In addition to many other labels, the 21st. century has been also been referred to as the Biotech Century. This is in view of the increasing role of biotechnology in modem society. Biotechnology can be defined as any technology using microorganisms or biological material for technological purposes. Brewing or fermentation is actually a form of biotechnology.
However, in contemporary discussion, biotechnology is most closely associated with gene-technology. Gene, or deoxyribonucleic acid is the spiral-staircase-shape molecule which carries all the information on the make-up of a human being. This year actually marks the 45th. anniversary of Watson and Crick’s description of the chemical structure of the DNA.
The human DNA, which resides in the nuclei of every cell, is like a biological computer program. It is made up of 23 pairs of chromosomes. The chromosomes in tum, contain the genes that code for proteins and other products that our bodies need to function.
It is estimated that our 23 pairs of chromosomes have between 50 000 to 100 000 genes. Each gene consists of smaller coding or information storage unit s known as bases. All the information pertaining to a single human being is captured in the 3 to 3.5 billion base pairs that form the human DNA.
Taken together, the bases, genes and chromosomes are known as the human genome. Scientists are now working on a massive 15-year Human Genome Project to learn more about the structure and function of all the genes and chromosomes. A Harvard molecular biologist, Walter Gilbert, appropriately described this project as the “Holy Grail of Molecular Biology”.
You’d probably be wondering whose genome are the scientists using as the benchmark of the human genome? Well, the identity of the individual has not been made known. Nevertheless he or she is supposed to represent a normal, healthy human adult.
Despite the reported discovery of new genes daily, as of late 1997 about 50000 of the human genes have been identified and sequenced. A mere 5000 of these have had their functions determined. Some of these are disease genes. The HGP, which is actually a genetic mapping effort, is expected to continue up to the year 2005.
This year also coincides with the 25th. anniversary of the discovery of gene splicing, otherwise known as genetic engineering. Although the major portion of human DNA remains obscure, the parts which have been unravelled have been subjected to various manipulations and modifications in the laboratory. This ability actually constitutes a new kind of power over life and death.
One of the first applications of this relatively young technique is in the field of medicine. Genetic engineering may help doctors develop ways to correct or compensate for some genetic defects. At the moment, there are numerous diseases attributed to genetic dysfunction and are passed on from generation to generation.
These include from the rather rare Huntington’s disease and Lou Gehrig’s disease, to the more common breast cancer and, even, infidelity. In 1990 gene therapy was pioneered by the American National Health Institute. Two children were diagnosed as having severe combined immunodeficiency or SCID.
A particular type of SCID, referred to as adenosine deaminase or ADA enzyme deficiency or bubble-boy disease, leaves the victim’s body without a proper defence. Thus, it is constantly threatened with infections. In the world’ s first approved gene therapy trial, doctors extracted white blood cells from the patients, inserted normal ADA genes into the cells and reinjected them.
The strategy was to have the blood cells producing enough natural ADA to boost the patients’ immune system considerably. Early results have been impressive. The patients can now survive outside their bubbles. However, later, questions were asked on the validity of the results, as a number of other therapies were concomitantly administered to the patients. There was no way to unequivocally relate the success of that therapy to gene therapy alone.
However, to be fair, gene-hunting is understandably tedious and, can be frustrating. A genome researcher had this to say, “it is like trying to find a burned-out light bulb in a house located somewhere between the East and West coasts of America without knowing the state, much less the town or street the house is on.”
Closer to home, many of us are aware of the case of a couple in Johore blessed with several offspring suffering from a rare hereditary disease referred to as Cockayne’s Syndrome. These .children’s development are severely impaired, physically and mentally.
Nevertheless, it is most heartening to note that despite being profoundly retarded, the children seem to be friendly and very interested in people. If they had managed to develop normally, many would look upon their personality in awe.
Although the advances in genetic engineering have thus far resulted in commendable scientific achievements, it also poses an inventory of real and potential hazards and creates new ethical conundrums.
Thus a Western scholar has this to say on technology-driven human reproduction. “There are more and less human ways of bringing a child into this world. I am arguing that the laboratory production of human beings is no longer human procreation, that making babies in laboratories – even ‘perfect’ babies – means a degradation of parenthood.”
This view is not unlike that opined by Britain’s Prince Charles on genetically-engineered crops, which he criticised for taking mankind into “realms that belong to God and to God alone.” The heir to the British throne recently wrote in an article for the London Daily Telegraph which included this comment. “I personally have no wish to eat anything produced by genetic manipulation, nor do I knowingly offer this sort of produce to my family or guests.”
However, diametrically opposed to this naturalistic viewpoint is that of those who regard the rational control of nature as one of the major achievements of human beings. According to this view, the ability to minimise the uncertainties and unpredictable aspects of human reproduction is one of the major achievements of human beings.
This is reflected in questions like, “Should we leave the fruits of human reproduction to take shape at random, keeping our children dependent on the accidents of romance and genetic endowment, of the sexual lottery or what one physician calls ‘the meiotic roulette of his parents’ chromosome? Or should we be responsible about it, that is, exercise our rational and human choice, no longer submissively trusting to the blind worship of raw nature?”.
A third position tends to mitigate the two extreme viewpoints. It accepts the natural reproductive process as preordained, and should be the best for the human interest. However, this middle-of-the-road position also argues that the development and use of innovative reproductive technologies, incorporating even genetic engineering, can be morally justifiable. This depends on the circumstances and reasons adduced.
At a recent seminar on “Islam and Ecology” organised by the Center for World Religions, at Harvard University, a Muslim scholar who spoke on the topic of “Genetic Engineering, Cloning and Al-Mizan or the Balance” , argued that since these technologies interfered with the natural reproductive process of human beings and preordained by the Creator, then they should not be adopted by Islam.
However, a proper and more thorough study needs to be done to look at all the relevant aspects of these techniques. As human beings are prescribed to procreate and propagate in the best possible forms and manner, then there should be no harm in adopting these technologies in an effort to cope with some of the uncertainties and inconveniences of the natural world.
And considering diseases like Cockayne Syndrome and many others, genetic technology appears to be the only method of avoiding future occurrence. Thus, on deciding if genetic engineering is permissible or otherwise, please let the jury be out a little bit longer.