Recombinant DNA and Ethics
Kaitlyn A. Ieradi
University of Phoenix: BIO/410

Recombinant DNA is a growing—and largely controversial—method of furthering scientific research and medicine. We unknowingly encounter products of recombinant DNA on a daily basis. The process involves the manual combination of genetic information from several different sources; ultimately creating an entirely separate organism with a set of genetic information that was otherwise not biologically probable. Molecules of all living organisms possess mutual chemical structures, making this method feasible. The difference lies within an organism’s unique nucleotide sequence. With great science comes great controversy. Although there have been many scientific breakthroughs via recombinant DNA, there are also questions as to whether or not the method is entirely ethical. Using recombinant DNA, scientists are equipped for complete genetic manipulation. They are able to invoke diseases, disorders, bacteria, and infection, for the purposes of learning, testing, and treatment trials. Mankind is very much against the idea of willingly putting any human being at risk under these circumstances. Legally, no one will be forced to participate against their will. However, animals do not fall under the same legality. It is very often that scientists will perform these experiments and procedures on animals to learn about, and expand on, their proposed methods of medicine and treatment without damaging any human life. Animal activists have a universal objection to these methods. Humans are capable of agreeing or disagreeing to participation in these trials, and voicing any discomfort or hesitation during the process. Animals, however, cannot choose to participate or opt out, nor can they voice any discomfort or pain. Therefore, the quality of life in animals is ignored and recombinant DNA via animals is unethical. There are many other aspects of recombinant DNA that have caused individuals to deem it unethical. Next, when combining genetic information with bacteria, some often worry that the transgenic organisms may not act as planned; resulting in mutations that could provoke the formation of new/unfamiliar pathogens and scientists’ inability to treat them, resulting in the cultivation of new sicknesses. This can also relate to the vaccines we saw in our biotechnology activity. When it comes to vaccines/immunizations, scientists use this method to pinpoint which protein is necessary for the cause of the disease. They then isolate that specific gene and analyze the pattern for its expression. Next, they introduce the gene via transgenic organisms, to cultivate the ultimate immunizations. In this case, the relevant ethical issues are the adverse effects of the vaccines; such as allergic reactions and disorders that may arise after administration. We are essentially exposing the organism to the very disease that we are attempting to avoid in the long run.
During our biotechnology activity, we traveled through four scenes on a map: a pharmacy, the grocery store, a scientific lab, and a crime scene. Along with immunizations, we were also presented with insulin during the activity. Diabetic individuals have trouble producing and metabolizing the proper amount of insulin to successfully regulate their blood sugar. The process for implanting insulin is similar to that of vaccines, via a temporary host and ultimately a third and final organism (or more organisms, if relevant to that specific procedure); which is the diabetic. If I were to mention ethical issues regarding insulin, it would be the possibilities of dizziness and hypoglycemia as side effects. However, I would argue the moral standpoint of the animals from which the scientists have taken the initial insulin; in cases where the insulin's origin was a testing animal and their care and conditions could be compromised or questioned. Nowadays, we are leaning more toward human-derived insulin, as