1. SHOULD GMO BE GROWN?

GMO
A GMO, or genetically modified organism, is a plant, animal, microorganism or other organism whose
genetic makeup has been modified in a laboratory using genetic engineering or transgenic technology.
This creates combinations of plant, animal, bacterial and virus genes that do not occur in nature or
through traditional crossbreeding methods. https://www.nongmoproject.org/gmo-facts/what-is-
gmo/

Genetic engineering
is the process of using recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology to alter the genetic makeup
of an organism. Traditionally, humans have manipulated genomes indirectly by
controlling breeding and selecting offspring with desired traits.

A transgenic, or genetically modified, organism is one that has been altered through
recombinant DNA technology, which involves either the combining of DNA from different genomes
or the insertion of foreign DNA into a genome.

DNA is the molecule that is the hereditary material in all living cells. Genes are made
of DNA, and so is the genome itself. A gene consists of enough DNA to code for one protein,
and a genome is simply the sum total of an organism's DNA.

POSITIVE
 More nutritious food

 Tastier food

 Disease- and drought-resistant plants that require fewer environmental resources (such as water and
fertilizer)

 Less use of pesticides

 Increased supply of food with reduced cost and longer shelf life

 Faster growing plants and animals

 Food with more desirable traits, such as potatoes that produce less of a cancer-causing substance when
fried

 Medicinal foods that could be used as vaccines or other medicines

(https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002432.htm#:~:text=The%20possible%20benefits%20of
%20genetic,such%20as%20water%20and%20fertilizer))

 Manufacturers use genetic modification to give foods desirable traits. For example, they have designed two new

varieties of apple that turn less brown when cut or bruised.

 The reasoning usually involves making crops more resistant to diseases as they grow. Manufacturers also

engineer produce to be more nutritious or tolerant of herbicides.

 Crop protection is the main rationale behind this type of genetic modification. Plants that are more resistant to

diseases spread by insects or viruses result in higher yields for farmers and a more attractive product.

 Genetically modification can also increase nutritional value or enhance flavor.

 All of these factors contribute to lower costs for the consumer. They can also ensure that more people have access

to quality food.( https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324576#cons)

 The measles resurgence has vaccines back in the headlines this Earth Day, but there’s another
scientific breakthrough facing backlash that has the potential to undermine our collective
well-being.

Getting published in your hometown paper is always a feather in your cap, and having grown
up on a farm about 30 miles outside of Buffalo, NY, having a guest column in the Buffalo
News is definitely a highlight.

In a new op ed I wrote for the Buffalo News, I note that GMOs, or genetically modified
organisms, are not only a lot less scary than pop culture would lead you to believe — they are
one of the most overlooked solutions to combating threats to our planet.

In my post, I highlight some of the benefits of genetically modified crops to sustainability

and the environment:
 In 2016 alone, growing GMO crops helped
decrease CO2 emissions equivalent to taking 16.7
million cars off the road for an entire year. GMOs
also reduce the amount of pesticides that need to
be sprayed, while simultaneously increasing the
amount of crops available to be eaten and sold.
Over the last 20 years, GMOs have reduced
pesticide applications by 8.2% and helped increase
crop yields by 22%.
 So as we all pause to think about the impacts we are all having on the Earth, it is important to
remember that there a myriad of ways that we can help the environment. Avoiding plastic
straws may be one way that people are trying to help, but allowing farmers to plant GMO
crops to help preserve soil, conserve water, and reduce carbon emissions is another way.
Many avenues of attack to solve this problem are welcome, and all tools are needed if we're
going to save the planet. https://www.bio.org/blogs/gmos-have-benefits-environment
 NEGATIVE
 Creating foods that can cause an allergic reaction or that are toxic

 Unexpected or harmful genetic changes

 Genes moving from one GM plant or animal to another plant or animal that is not genetically
engineered

 Foods that are less nutritious

These concerns have proven to be unfounded. None of the GE foods used today have caused any
of these problems. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assesses all GE foods to make
sure they are safe before allowing them to be sold. In addition to the FDA, the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulate bioengineered
plants and animals. They assess the safety of GE foods to humans, animals, plants, and the
environment. (https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002432.htm#:~:text=The%20possible%20benefits
%20of%20genetic,such%20as%20water%20and%20fertilizer))

Because genetically engineering foods is a relatively new practice, little is

known about the long-term effects and safety.

There are many purported downsides, but the evidence varies, and the main
health issues associated with GMO foods are hotly debated. Research is
ongoing.

This section discusses the evidence for a range of drawbacks that people
often associate with GMO foods.

Allergic reactions

Some people believe that GMO foods have more potential to trigger allergic
reactions. This is because they may contain genes from an allergen — a food
that prompts an allergic reaction.
The World Health Organization (WHO) discourage genetic engineers from
using DNA from allergens unless they can prove that the gene itself does not
cause the problem.

It is worth noting that there have been no reports of allergic effects of any
GMO foods currently on the market.

Cancer

Some researchers believe that eating GMO foods can contribute to the
development of cancer. They argue that because the disease is caused by
mutations in DNA, it is dangerous to introduce new genes into the body.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) have said that there is no evidence for

this. However, they note that no evidence of harm is not the same as proof of
safety and that reaching a conclusion will require more research.

Antibacterial resistance

There is concern that genetic modification, which can boost a crop’s

resistance to disease or make it more tolerant to herbicides, could affect the
ability of people to defend against illness.

There is a small chance that the genes in food can transfer to cells the body
or bacteria in the gut. Some GMO plants contain genes that make them
resistant to certain antibiotics. This resistance could pass on to humans.

There is growing concern globally that people are becoming increasingly

resistant to antibiotics. There is a chance that GMO foods could be
contributing to this crisis.
The WHO have said that the risk of gene transfer is low. As a precaution,
however, it has set guidelines for the manufacturers of GMO foods.

Outcrossing

Outcrossing refers to the risk of genes from certain GMO plants mixing with
those of conventional crops.

There have been reports of low levels of GMO crops approved as animal feed
or for industrial use being found in food meant for human consumption.

Medically reviewed by Debra Rose Wilson, Ph.D., MSN, R.N., IBCLC, AHN-
BC, CHT — Written by Amanda Barrell on February 27, 2019

The issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as they relate to the food
supply is an ongoing, nuanced and highly contentious issue.

Individuals from the scientific and medical fields fall on both sides of the
argument, some claiming that genetically modified crops are helping to solve
issues concerning hunger, environmental sustainability and an increasing
global population, while others believe they’re doing more harm than good.

With studies supporting both sides, many wonder: Who should we believe? To
give a clearer sense of the issues and arguments that surround GMOs, Dr.
Sarah Evanega, a plant biologist, and Dr. David Perlmutter, a neurologist,
weigh in from opposing sides. Here’s what they had to say:

WHAT’S YOUR STANCE ON GMO FOOD?

Dr. Sarah Evanega:Genetically modified organism (GMO) food is safe. In that
respect, my stance mirrors the position taken by the National Academies
of Sciences and the majority of the world’s scientific community.
I eat GMO foods, as do my three young children, because I’m confident in the
safety of these products. I support GMO food because I’m convinced that
GMO crops can help reduce poverty and hunger among smallholder farmers
in developing nations. They can also lessen the environmental impact of
agriculture in general.

Genetic engineering is a tool that can help us breed crops that resist drought,
diseases, and insect pests, which means farmers achieve higher yields from
the crops they grow to feed their families and generate extra income. We have
seen, time and again, that farmers who grow GMO crops in Africa, and South
and East Asia earn extra money that helps them do things we Westerners
take for granted — like send their children to school and buy a propane stove
so they no longer have to cook over fires fueled by cow dung.

In developing nations, much of the weeding is done by women and children.

By growing crops that can tolerate herbicide applications, the children are
freed up to attend school and the women have time to earn income to help
support their families.

I know many of the scientists who are using genetic engineering to breed
improved crops, and I’ve witnessed their dedication to making the world a
better place. I support GMO food because I’ve seen first-hand how it can
improve people’s lives. For farmers, access to GMOs is a matter of social and
environmental justice.

