grows.

Research on recombinant DNA will continue to pose a threat to both the environment and the human race, despite its obviousness.