The Ethics Behind Genetics – Richard Yones

In Star Wars Episode II Attack of the Clones, Obi-Wan Kenobi steps off his shuttle onto the planet Kamino in order to track an intergalactic killer. Instead of finding him, he stumbles upon a secret clone army being developed for the Republic, one clone exactly the same as the one before him. They are all being based on one man, Jango Fett, who happens to be the killer that Obi-Wan is tracking this whole time. He was picked because he is of an optimal body type and a skilled shooter; he was a perfect template for an intergalactic army.

Don’t start sweating because you aren’t a Star Wars junkie and have no idea what I’m talking about, this really goes beyond the point here. During the year of Attack of the Clone’s release (2002), I am not sure that anyone actually thought that engineering an army of men who were equally lethal, loyal, and dangerous was possible. Just the mere idea of being able to look at a person’s genome was unrealistic enough; why even try to modify it? Potential advancements in the field of genetic modification ⁽¹⁾, such as CRISPR, have turned questions of possibility into questions of ethics.

Should parents be allowed to genetically engineer their offspring? If so, to what extent should this be allowed? If not, what are the foreseeable dangers of furthering research on genetic engineering?

What Are You Even Talking About?

To get us started, we must look at what is exactly meant by genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is defined as “a group of applied techniques of genetics and biotechnology used to cut up and join together genetic material and especially DNA from one or more species of organism and to introduce the result into an organism in order to change one or more of its characteristics.”⁽²⁾ Lengthy definition, I know. Let me break it down for you:

Genetic engineering appears to do one thing to achieve one purpose. It changes or influences the genetic makeup of an organism in order for that organism to exhibit one or multiple desired traits. In a sense, it is like me baking a cake. In order for me to make a regular cake exhibit chocolate taste, I would need to add some cocoa powder to make the cake show that specific characteristic.

The focus of this article is not to outline all the new and shiny technologies that can allow us to influence our genetics nor am I determining the potential of genetic engineering. Instead, I hope to point to the direction that modifying the genome can take us.

The Positives: Disease Therapy

The concept was born out of a need to create a cure for certain genetic diseases. CRISPR can be used to modify disease-causing variants in the genomes of embryos and to remove such variants for other generations as well.⁽³⁾ Doctors could edit immune cells to better fight cancer or edit blood cells to cure sickle cell anemia. There are many diseases that don’t currently have a physical cure, so genetic therapy could prove to be an effective alternative to remedy these diseases. It is for this reason that genetic engineering seems wildly attractive, for it supplies a possible solution to a problem that has large urgency. It appears that millions of lives can be saved through this medical practice. If the medical community can remove a child’s ability to have cystic fibrosis in the future or cure a current victim of cystic fibrosis, why shouldn’t they be able to?

The Other Side

Like with every advancement in society, whether it be technological or, in this case, medical, there are several compelling arguments against the usage of genetic engineering.

1. Health Risks

How would pregnancies be affected as a result of using altered embryos? The medical community overall has very little conclusive evidence over the safety of mothers and even modified offspring.⁽⁴⁾ Genetic engineering could result in many miscarriages and paternal deaths. Sure, this problem could be resolved with further development, but performing human clinical trials presently could prove costly.

2. The Class System

A perhaps off-putting characteristic of genetic modification is its cost. Editing the genome of an individual is likely to be costly, especially if many specific demands are desired. The only families that could afford such adjustments would be upper-class individuals.⁽¹⁾ Such families, in theory, could create model children with peak physical and intellectual traits. What results is an increasingly polarized class system. Society would have an upper-class dominated by offspring that genetically are better off for future success, and a middle-class and lower-class with unedited offspring that are simply disadvantaged compared to upper-class offspring. With very limited social class movement resulting, modifications could create classes of individuals defined by the quality of their genome.⁽¹⁾

3. Discrimination

For a world that so publicly expresses their dislike for racism and discrimination, genetic engineering in a sense reinforces our biases.⁽⁴⁾ Particularly in South Asian regions, having lighter skin is a sign of high class and poise. ⁽⁵⁾ If people in that area can choose traits that make their children have lighter skin, that beauty trend would be further enforced. This goes beyond just appealing traits; gender distribution is at stake as well. In 2015, it was reported that 21 countries had an abnormal distribution of males and females. ⁽⁶⁾Many of these cultures just have a preference for sons rather than daughters. That being said, the combined technology of sonograms and genetic engineering could allow people to know the sex of their child as well as decide it as well. Should this technology become more generalized or more accessible, this could throw the balance of gender off balance: a harmful abundance of men compared to women or vice versa. Humanity would be disadvantaged as it pertains to reproduction, for there simply wouldn’t be enough women to create life with.