Dr. David Perlmutter: Genetic modification of agricultural seeds isn’t in the

interest of the planet or its inhabitants. Genetically modified (GM) crops are
associated with an increased use of chemicals, like glyphosate, that are toxic
to the environment and to humans. These chemicals not only contaminate our
food and water supplies, but they also compromise soil quality and are
actually associated with increased disease susceptibility in crops.

This ultimately leads to an increase in the use of pesticides and further

disrupts ecosystems. And yet, despite these drawbacks, we haven’t seen
increased yield potential of GM crops, although that has always been one of
the promises of GM seeds.

Fortunately, there are innovative alternatives to the issue of food insecurity

that are not dependent on using GM crops.

IS GMO REALLY LESS HEALTHY THAN NON-GMO FOOD? WHY OR

WHY NOT?
SE:From a health perspective, GMO food is no different than non-GMO food.
In fact, they can even be healthier. Imagine peanuts that can be genetically
engineered to reduce levels of aflatoxin, and gluten-free wheat, which
would give those with celiac disease a healthy and tasty bread option. GM
corn has cut levels of naturally-occurring mycotoxin— a toxin that causes
both health problems and economic losses — by a third.

Other GMO foods, such as vitamin A-enriched Golden Rice, has been

fortified with vitamins and minerals to create healthier staple foods and help
prevent malnutrition.

In general, though, the process of engineering crops to contain a certain trait,

such as pest-resistance or drought-tolerance, does nothing to affect the
nutrient quality of food. Insect-resistant Bacillus thuringiensis  (Bt) crops
actually reduce or eliminate the need for pesticide applications, which further
improves their healthfulness and safety.
We have seen this in Bangladesh, where farmers would spray their traditional
eggplant crops with pesticides right up until the time of harvest — which
meant farmers were getting a lot of pesticide exposure and consumers were
getting a lot of pesticide residue. Since growing pest-resistant Bt eggplant,
however, they’ve been able to greatly reduce their pesticide applications.
And that means GMO crops are healthier not only for the farmer, but the
consumer.

Similarly, studies have shown a new disease-resistant GMO potato could

reduce fungicide use by up to 90 percent. Again, this would certainly result in
a healthier potato — especially since even organic farmers use pesticides.

I understand that people have legitimate concerns about highly processed

foods, such as baked goods, breakfast cereals, chips, and other snacks and
convenience foods, which are often made from corn, soy, sugar beets, and
other crops that are genetically engineered. It’s the manufacturing process,
however, that makes these items less healthy than whole foods, like fruits,
vegetables, and grains. The origin of the ingredients is irrelevant.

DP:Without question, the various toxic herbicides that are liberally applied to
GM crops are having a devastating effect. In terms of the nutritional quality of
conventional versus GM food, it’s important to understand that mineral content
is, to a significant degree, dependent on the various soil-based
microorganisms. When the soil is treated with glyphosate, as is so often the
case with GM crops, it basically causes sterilization and deprives the plant of
its mineral absorption ability.

But to be fair, the scientific literature doesn’t indicate a dramatic difference in

the nutritional quality comparing conventional and GM agricultural products in
terms of vitamins and minerals.
It is now, however, well-substantiated that there are health risks associated
with exposure to glyphosate. The World Health Organization has
characterized glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.” This is the
dirty truth that large agribusiness doesn’t want us to understand or even be
aware of. Meanwhile, it’s been estimated that over 1.6 billion kilograms of
this highly toxic chemical have been applied to crops around the world. And to
be clear, GM herbicide-resistant crops now account for more than 50 percent
of the global glyphosate usage.

The connection between GM crops and use of chemicals poses a significant

threat to the health of humans and our environment.

DOES GMO FOOD AFFECT THE HEALTH OF THE ENVIRONMENT? WHY

OR WHY NOT?
SE: GMOs have a positive impact on the health of the environment.
Recently, a meta-analysis of 20 years of data found that growing genetically
modified insect-resistant corn in the United States has dramatically reduced
insecticide use. By suppressing the population of damaging insect pests, it’s
also created a “halo effect” that benefits farmers raising non-GM and
organic vegetable crops, allowing them to reduce their use of pesticides, too.

We’re also seeing the use of genetic engineering to breed crops that can
produce their own nitrogen, thrive in dry conditions, and resist pests. These
crops will directly benefit environmental healthby cutting the use of
fertilizers, pesticides, and water. Other researchers are working to accelerate
the rate of photosynthesis, which means crops can reach maturity quicker,
thus improving yields, reducing the need to farm new land, and sparing that
land for conservation or other purposes.
Genetic engineering can also be used to reduce food waste and its associated
environmental impact. Examples include non-browning mushrooms, apples,
and potatoes, but could also be expanded to include more perishable fruits.
There’s also tremendous potential in regard to genetically engineered
animals, such as pigs that produce less phosphorus material.

In summary, GMO crops can have remarkable environmental benefits. They

allow farmers to produce more food with fewer inputs. They help us spare
land, reduce deforestation, and promote and reduce chemical use.

DP:No doubt. Our ecosystems have evolved to work in balance. Whenever

harmful chemicals like glyphosate are introduced into an ecosystem, this
disrupts the natural processes that keep our environment healthy.

The USDA Pesticide Data Program reported in 2015 that 85 percent of

crops had pesticide residue. Other studies that have looked at the pesticide
levels in groundwaters reported that 53 percent of their sampling sites
contained one or more pesticides. These chemicals are not only
contaminating our water and food supplies, they’re also contaminating the
supplies for other organisms in the surrounding environment. So the fact that
GM seeds now account for more than 50 percent of global glyphosate usage
is certainly concerning.

Perhaps even more importantly, though, is that these chemicals are harming
the soil microbiome. We are just now beginning to recognize that the various
organisms living in the soil act to protect plants and make them more disease
resistant. Destroying these protective organisms with the use of these
chemicals weaken plants’ natural defense mechanisms and, therefore, will
require the use of even more pesticides and other chemicals.
We now recognize that plants, like animals, are not autonomous, but rather
exist in a symbiotic relationship with diverse microorganisms. Plants are vitally
dependent upon soil microbes for their health and disease resistance.

To summarize, the use of pesticides for GM crops is disrupting ecosystems,

contaminating the water and food supplies for the environment’s organisms,
and harming the soil microbiome.

IS GMO FOOD NECESSARY TO FEED THE ENTIRE WORLD

POPULATION? WHY OR WHY NOT?
SE: With the world’s population expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, farmers
are now being asked to produce more food than they’ve produced in the entire
10,000-year history of agriculture. At the same time, we’re facing extreme
climate change events, such as prolonged droughts and severe storms, that
greatly impact agricultural production.

Meanwhile, we need to reduce the carbon emissions, water pollution, erosion,

and other environmental impacts associated with agriculture, and avoid
expanding food production into wild areas that other species need for habitat.

We can’t expect to meet these enormous challenges using the same old crop
breeding methods. Genetic engineering offers us one tool for increasing yields
and reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint. It’s not a silver bullet — but
it’s an important tool in the plant breeder’s toolbox because it allows us to
develop improved crops more quickly than we could through conventional
methods. It also helps us work with important food crops like bananas, which
are very difficult to improve through conventional breeding methods.

We certainly can feed more people by reducing food waste and improving
food distribution and storage systems worldwide. But we can’t afford to ignore
important tools like genetic engineering, which can do a lot to improve the
productivity and quality of both crops and livestock.

The social and environmental problems that we face today are unprecedented
in scale and scope. We must use all the tools available to address the
challenge of feeding the world while taking care of the environment. GMOs
can play a part.

DP: The argument that we need GMO food to feed the entire world population
is absurd. The reality of the situation is that GM crops have actually not
increased the yield of any major commercialized food source. In fact, soy
— the most widely grown genetically modified crop — is actually experiencing
reduced yields. The promise of increased yield potentials with GM crops is
one that we have not realized.

Another important consideration in terms of food security is the reduction of

waste. It’s estimated that in the United States, food waste approaches an
astounding 40 percent. Leading health commentators, like Dr. Sanjay
Gupta, have been vocal on this issue and highlighted food waste as a key
component of addressing the issue of food insecurity. So there’s definitely a
big opportunity to reduce the amount of food that needs to be produced
overall by cutting waste out of the supply chain.

