The Two Sides of Genetic Manipulation in Nature

Scientific methods capable of eradicating pests or altering the abilities of disease-carrying mosquitoes are on the rise. However, these advancements raise serious ethical questions about the science. Do humans have the right to permanently alter nature? According to AFP, the growing technology of genetic modification in organisms through DNA manipulation is not only a topic of discussion in scientific circles but has also caught the attention of environmentalists. One of the most controversial types of this research is called 'gene drive,' which alters the genes of carriers from parents to offspring in animals, thereby creating a rapid change in the species of that organism. For example, in one of these studies, genetic manipulation has resulted in all mice born on an island being male. Thus, the mouse population on this island will become extinct in one generation. Another example is the preservation of endangered birds in the Hawaiian Islands, achieved through genetic manipulation of mosquitoes that carry avian malaria. Genetic engineering prevents the transmission of this disease from these mosquitoes. Proponents of genetic manipulation believe that this work prevents environmentally damaging spraying and is the best method to combat invasive and dangerous organisms. However, opponents argue that these actions, by interfering with the ecosystem cycle, will permanently change the face of life on Earth. They claim that these changes have no way back. Dr. Kevin Esvelt, a professor at MIT in the United States and one of the scientists in favor of genetic manipulation, says, 'As a scientist who has worked in this field, I am particularly concerned because we scientists are morally responsible for the outcomes of our work.' He believes that any genetic change or technology that leads to environmental alteration in the laboratory should first be announced to the public. He states, 'If something goes wrong in the laboratory, people outside the laboratory are also affected. This means that if something is done behind closed laboratory doors, as is the traditional method in science, people who may be affected by the results of these experiments are not given the opportunity to speak and make decisions.' However, other scientists do not necessarily think this way. Chris Farmer, director of the Hawaiian bird conservation program, says, 'One of the scariest things about working in the protected area of Hawaii is that there is no other way to save these birds from malaria.' 38 bird species in these islands have been wiped out due to malaria, and the population of 21 out of the remaining 32 species is severely at risk. Farmer believes that not using new technologies will lead to the extinction of these birds.