Physical vs. Psychological, Present vs. Future

What’s interesting about the arguments against genetic engineering is that most potential negative consequences occur far into the future. The benefits of the system can be seen almost instantly. There is tech, such as CRISPR, at the ready to spot genetic diseases. Saving the lives of many presently seems to be the most important matter since it is the most present issue. It is for that reason that it can perhaps be difficult to turn down the continuation of research in this field. On the contrary, since the technology currently isn’t widespread or advanced, it is easy to write off the dangers as outlandish slippery slopes. The overarching negative consequences could be considered too farfetched or unrealistic to be believable simply because they are futuristic.

We must recognize here that furthering the research has physical benefits but a lot more psychological and emotional detriments. In the future, the medical community could find possible cures to multiple currently incurable diseases. Genetic engineering, while the most straightforward route, is not the only solution to world disease. Furthermore, the mere possibility of intense class and trait discrimination looms large. Logically, genetic engineering has the potential to output the negative consequences mentioned above. While we can’t rule out the good that gene therapy could do, foresight can tell us that allowing genetic engineering to advance and apply itself past what’s necessary has extreme fallouts.

Look! Sources.

“What Are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing?” National Human Genome Research Institute, 3 Aug. 2017
“Genetic Engineering.” Merriam-Webster
“Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos?” National Geographic, 26 Nov. 2018.
“What Is Human Gene Editing?” Center for Genetics and Society
Pe, Roger. “Yes, Asia Is Obsessed with White Skin.” Inquirer Business, 1 Oct. 2016
Brink, Susan. “Selecting Boys Over Girls Is A Trend In More And More Countries.” NPR, 26 Aug. 2015

Tailgating Service Project – Richard Yones

Hey guys! This is my post about our Tailgating Service Project. Our table bro gang, Stephen, Nate, David, Will, and I did our project on the Saturday of the Missouri game. We had zero idea what we were doing at all, but we really took matters into our own hands and had a blast. When it comes to waste management information, tailgating gave us the perfect excuse to help educate others about their trash. We were given a ton of cool resources to give out: recycling and trash bags, cards with recycling information, and pins with cute graphics on them! We weren’t given any specific directions, so we just went around to various tents informing people.

Being intellectually stimulating, relevant to the audience, and creative were all things that were sort of in the back of our heads as we presented to people. We didn’t want to come off as just plain and boring activists. While talking to others, we made sure to be welcoming and engaging in order to make sure that people were at least interested by what we had to say. I think the stuff that we were able to give out gave us a creative edge as well.

Especially when getting started, it was a little nerve-racking to actually go out and talk to people. It’s not like we thought the people were going to kill us for going to talk to them, but we had a false feeling that we weren’t going to be received well. Recycling isn’t exactly the most exciting thing to get people riled up about on a game day, unfortunately. After mustering up the courage to talk to one group though, it was much easier to continue talking to others! We eventually learned that a little confidence goes a long way and confidence builds as the ball starts rolling. Our audience actually wanted to listen to us; it was just getting over a mental barrier that kept us from getting going. Analyzing that tailgaters weren’t going to come to us, we had to become more proactive and outgoing.

If there was anything that we could do better, it would be that we become more prepared prior. On the front end, we were too preoccupied with how cool all the stuff looked instead of actually preparing what we were going to say. If we did, we probably would’ve had more confidence going into the project.

Doing this project helped me see the actual real-life applications of what I had been learning in class. You always hear all the time about how we should be recycling and various methods to conserve, but when it comes to telling others about that in a nonacademic setting is sometimes awkward but so necessary. If we really want to change the culture surrounding trash and waste, we must become comfortable enough to talk about these issues. Serving in this way aided me in seeing the relevance and importance of the material in our Biology class. I get to see firsthand how the way I dispose of my trash affects my environment and the attitudes of others.

That being said, I really do feel like projects such as these are very effective. The effects of serving and presenting in real life are more far-reaching than one could expect. Not only do we get to live out what we are taught about waste management, but we also pick up valuable communication experience and confidence builders. Despite being mainly environment wired, I can see how this experience can influence my future endeavors in my studies as a Marketing major.

Overall, this project was something that was super cool to serve in and experience. I’ve never been in a class that has emphasized real-world involvement as much as this biology class has, and to be able to do it with some cool friends who share the same initiative as me is so rewarding (have you seen any kids happier about putting up a trash bag than us?). Not only did we get to take the dopest team selfies ever, but we got to do a project that benefits the UGA community as a whole. As a group, we just had a ton of fun serving a greater cause.