IS THERE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO GMO FOOD? IF SO, WHAT IS IT?

SE: There’s no reason to seek an alternative to GMO foods, from a scientific,
environmental, or health perspective. But if people wish to avoid GMO food
they can purchase organic products. Organic certification does not allow the
use of genetic engineering. However, consumers need to be aware that
organic food does carry a rather hefty environmental and economic cost.
A recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that organic food
costs at least 20 percent more than nonorganic food — a figure that can be
even higher with certain products and in various geographic regions. That’s a
significant difference for families living within a budget, especially when you
consider that organic food is not any healthier than nonorganic foods, and
both types of food typically have pesticide residues that fall well below federal
safety guidelines.

Organic crops also have an environmental cost because they’re generally less
productive and require more tilling than conventional and GM crops. They also
use fertilizers from animals, which consume feed and water and produce
methane gas in their waste. In some cases, take apples for example, the
“natural” pesticides that organic growers use are far more toxic to humans and
the environment than what conventional growers use.

In terms of plant breeding, some of the improvements that are possible with
genetic engineering simply couldn’t be accomplished through traditional
methods. Again, genetic engineering offers plant breeders an important tool
that can result in a healthy, eco-friendly approach to agriculture. There’s
simply no scientific reason to avoid this technology in producing food for the
world’s growing population.

DP: Absolutely. There are many innovators working on solutions to

sustainably solve the issue of food insecurity. One area of focus has been
reducing the waste across the supply chain. For example, Apeel Sciences, a
company that has raised funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
developed a natural coating that’s made of leftover plant skins and stems. It
can be sprayed on produce to slow the ripening process and extend shelf life,
which helps consumers and supermarkets alike reduce food waste.
In addition to this, forward-thinking researchers are now deeply involved in
studying the microorganisms that live on and near plants in terms of how they
function to enhance not only the health of plants, but the quality and quantity
of nutrients that they produce. According to British agricultural researcher
Davide Bulgarelli, in a recent article published by The Scientist, “Scientists
are looking to manipulate soil microbes to sustainably increase crop
production — and novel insights into the plant microbiome are now facilitating
the development of such agricultural tactics.”

The research that looks at how microbes benefit plants is consistent with
similar research relating microorganisms to human health. So another
alternative is to harness and take full advantage of the beneficial interaction
between microorganisms and plants to create a healthier and more productive
agricultural experience.

Dr. Sarah Evanega is a plant biologist who earned her doctorate degree from Cornell
University, where she also helped lead a global project to help protect the world’s wheat
from wheat stem rust. She’s currently the director of the  Cornell Alliance for
Science, a global communications initiative that’s seeking to restore science to the
policies and discussions around genetically engineered crops.

Dr. Perlmutter is a board-certified neurologist and four-time New York Timesbest-selling

author. He received his MD from the University of Miami School of Medicine where he
was awarded the Leonard G. Rowntree Research Award. Dr. Perlmutter is a frequent
lecturer at symposia sponsored by institutions such as the World Bank and IMF, Yale
University, Columbia University, Scripps Institute, New York University, and Harvard
University, and serves as an Associate Professor at the University of Miami Miller
School of Medicine. He also serves on the board of directors and is a fellow of the
American College of Nutrition.
2. CAN I GENETICALLY MODIFY MY CHILD?
3. Human genetic modification is the direct manipulation of the genome using
molecular engineering techniques. Recently developed techniques for modifying
genes are often called “gene editing.” Genetic modification can be applied in two
very different ways: somatic genetic modification and germline genetic
modification.
4. Somatic genetic modification adds, cuts, or changes the genes in some of the
cells of an existing person, typically to alleviate a medical condition. These gene
therapy techniques are approaching clinical practice, but only for a few
conditions, and at a very high cost.
5. Germline genetic modification would change the genes in eggs, sperm, or early
embryos. Often referred to as “inheritable genetic modification” or “gene editing
for reproduction,” these alterations would appear in every cell of the person who
developed from that gamete or embryo, and also in all subsequent generations.
6. For safety, ethical, and social reasons, there is broad agreement among many
scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and the public that germline editing is a red
line that should not be crossed. Using germline editing for reproduction is
prohibited by law in more than 40 countries and by a binding international treaty
of the Council of Europe. However, in November 2108, a scientist named He
Jiankui announced he had edited the genes of twin baby girls who had
subsequently been brought to term. His reckless experimentation has been
nearly universally condemned. This development has sparked new debate
around human germline modification, particularly between parties who desire to
push the technology forward and those who fear it could open the door to a new
market-based form of eugenics.
7.
8. https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/topics/human-genetic-modification

From time to time, science troubles philosophers with difficult

ethical questions. But none has been as difficult as considering
permanently altering the genetic code of future generations. At a
meeting that began on Dec. 1 in Washington DC, the world’s leading
gene-editing experts met with ethicists, lawyers, and interested
members of the public to decide whether it should be done.

Gene-editing tools have existed since 1975, when a meeting of a

similar kind was held to discuss the future of genetic technology.
But recent developments have made the technology safe enough to
consider turning science fiction into reality. In fact, in
April, Chinese researchers announced that they had conducted
 experiments to remove genes of an inheritable disease in human
embryos (embryos that were alive but damaged, so they could not
have become babies).

So the stakes are high. By eliminating “bad” genes from sperm and egg cells—called the “germline”—
these tools have the potential to permanently wipe out diseases caused by single mutations in genes,
such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, or Tay-Sachs.

At the same time, there is huge uncertainty about what could go wrong if seemingly troubling genes are
eliminated.

One of the key researchers in the field is Jennifer Doudna at the University of California, Berkeley. She
has been touted for a Nobel Prize for the development of CRISPR-Cas9, a highly precise copy-paste
genetic tool. In the build-up to the meeting, Doudna made her concerns clear in Nature:

“Human-germline editing for the purposes of creating genome-modified humans should not proceed at
this time, partly because of the unknown social consequences, but also because the technology and our
knowledge of the human genome are simply not ready to do so safely.”

Her sentiments were echoed in a report released before the meeting by the Center for Genetics and
Society. They believe that research in genetic tools must advance, but only through therapy for adults
(where genetic modifications are targeted at some cells in the body but not passed on to kids, such as in
curing a form of inherited blindness). The report continues:

“But using the same techniques to modify embryos in order to make permanent, irreversible changes to
future generations and to our common genetic heritage—the human germline, as it is known—is far
more problematic.”

Consider sickle-cell anemia, an occasionally fatal genetic disorder. Its genes, though clearly harmful,
have persisted and spread because, while having two copies of the sickle-cell gene causes anemia,
having just one copy happens to provide protection against malaria, one of the most deadly diseases in
human history. Had we not known about their benefits, eliminating sickle-cell genes would have proved
to be a bad idea.
More importantly, there is a worry that once you allow for designer
babies you go down a slippery slope. Emily Smith Beitiks, disability
researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, said recently:

“These proposed applications raise social justice questions and put us

at risk of reviving eugenics—controlled breeding to increase the
occurrence of ‘desirable’ heritable characteristics. Who gets to decide
what diversity looks like and who is valued?”

But the history of science shows that it is hard to keep such a cat in the
bag. Once developed, technologies have a way of finding their way into
the hands of those who desire to use them. That worries George
Church, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School, who has been a strong
voice in this debate since the beginning. In Nature, he writes:

“Banning human-germline editing could put a damper on the best

medical research and instead drive the practice underground to black
markets and uncontrolled medical tourism, which are fraught with
much greater risk and misapplication.”

And many believe that the risks of gene-editing are not that high
anyway. Nathaniel Comfort, a historian of medicine at Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore, writes in Aeon:

“The dishes do not come à la carte. If you believe that made-to-order

babies are possible, you oversimplify how genes work.”

That is because abilities, such as intelligence, height, or personality

traits, involve thousands of genes. So there may be some things that
you cannot genetically enhance much, and certainly not safely. And
even knowingly changing the human genome is not as big a deal as
some make it out to be, Church notes:

“Offspring do not consent to their parents’ intentional exposure to

mutagenic sources that alter the germ line, including chemotherapy,
high altitude, and alcohol—nor to decisions that reduce the prospects
for future generations, such as misdirected economic investment and
environmental mismanagement.”

The meeting ended on Dec. 3, and the committee of organizers—10

scientists and two bioethicists—came to a conclusion on the debate.
They believe that the promises of germline editing are too great to
scupper future developments. They endorse that research should
continue in non-human embryos and “if, in the process of research,
early human embryos … undergo gene editing, the modified cells
should not be used to establish a pregnancy.” That is because the
committee believes that we neither know enough about safety issues to
allow any clinical application, nor enough about how society will
respond to the use of this technology in humans.

And, yet, perhaps the the last word on the debate should go to a

woman in the audience at the meeting. Her child died only six days old
after torturous seizures caused by a genetic ailment. She implored the
research community, “If you have the skills and the knowledge to
eliminate these diseases, then freakin’ do it!” https://qz.com/564649/the-pros-
and-cons-of-genetically-engineering-your-children/ By Akshat Rathi

Sir, - There has been a lot of publicity about the wonders of genetic engineering and
cloning, with Polly, Dolly, etc heralded as scientific successes. However, little has
been said about the serious animal welfare problems associated with these
techniques. We do not see pictures of the many failures, or of the invasive surgical
procedures used to produce genetically-engineered animals.
In reality, animal genetic engineering is a hit and miss affair. Of the 50,000 to
100,000 genes which make up a farm animal, the purpose of only about 2 per cent is
known. Adding genes from other animals is like playing with a chemistry set that has
all the labels removed. Except that in animal genetic engineering, the experimental
material is living creatures which can suffer and feel pain when the experiments go
horribly wrong.
For example, although the cloned lambs Megan and Morag looked normal, in fact,
the majority of the cloned lambs in that series of experiments had malformed
internal organs. In the experiments reported in February 1997 which produced the
cloned sheep, Dolly, 148 out of 156 implanted embryos failed to survive. In the
experiments which produced Polly, another cloned sheep, of the 14 foetuses alive at
60 days of pregnancy, only five developed into lambs which survived for more than
two weeks after birth. Some lambs were stillborn, and one had a heart defect and
was killed at two weeks old.
The problems are not confined to sheep. In 1994, reports emerged of a calf which
was given genetic material usually found in a chicken. At eight weeks old, the calf
seemed all right, but at 15 weeks the animal was no longer able to stand up and was
destroyed. The calf's muscle development had completely broken down. Genetically-
engineered salmon with added "anti-freeze" genes were coloured green and died of
gill and cranial deformities. And pigs which had added cow or human genes in an
effort to make them grow quicker suffered lameness, ulcers, damaged vision and
heart and kidney ailments.
  
People might be quite shocked to see the unnatural methods used to produce a
genetically-engineered animal or clones. This often involves invasive surgery and the
sacrifice of temporary "foster mothers". The usual technique used to clone animals is
as follows. Sheep that are to be egg donors are given hormone injections. The eggs
are then removed by surgery. After these eggs are cloned, it is common for the
cloned embryos to be placed into a temporary recipient sheep using surgery. Later,
these temporary "foster mothers" are killed, and the embryos are removed and
examined. They are then placed into a surrogate mother, again using surgery.
Clearly, cloning an animal is far from a natural process.
Compassion in World Farming is campaigning for a moratorium on animal genetic
engineering until there has been full public debate, and until the animal welfare
problems have been addressed and the ethical implications of creating artificial
animals has been fully explored. - Yours, etc., Mary-Anne Bartlett
Sir, - There has been a lot of publicity about the wonders of genetic engineering and
cloning, with Polly, Dolly, etc heralded as scientific successes. However, little has
been said about the serious animal welfare problems associated with these
techniques. We do not see pictures of the many failures, or of the invasive surgical
procedures used to produce genetically-engineered animals.
In reality, animal genetic engineering is a hit and miss affair. Of the 50,000 to
100,000 genes which make up a farm animal, the purpose of only about 2 per cent is
known. Adding genes from other animals is like playing with a chemistry set that has
all the labels removed. Except that in animal genetic engineering, the experimental
material is living creatures which can suffer and feel pain when the experiments go
horribly wrong.
For example, although the cloned lambs Megan and Morag looked normal, in fact,
the majority of the cloned lambs in that series of experiments had malformed
internal organs. In the experiments reported in February 1997 which produced the
cloned sheep, Dolly, 148 out of 156 implanted embryos failed to survive. In the
experiments which produced Polly, another cloned sheep, of the 14 foetuses alive at
60 days of pregnancy, only five developed into lambs which survived for more than
two weeks after birth. Some lambs were stillborn, and one had a heart defect and
was killed at two weeks old.
The problems are not confined to sheep. In 1994, reports emerged of a calf which
was given genetic material usually found in a chicken. At eight weeks old, the calf
seemed all right, but at 15 weeks the animal was no longer able to stand up and was
destroyed. The calf's muscle development had completely broken down. Genetically-
engineered salmon with added "anti-freeze" genes were coloured green and died of
gill and cranial deformities. And pigs which had added cow or human genes in an
effort to make them grow quicker suffered lameness, ulcers, damaged vision and
heart and kidney ailments.
  

People might be quite shocked to see the unnatural methods used to produce a
genetically-engineered animal or clones. This often involves invasive surgery and the
sacrifice of temporary "foster mothers". The usual technique used to clone animals is
as follows. Sheep that are to be egg donors are given hormone injections. The eggs
are then removed by surgery. After these eggs are cloned, it is common for the
cloned embryos to be placed into a temporary recipient sheep using surgery. Later,
these temporary "foster mothers" are killed, and the embryos are removed and
examined. They are then placed into a surrogate mother, again using surgery.
Clearly, cloning an animal is far from a natural process.
Compassion in World Farming is campaigning for a moratorium on animal genetic
engineering until there has been full public debate, and until the animal welfare
problems have been addressed and the ethical implications of creating artificial
animals has been fully explored. - Yours, etc., Mary-Anne Bartlett
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/failures-in-genetic-
engineering-1.139384

ETHICAL ISSUES ON GENETIC TESTING

Each new genetic test that is developed raises serious issues for medicine, public health, and
social policy regarding the circumstances under which the test should be used, how the test is
implemented, and what uses are made of its results. Should people be allowed to choose or
refuse the test, or should it be mandatory, as newborn screening is in some states? Should people
be able to control access to the results of their tests? If test results are released to third parties
such as employers or insurers, what protections should be in place to ensure that people are not
treated unfairly because of their genotype?
The answers to these questions depend in part on the significance given to four important ethical
and legal principles: autonomy, confidentiality, privacy, and equity. A review of the meaning of
those concepts and how they are currently protected by the law provides a starting point for the
development of recommendations on the degree of control people should have in deciding
whether to undergo genetic testing and what uses should be made of the results. The task is a
pressing one. In a 1992 national probability survey of the public, sponsored by the March of
Dimes, 38 percent of respondents said that new types of genetic testing should be stopped
altogether until the privacy issues are settled.1
This chapter reviews some of the conflicts that will arise in the research and clinical settings, and
suggests general principles that should be the starting point for policy analyses in this evolving
field.
Since many of the references in this chapter are legal citations, its references appear in legal style
as numbered end notes.
Go to:

KEY DEFINITIONS

Autonomy
Ethical Analysis
Autonomy can be defined as self-determination, self-rule, or self-governance. Autonomous
agents or actions presuppose some capacity of reasoning, deciding, and willing. Moral, social,
and legal norms establish obligations to respect autonomous agents and their choices. Respect for
personal autonomy implies that agents have the right or power to be self-governing and self-
directing, without outside control. In the context of genetic testing and screening, respect for
autonomy refers to the right of persons to make an informed, independent judgment about
whether they wish to be tested and then whether they wish to know the details of the outcome of
the testing. Autonomy is also the right of the individual to control his or her destiny, with or
without reliance on genetic information, and to avoid interference by others with important life
decisions, whether these are based on genetic information or other factors. Respect for autonomy
also implies the right of persons to control the future use of genetic material submitted for
analysis for a specific purpose (including when the genetic material itself and the information
derived from that material may be stored for future analysis, such as in a DNA bank or registry
file).
Even though respect for autonomy is centrally important in our society, it is not absolute. It can
be overridden in some circumstances, for example, to prevent serious harm to others, as is the
case in mandatory newborn screening for phenylketonuria (PKU) and hypothyroidism.