Climate Negotiation Simulation – Richard Yones

During these past two classes, we have been simulating a World Climate negotiation to what actually went into making decisions about the global climate. My group was tasked to represent India in these negotiations, and other groups represented the United States, China, the EU, Developing Nations, and Developed Nations. The goal was to collectively create a plan of what each global area should do to reduce global warming to 2 degrees by the year 2100. The problem was that each country/region had its own domestic problems to solve as well, and this made it hard to come to a collective decision. For India, our CO₂ emissions were the lowest out of all the regions at the current date and would be second-lowest in the year 2100. Reducing our emissions was the least of our concerns; the main goal was to pull our people out of poverty. This goal would be impossible to do so if we immediately reduced emissions, so we decided to peak our emissions in the year 2040, and then reduce our emissions by 1% each year starting a few years after. We asked for a modest $30 billion to use towards transitioning out of fossil fuels, and we even pledged to slow deforestation and promote afforestation. We felt as if we were doing our part in this climate crisis while also looking out for our domestic interests.

Once everyone plugged in their initial plans to the simulator, we all found out that we had barely made a dent in helping the environment. As a whole, each plan was flawed (except for the EU’s plan, we love the EU). One area asked for an unreasonable amount of money while others did not give enough. Negotiations actually got really heated because no one could seem to agree on a middle ground. It was very difficult to compromise on the needs of others without giving up some of your own resources. At the end of the day though, we all had to cut our emissions more. After the negotiations, many regions pledged money (the EU ended up pledging even more, we love the EU) to solve the domestic and climate problems of India and the developing nations. Collectively, we found that promoting afforestation and reducing deforestation did close to nothing when it came to CO2 emissions. For us, we agreed to cut our emissions a considerable amount more, and many other nations and areas followed suit. By the end of class, we still ended up over 2 degrees of warming.

This begs the question then; can anything be done to cut emissions any lower? In the simulation, there were only 6 groups in the negotiations, and no sound consensus was found. Juxtapose that to a real negotiation where there would likely be way more than 6 committees. There are just so many barriers to consider that go deeper domestically than just climate in real life, and that makes it very difficult to make a decision. One barrier is the cost of transitioning to a new power source such as solar or wind power; not every country has the resources to do so. Another barrier is technological, for not all countries have the sophisticated tech to connect this new power to grids across the country. The removal or reduction of fossil fuels will cause the huge companies of that industry to fail, reducing major tax revenue. These barriers affect countries globally and make it difficult to come to a consensus.

Creating change in the USA won’t be easy either. Fossil fuel energy is implemented in almost every aspect of our lives, a reduction in such energy would require us to change the way we live almost completely. That being said, in order to enact change, we must slowly decrease our reliance on fossil fuels without making an inconvenience for the American people. Mass transit and efficient homes could be a start.

Watershed Walk Reflection – Richard Yones

Hey! I’m Richard Yones, and this is my Watershed Reflection.

In this picture, there is a storm drain cover with a “No Dumping” sign next to it. This storm drain was found near the UGA Veterinary College building. What I noticed about this picture is not the particular drain sign, but instead the numerous storm drains labeled as such on campus. If I had a penny for every “No Dumping” sign we saw on this scavenger hunt alone, I would probably have about 13 pennies (honestly, that’s a lot of pennies). That being said, this one picture alone obviously doesn’t capture the number of storm drains in the area, much less the whole campus. Before coming to UGA, I had never seen a “No Dumping” sign by a storm drain; I didn’t even know they existed. I believe many people would walk past the drains on campus and write them off as just useless holes in the ground, and most people wouldn’t even care enough to read the signage. The reason that we cannot dump things into the storm drain is that it leads directly to the river. The presence of so many storm drains like this one tells me that UGA is a college campus that values its environment and the land it lives on. In a world that has little regard for water safety, it is comforting to see notices like this posted all over campus.

Richard Yones!

Look! A picture of me hanging off the edge of a 4-story parking deck (sorry mom)

2. In high school, I took the basic science courses needed to graduate, (chemistry, biology, etc.) and also took AP Physics which was a BIG mistake. After that dismal experience, I never took another AP science course. I enjoyed chemistry class the most probably because my teacher let me eat my pizza rolls in class

3. Quite honestly, I signed up for this course to get the credit and my honors requirement fulfilled. Upon looking at the syllabus and seeing service outreach opportunities as a proponent of the course, I’m really excited to go serve and learn.

4. The Outreach with Clarke Central High School Student seems very interesting to me. Seeing the way organisms become more and more resistant to their environment (in this case anti-biotic resistant bacteria) has always been of interest to me. Being able to study that alongside other high school students could be very rewarding.

5. The whole idea behind these biological service opportunities is the fact that there is some environmental need that has been unmet, and that we can have an impact to change that. As it is related to civic engagement, these opportunities could help change the culture of the community as it pertains to trash build-up or human interruption of biological processes.

6. GENETICS. Unit 3 is all about genetics, and I am HERE for it. Seeing the way that our DNA programs us to grow in a certain way and commands our body to perform functions necessary to life is very interesting to me. Furthermore, seeing how traits are passed down to make certain organisms better (or worse!) is a fun process to track.