Legal Issues
The legal concept of autonomy serves as the basis for numerous decisions protecting a person's
bodily integrity. In particular, cases have held that competent adults have the right to choose
whether or not to undergo medical interventions.2 Before people make such a choice, they have a
right to be informed of facts that might be material to their decision,3 such as the nature of their
condition and its prognosis,4 the potential risks and benefits of a proposed test or treatment,5 and
the alternatives to the proposed intervention.6 In the genetics context, health care providers have
been held liable for not providing the information that a genetic test is available. 7
People also have a right to be informed about and to control the subsequent use of tissue that has
been removed from their bodies. 8 There is some leeway under the federal regulations governing
research involving human subjects for researchers to undertake subsequent research on blood
samples provided for genetic tests (as in the newborn screening context) as long as the samples
are anonymous and as long as the subsequent use was not anticipated at the time the sample was
collected.9 If the additional test was anticipated at the time the sample was collected, informed
consent for that use should be obtained prior to the collection of the original sample.
Such an approach is thought appropriate to avert conflicts of interest, such as a
physician/researcher suggesting that a patient undergo a particular test when the researcher
actually wanted the tissue for the researcher's own additional use in a research or commercial
project. In such a situation, the patient's autonomy is compromised even if the sample is used
anonymously in the subsequent use. A report from the Office of Technology Assessment
similarly stressed the importance of knowledge and consent:
The consent of the patient is required to remove blood or tissue from his or her body, and also to
perform tests, but it is important that the patient be informed of all the tests which are done and
that a concern for the privacy of the patient extends to the control of tissues removed from his or
her body. 10

Privacy

Ethical Analysis
Among the various definitions of privacy, one broad definition captures its central element:
privacy is "a state or condition of limited access to a person."11 People have privacy if others lack
or do not exercise access to them. They have privacy if they are left alone and do not suffer
unauthorized intrusion by others. Once persons undergo genetic tests, privacy includes the right
to make an informed, independent decision about whether—and which—others may know
details of their genome (e.g., insurers, employers, educational institutions, spouses and other
family members, researchers, and social agencies).
Various justifications have been offered for rules of privacy. First, some philosophers argue that
privacy rights are merely shorthand expressions for a cluster of personal and property rights,
each of which can be explicated without any reference to the concept of privacy. In making this
argument, Judith Jarvis Thomson holds that privacy rights simply reflect personal and property
rights, such as the rights not to be looked at, not to be overheard, and not to be caused distress. 12
A second justification holds that rights to privacy are important instruments or means to other
goods, including intimate relations such as trust and friendship. Being able to control access to
themselves enables people to have various kinds of relationships with different people, rather
than being equally accessible to all others.
A third approach finds the basis for rights to privacy in respect for personal autonomy.
Decisional privacy is often very close to personal autonomy. The language of personal autonomy
reflects the idea of a domain or territory of self-rule, and thus overlaps with zones of decisional
privacy.
Whatever their rationale or justification, rights of privacy are the subject of ongoing debate about
their scope and weight. However, their scope is not unlimited, and they do not always override
all other competing interests, such as the interests of others.

Legal Issues
In the legal sphere, the principle of privacy is an umbrella concept encompassing issues of both
autonomy and confidentiality. The right to make choices about one's health care is protected, in
part, by the right to privacy guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, as well as state constitutions.
This includes a right to make certain reproductive choices,13 such as whether to use genetic
testing.14 It also includes a right to refuse treatment.
An entirely different standard of privacy protects personal information. A few court decisions
find protection for such information under the constitutional doctrine of privacy,15 but more
commonly, privacy protection against disclosure of personal information is found under common
law tort principles.16 In addition, there is a federal privacy act,17 as well as state statutes protecting
privacy.
Confidentiality

Ethical Analysis
Confidentiality as a principle implies that some body of information is sensitive, and hence,
access to it must be controlled and limited to parties authorized to have such access. The
information provided within the relationship is given in confidence, with the expectation that it
will not be disclosed to others or will be disclosed to others only within limits. The state or
condition of nondisclosure or limited disclosure may be protected by moral, social, or legal
principles and rules, which can be expressed in terms of rights or obligations.
In health care and various other relationships, we grant others access to our bodies. They may
touch, observe, listen, palpate, and even physically invade. They may examine our bodies as a
whole or in parts; and parts, such as tissue, may be removed for further study, as in some forms
of testing. Privacy is necessarily diminished when others have such access to us; rules of
confidentiality authorize us to control and thus to limit further access to the information
generated in that relationship. For example, rules of confidentiality may prohibit a physician
from disclosing some information to an insurance company or an employer without the patient's
authorization.
Rules of confidentiality appear in virtually every code or set of regulations for health care
relationships. Their presence is not surprising, because such rules are often justified on the basis
of their instrumental value: if prospective patients cannot count on health care professionals to
maintain confidentiality, they will be reluctant to allow professionals the full and complete
access necessary for diagnosis and treatment. Hence, rules of confidentiality are indispensable
for patient and social welfare; without those rules, people who need medical, psychiatric, or
other treatment will refrain from seeking or fully participating in it. Another justification for
rules of confidentiality is based on the principles of respect for autonomy and privacy, above.
Respecting persons involves respecting their zone of privacy and accepting their decisions to
control access to information about them. When people grant health care professionals access to
them, they should retain the right to determine who else has access to the information generated
in that relationship. Hence, the arguments for respect for autonomy and privacy support rules of
confidentiality. Finally, duties of confidentiality often derive from explicit or implicit promises
in the relationship. For instance, if the professional's public oath or the profession's code of ethics
promises confidentiality of information, and the particular professional does not specifically
disavow it, then the patient has a right to expect that information generated in the relationship
will be treated as confidential.18
There are at least two distinct types of infringements of rules of confidentiality. On the one hand,
rules of confidentiality are sometimes infringed through deliberate breaches. On the other hand,
rules of confidentiality are often infringed through carelessness, for example, when health care
professionals do not take adequate precautions to protect the confidential information. Some
commentators argue that both carelessness and modern practices of health care have rendered
medical confidentiality a "decrepit concept," since it is compromised routinely in the provision
of health care.19
It is widely recognized that the rules of confidentiality are limited in at least two senses: (1) some
information may not be protected, and (2) the rules may sometimes be overridden to protect
other values. First, not all information is deemed confidential, and patients do not have a right to
expect that such information will be protected from disclosure to others. For example, laws
frequently require that health care professionals report gunshot wounds, venereal diseases, and
other communicable diseases such as tuberculosis. Second, health care professionals may also
have a moral or legal right (and sometimes even an obligation) to infringe rules of
confidentiality, for example, to prevent a serious harm from occurring. In such cases, rules of
confidentiality protect the information, but they can be overridden in order to protect some other
value. Judgments about such cases depend on the probability of serious harm occurring unless
confidentiality is breached. Any justified infringements of rules of confidentiality should satisfy
the conditions identified earlier in the discussion of justified infringements of the principle of
respect for autonomy.

Legal Issues
The legal concept of confidentiality focuses on the information that people provide to their
physicians. The protection of confidentiality is thought to serve an important public health goal
in encouraging people to seek access to health care. It is thought that the patient's interest can be
served only in an atmosphere of total frankness and candor. 20 Without the promise of
confidentiality, people might avoid seeking medical treatment, thus potentially harming
themselves as well as the community. In fact, the first doctor-patient confidentiality statute was
passed in 1828 in New York during the smallpox epidemic to encourage people to seek health
care. Various legal decisions have protected confidentiality of health care information,21 as have
certain state and federal statutes.
Confidentiality of health care information is also protected because disclosure of a person's
medical condition can cause harm to him or her. An alternative set of legal principles-those
penalizing discrimination (see below)-protects people against unfair uses of certain information.

Equity

Ethical Analysis
Issues of justice, fairness, and equity crop up in several actions, practices, and policies relating to
genetic testing. It is now commonplace to distinguish formal justice from substantive justice.
Formal justice requires treating similar cases in a similar way. Standards of substantive or
material justice establish the identity of the relevant similarities and differences and the
appropriate responses to those similarities and differences. For instance, a society has to
determine whether to distribute a scarce resource such as health care according to persons'
differences in need, social worth, or ability to pay.
One crucial question is whether genetic disorders or predispositions provide a basis for blocking
access to certain social goods, such as employment or health insurance. Most conceptions of
justice dictate that employment be based on the ability to perform particular tasks effectively and
safely. For these conceptions, it is unjust to deny employment to someone who meets the
relevant qualifications but also has a genetic disease. Frequently these questions of employment
overlap with questions of health insurance. Practices of medical underwriting in health insurance
reflect what is often called "actuarial fairness"-that is, grouping those with similar risks together
so insurers can accurately predict costs, and set fair and sufficient premium rates. Although
actuarial fairness may be intuitively appealing, critics argue that it does not express moral or
social fairness. According to Norman Daniels, there is "a clear mismatch between standard
underwriting practices and the social function of health insurance" in providing individuals with
resources for access to health care22 (see Chapter 7).
The fundamental argument for excluding genetic discrimination in health insurance amounts to
an argument for establishing a right to health care. One of the central issues in debates about the
distribution of health care is one's view of the "natural lottery," in particular, a "genetic
lottery."23 The metaphor of a lottery suggests that health needs result largely from an impersonal
natural lottery and are thus undeserved. But even if health needs are largely undeserved because
of the role of chance, society's response to those needs may vary, as H. Tristram Engelhardt
notes, depending on whether it views those needs as unfair or as unfortunate. 24 If health needs
are unfortunate, but not unfair, they may be the object of individual or social compassion. Other
individuals, voluntary associations, and even society may be motivated by compassion to try to
meet those needs. If, however, the needs are viewed as unfair as well as unfortunate, society may
have a duty of justice to try to meet those needs.
One prominent argument for the societal provision of a decent minimum of health care is that,
generally, health needs are randomly distributed and unpredictable, as well as overwhelming
when health crises occur. 25 Because of these features of health needs, many argue that it is
inappropriate to distribute health care according to merit, societal contribution, or even ability to
pay. Another version of the argument from fairness holds that health needs represent departures
from normal species functioning and deprive people of fair equality of opportunity. Thus,
fairness requires the provision of health care to "maintain, restore, or compensate for the loss of
normal functioning" in order to ensure fair equality of opportunity.26
Several committee members expressed concerns that these stated arguments are somewhat
weakened by the fact that a number of diseases are not the result of random events, but are
brought on or exacerbated by dispensable habits such as cigarette smoking and excessive alcohol
ingestion. While our and other societies attempt to discourage such habits by education and
taxation, there is general agreement that access to full health care must be ensured once illness
develops. If a tendency to abuse alcohol, for example, were to have a genetic predisposition, an
additional argument could be made for providing the same level of health care to everyone since
a person does not choose his or her genetic propensities.
The argument that society should guarantee or provide a decent minimum of health care for all
citizens and residents points toward a direction for health policy, but it does not determine
exactly how much health care the society should provide relative to other goods it also seeks.
And, within the health care budget, there will be difficult allocation questions, including how
much should be used for particular illnesses and for particular treatments for those illnesses.
Questions of allocation cannot be resolved in the abstract. In democratic societies, they should be
resolved through political processes that express the public's will. In specifying and
implementing a conception of a decent minimum, an adequate level, or a fair share of health care
in the context of scarce resources, as the President's Commission noted in 1983, it is reasonable
for a society to turn to fair, democratic political procedures to choose among alternative
conceptions of adequate health care, and in view of "the great imprecision in the notion of
adequate health care ... it is especially important that the procedures used to define that level be
—and be perceived to be—fair."27

Legal Issues
The concept of equity serves as the underpinning for a variety of legal doctrines and statutes.
Certain needy people are provided health care, including some genetics services, under
government programs such as Medicaid (see Chapter 7). In addition, some legislative efforts
have been made to prohibit discrimination based on genotype. For example, some states have
statutes prohibiting discrimination in employment based on one's genotype.28 And nearly all
people over age 65 are deemed to have a right to care (under Medicare).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236044/
Risks

Generally genetic tests have little physical risk. Blood and cheek swab tests have
almost no risk. However, prenatal testing such as amniocentesis or chorionic villus
sampling has a small risk of pregnancy loss (miscarriage).

Genetic testing can have emotional, social and financial risks as well. Discuss all risks
and benefits of genetic testing with your doctor, a medical geneticist or a genetic
counselor before you have a genetic test.

How you prepare

Before you have genetic testing, gather as much information as you can about your
family's medical history. Then, talk with your doctor or a genetic counselor about your
personal and family medical history to better understand your risk. Ask questions and
discuss any concerns about genetic testing at that meeting. Also, talk about your
options, depending on the test results.

If you're being tested for a genetic disorder that runs in families, you may want to
consider discussing your decision to have genetic testing with your family. Having these
conversations before testing can give you a sense of how your family might respond to
your test results and how it may affect them.

Not all health insurance policies pay for genetic testing. So, before you have a genetic
test, check with your insurance provider to see what will be covered.
In the United States, the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
(GINA) helps prevent health insurers or employers from discriminating against you
based on test results. Under GINA, employment discrimination based on genetic risk
also is illegal. However, this act does not cover life, long-term care or disability
insurance. Most states offer additional protection.

What you can expect

Depending on the type of test, a sample of your blood, skin, amniotic fluid or other
tissue will be collected and sent to a lab for analysis.

 Blood sample. A member of your health care team takes the sample by inserting a
needle into a vein in your arm. For newborn screening tests, a blood sample is taken by
pricking your baby's heel.

 Cheek swab. For some tests, a swab sample from the inside of your cheek is collected
for genetic testing.

 Amniocentesis. In this prenatal genetic test, your doctor inserts a thin, hollow needle
through your abdominal wall and into your uterus to collect a small amount of amniotic
fluid for testing.

 Chorionic villus sampling. For this prenatal genetic test, your doctor takes a tissue
sample from the placenta. Depending on your situation, the sample may be taken with a
tube (catheter) through your cervix or through your abdominal wall and uterus using a thin
needle.

Results

The amount of time it takes for you to receive your genetic test results depends on the
type of test and your health care facility. Talk to your doctor, medical geneticist or
genetic counselor before the test about when you can expect the results and have a
discussion about them.

Positive results

If the genetic test result is positive, that means the genetic change that was being tested
for was detected. The steps you take after you receive a positive result will depend on
the reason you had genetic testing.
If the purpose is to:

 Diagnose a specific disease or condition, a positive result will help you and your
doctor determine the right treatment and management plan.

 Find out if you are carrying a gene that could cause disease in your child, and the
test is positive, your doctor, medical geneticist or a genetic counselor can help you
determine your child's risk of actually developing the disease. The test results can also
provide information to consider as you and your partner make family planning decisions.

 Determine if you might develop a certain disease, a positive test doesn't necessarily
mean you'll get that disorder. For example, having a breast cancer gene
(BRCA1 or BRCA2) means you're at high risk of developing breast cancer at some point in
your life, but it doesn't indicate with certainty that you'll get breast cancer. However, with
some conditions, such as Huntington's disease, having the altered gene does indicate that
the disease will eventually develop.

Talk to your doctor about what a positive result means for you. In some cases, you can
make lifestyle changes that may reduce your risk of developing a disease, even if you
have a gene that makes you more susceptible to a disorder. Results may also help you
make choices related to treatment, family planning, careers and insurance coverage.

In addition, you may choose to participate in research or registries related to your

genetic disorder or condition. These options may help you stay updated with new
developments in prevention or treatment.

Negative results

A negative result means a mutated gene was not detected by the test, which can be
reassuring, but it's not a 100 percent guarantee that you don't have the disorder. The
accuracy of genetic tests to detect mutated genes varies, depending on the condition
being tested for and whether or not the gene mutation was previously identified in a
family member.

Even if you don't have the mutated gene, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll never get
the disease. For example, the majority of people who develop breast cancer don't have
a breast cancer gene (BRCA1 or BRCA2). Also, genetic testing may not be able to
detect all genetic defects.
Inconclusive results

In some cases, a genetic test may not provide helpful information about the gene in
question. Everyone has variations in the way genes appear, and often these variations
don't affect your health. But sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish between a
disease-causing gene and a harmless gene variation. These changes are called
variants of uncertain significance. In these situations, follow-up testing or periodic
reviews of the gene over time may be necessary.

Genetic counseling

No matter what the results of your genetic testing, talk with your doctor, medical
geneticist or genetic counselor about questions or concerns you may have. This will
help you understand what the results mean for you and your family.

Clinical trials

Explore Mayo Clinic studies testing new treatments, interventions and tests as a means
to prevent, detect, treat or manage this disease.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/genetic-testing/about/pac-20384827#:~:text=Generally
%20genetic%20tests%20have%20little,and%20financial%20risks%20as%20well.

BIOTECHNOLOGY
Biotechnology is technology that utilizes biological systems, living organisms or
parts of this to develop or create different products.

Brewing and baking bread are examples of processes that fall within the concept of
biotechnology (use of yeast (= living organism) to produce the desired product). Such
traditional processes usually utilize the living organisms in their natural form (or further
developed by breeding), while the more modern form of biotechnology will generally
involve a more advanced modification of the biological system or organism.

With the development of genetic engineering in the 1970s, research in biotechnology

(and other related areas such as medicine, biology etc.) developed rapidly because of
the new possibility to make changes in the organisms' genetic material (DNA).

Today, biotechnology covers many different disciplines (eg. genetics, biochemistry,

molecular biology, etc.). New technologies and products are developed every year
within the areas of eg. medicine (development of new medicines and therapies),
agriculture (development of genetically modified plants, biofuels, biological treatment) or
industrial biotechnology (production of chemicals, paper, textiles and food).

 https://www.ntnu.edu/ibt/about-us/what-is-biotechnology#:~:text=Biotechnology%20is
%20technology%20that%20utilizes,to%20produce%20the%20desired%20product).

A. Bioweapon
 Biological weapons are microorganisms like virus, bacteria, fungi, or other toxins
that are produced and released deliberately to cause disease and death in
humans, animals or plants. 
 Biological agents, like anthrax, botulinum toxin and plague can pose a difficult
public health challenge causing large numbers of deaths in a short amount of
time while being difficult to contain. Bioterrorism attacks could also result in an
epidemic, for example if Ebola or Lassa viruses were used as the biological
agents. 
 Biological weapons is a subset of a larger class of weapons referred to
as weapons of mass destruction, which also includes chemical, nuclear and
radiological weapons. The use of biological agents is a serious problem, and the
risk of using these agents in a bioterrorist attack is increasing. 

Potential Effects of Biological Weapons on Biological Diversity:

Bioweapon disease outbreaks could cause the extinction of endangered
wildlife species, the erosion of genetic diversity in domesticated plants
and animals, the destruction of traditional human livelihoods, and the
extirpation of indigenous cultures 
 Defined as biological organisms, and substances derived directly from living organisms, that
can be used to cause death or injury to humans, animals, or plants.
  Bioweapons were used primarily, although not exclusively, for direct attacks against human
populations. 
B. Human Cloning

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of an existing, or

previously existing, human being or growing cloned tissue from that individual.
The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning; human clones in the form of identical
twins are commonplace, with their cloning occurring during the natural process of reproduction.
Although genes are recognized as influencing behavior and cognition, "genetically identical" does
not mean altogether identical; almost no one would deny that identical twins, despite being natural
human clones with identical DNA, are separate people, with separate experiences and not
altogether overlapping personalities.
However undramatic it may sound, the relationship between an "original" and a clone is rather like
that between identical twins raised apart; they share all the same DNA, but little of the same
environment. (released under the GNU Free Documentation License.)
Advantages:

1. It could help couples resolve problems with fertility.

Couples who are unable to conceive naturally could create
children through human cloning to have an authentic
genetic relative. 
2.  Cloning humans could lead to new advances in
medical science.
The possibility of sharing genetic material could help to
prevent or cure diseases that may harm that person’s life by
creating a duplicated individual. It could also create a new
line of research that is equal to what we see now with
embryonic stem cell therapies.
3. Cloning humans could reduce the impact of diseases in
ways that vaccinations cannot.
Human cloning could help us to begin curing genetic
diseases such as cystic fibrosis or thalassemia. Genetic
modification could also help us deal with complicated
maladies such as heart disease or schizophrenia. This
scientific process could help us to discover new ways to
combat the natural aging process, including possible
opportunities to stop it. Babies would no longer need to go
through a genetic lottery before birth to know what their
human potentiality would be during their lifetime. Human
cloning could even begin to reduce the overall cost of
disease treatments around the world.
4. Cloning humans could make people more resilient to
disease.
Human cloning processes could help to replicate a natural
resistance to illnesses, ailments, and conditions when
discovered in the general population. 
Researchers have found a group of women in West Africa
had a natural immunity to the Ebola virus despite repetitive
exposures to it. Cloning humans allows us to take
advantage of these natural immunities to create a new level
of resiliency against the diseases that affect us each year.
 5. Cloning humans could help us to be ready for global
warming.
Future generations could benefit from human cloning
because it would speed up the developmental cycles as
natural selection attempts to give humanity more strength.
We could take the genetic profile from the most resilient
people, apply it to new births, and build a civilization that is
ready for the potential challenges ahead.

Disadvantages:

1. Cloning humans might always be an imperfect science.

When we look at the success rate of animal cloning, a successful
embryo gets created about 1% of the time in the best of circumstances.
Scientists have tried to bring back species from extinction using
harvested cells without much success, with most offspring dying
minutes after they are born – if they even reach that stage in the first
place.
2. Cloning humans might create a rapidly aging population.
We know that cloning is possible, but what we do not understand yet is
how the information contained in our DNA would change through this
process.
If age imprinting happens on a genetic level, then providing embryos
with mature cells could create concerns with unanticipated aging. This
process could lead to new genetic syndromes and an increase in the
risk of premature death.
3. Cloning humans would lead to the exploitation of women.
The only way that we can begin to clone humans is to have enough
viable embryos available for scientists to use. IVF centers have over
400,000 of them in storage in the United States, but the need would be
much higher than this. Scientists would need to produce enough cloned
fetuses to create a sufficient quantity of viable stem cell lines. Women
would receive medication injections that would help them to ovulate
rapidly. Then there would be a requirement to undergo an invasive
procedure to extract eggs to begin the embryo-making process.
Even under today’s best practices circumstances, up to 5% of women
experience hyperstimulation when they begin IVF treatments. It is a side
effect that leads to ongoing abdominal pain, reproductive health
concerns, and infertility in rare cases.
4. Cloning humans would be a technology initially priced only for the wealthy.
Human cloning would create more classism in our societies instead of equality, especially
in the early days of this technology’s release. Our socio-economic divides would still be
 in place because those with money could afford more characteristics, add-ons, or
processes for their clones than those who are fighting to put groceries on their table. Even
if everyone could afford to make clones one day to support their families, the people who
could adopt this tech early would still have significant advantages over those who did
not.
Conclusion
Many of our creation stories suggest that a deity produced two humans
to begin populating our planet. This scientific process would change that
process so that natural reproduction wouldn’t be the only way to have
children. Anyone could potentially copy themselves with some cell
collection and a laboratory setting that can grow a fetus.
(https://futureofworking.com/9-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-cloning-humans/)

GMO VS. NATURAL PRODUCTS

Pros of GMO Foods

While it may seem unnatural to alter or add organisms into food products,
there are a few benefits to it:

 It costs less to produce GMO foods

 Fewer weeds invade the crop
 Provides a sweeter taste to fruits
 Provides higher nutritionally improved traits to provide health benefits
for consumers[*]

Cons of GMO Foods

As with all things unnatural, there come a few downsides:

 Many plants are now producing bacterial toxins leading to resistant

bugs
 Superweeds have been discovered that resist normal herbicides
 Humans are consuming these harmful bacterias and toxins
 GMOs are a new food source to humans which causes allergic reactions
to some people
 In rare cases, cancer is found because of the altered chemicals in food
products
Fortunately, more than 60 countries now require GMO labeling and 26
countries are partially banning GMOs[*].

Pros of Organic Foods

Here's why organic foods might be worth the monetary investment:

 No pesticides can be used when growing organic foods.

 Round-up cannot be used with organic crops. Round-up is a
common herbicide used to kill off weeds.
 Organic crops don’t use hexane. Hexane is a neurotoxin used in
common vegetable oils like soybean, canola, and corn.
 Organic meats don't contain any hormones. Many people express
concern that meats with growth hormone can increase the chances of
cardiovascular disease.
 Animals raised organically aren't given any antibiotics. This means
the meat it produces won't contain any harmful toxins you may have
consumed otherwise.

Cons of Organic Foods

While it may seem like a healthier alternative to adopt a strictly organic food
diet, there are some downsides to it:

 Organic foods are significantly more expensive than GMO or non-

GMO foods.
 Not all food stores have a wide selection of organic foods. Going to
your local farmers market rather than a grocery store may be a better
option.
 Easily goes bad. Organic foods have a shorter shelf life compared to
GMO foods so they must be consumed relatively soon after purchase
 Higher bacteria levels. Since there are very little to no pesticides and
herbicides used on organic foods, the consumption of organic foods has
been linked to an increased risk of e-Coli bacteria in the digestive system.
 No nutritional benefit. Research has found that there is no major
nutritional benefit of organic food over other conventional means[*].
WARNING: SOME ORGANIC FOODS MAY STILL CONTAIN HARMFUL CHEMICALS
If health is your main priority, the best course of action is to
select unprocessed organic foods whenever possible. But, it's still equally
important to check the nutrition label for any unhealthy ingredients.

Some organic foods may still contain harmful ingredients including:

Hidden MSG
While monosodium glutamate (MSG) cannot be used on organic food, there
are several other free glutamic acid compounds that organic foods may
contain.

WHAT ARE GMOS?

GMO stands for "genetically modified organisms". Genetically modified
foods have certain molecules added or removed from the DNA of the food
product to enhance it in some way. A gene is inserted into the organism of
the food that it normally wouldn't have. These genes are usually from a virus
or bacteria and it's designed to alter the way food is grown.

For example, when you see abnormally large strawberries or blueberries at

the food store, most of the time these are genetically modified to produce
larger fruit and oftentimes, to make it sweeter.

GMO foods are most commonly created to provide a higher nutritional value
to food and to also make it resistant to pests.

Pros of GMO Foods

While it may seem unnatural to alter or add organisms into food products,
there are a few benefits to it:

 It costs less to produce GMO foods

 Fewer weeds invade the crop
 Provides a sweeter taste to fruits
 Provides higher nutritionally improved traits to provide health benefits
for consumers[*]
Cons of GMO Foods
As with all things unnatural, there come a few downsides:

 Many plants are now producing bacterial toxins leading to resistant

bugs
 Superweeds have been discovered that resist normal herbicides
 Humans are consuming these harmful bacterias and toxins
 GMOs are a new food source to humans which causes allergic reactions
to some people
 In rare cases, cancer is found because of the altered chemicals in food
products

Fortunately, more than 60 countries now require GMO labeling and 26

countries are partially banning GMOs[*].

Should You Avoid GMOs?

GMOs have been a huge topic for debate. The question of whether or not you
should completely avoid them comes down to two factors: your health and
the environment.

GMO crops lead to an increase in the use of chemical pesticides because the
crops have a higher tolerance to withstand these chemicals. This means our
environment and farming communities have more exposure to these
herbicides and pesticides which causes more pollution to the ocean and
air[*].

Little research has been conducted on the safety of GMOs in regards to

health. While some people believe it may be harmful to consume foods that
are unnatural, more studies must be conducted before making any proper
claims.

WHAT ARE ORGANIC FOODS?

Organic products are foods free of any harmful chemicals, synthetic
herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, drug residues, and neurotoxins.
They are almost always more expensive than GMO foods because they
require more care to produce and they need to be certified. Pesticides must
also be organically approved before use which drives the cost up even higher.

In fact, organic foods can cost up to 50% higher than regular foods[*].

So is it worth it to purchase organic over GMO foods?

Pros of Organic Foods

Here's why organic foods might be worth the monetary investment:

 No pesticides can be used when growing organic foods.

 Round-up cannot be used with organic crops. Round-up is a
common herbicide used to kill off weeds.
 Organic crops don’t use hexane. Hexane is a neurotoxin used in
common vegetable oils like soybean, canola, and corn.
 Organic meats don't contain any hormones. Many people express
concern that meats with growth hormone can increase the chances of
cardiovascular disease.
 Animals raised organically aren't given any antibiotics. This means
the meat it produces won't contain any harmful toxins you may have
consumed otherwise.

Cons of Organic Foods

While it may seem like a healthier alternative to adopt a strictly organic food
diet, there are some downsides to it:

 Organic foods are significantly more expensive than GMO or non-

GMO foods.
 Not all food stores have a wide selection of organic foods. Going to
your local farmers market rather than a grocery store may be a better
option.
 Easily goes bad. Organic foods have a shorter shelf life compared to
GMO foods so they must be consumed relatively soon after purchase
 Higher bacteria levels. Since there are very little to no pesticides and
herbicides used on organic foods, the consumption of organic foods has
been linked to an increased risk of e-Coli bacteria in the digestive system.
 No nutritional benefit. Research has found that there is no major
nutritional benefit of organic food over other conventional means[*].

HOW ARE GMO FOOD PRODUCTS DIFFERENT FROM ORGANIC?

Organic foods do not contain any pesticides, fertilizers, solvents, or additives.
This helps the overall biodiversity of plants and animals which makes it
much better for the environment. It also helps prevent antibacterial resistance
in animals and chemical runoff when pesticides seep into the ground.

Non-GMO has many similarities to the organic label but they aren't exactly
the same. This label means that the ingredients in any specific food product
have been verified by the Non-GMO project to ensure no genetically
modified material is present. For meat, this includes the food the animals ate
to ensure there are no GMOs in their bodies.

This is achieved by testing every ingredient that goes into the final product.
Companies and their suppliers with the non-GMO stamp of approval are
inspected yearly to make sure they are compliant with Non-GMO Project
standards.

The slight difference with the organic label is that non-GMO prevents the use
of herbicides that contain GMOs, but it does not mean it must be grown
organically. They could be grown with conventional, non-organic
approaches.

Bottom line: Organic and Non-GMO are similar in the fact that both labels
go through rigorous testing to ensure genetically modified material is not
present in the food or the creation of it.

WHICH FOOD LABEL IS BEST?

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has extremely strict
guidelines when it comes to what can be labeled as organic, GMO or non-
GMO.
The non-GMO label means the food product wasn’t made with GMO, but
this doesn't mean it's organic.

Organic foods are the most heavily regulated label. Purchasing foods with
the "non-GMO" or "organic" label is your safest bet when it comes to
overall health and minimal toxins.

Organic and non-GMO labels are highly similar. In fact, many times the
only reason why certain companies don't take the extra step for the organic
label is that it cost farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get the
certification. Whereas non-GMO is almost identical but cost much less for
verification.

Note: If a label says "natural" it does not mean it's organic. The natural

label is not regulated in America which can be very deceiving. If you are
looking for organic foods, make sure you are looking for the "organic" label.

WARNING: SOME ORGANIC FOODS MAY STILL CONTAIN HARMFUL CHEMICALS

If health is your main priority, the best course of action is to
select unprocessed organic foods whenever possible. But, it's still equally
important to check the nutrition label for any unhealthy ingredients.

Some organic foods may still contain harmful ingredients including:

Hidden MSG
While monosodium glutamate (MSG) cannot be used on organic food, there
are several other free glutamic acid compounds that organic foods may
contain.

Vegetable Oils
Vegetable oils including canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, safflower oil, and
cottonseed oil are linked to increased inflammation and metabolic disease[*].
(https://chomps.com/blogs/news/gmo-vs-organic)

Microbes:
  Is a microscopic organism, which may exist in its single-celled form or in a colony of cells.
 a microorganism, especially a bacterium causing disease or fermentation.

Bioremediation is a technique used to remove environmental contaminants from the

ecosystem. It utilizes the biological mechanisms inherent in microbes and plants to
eradicate hazardous pollutants and restore the ecosystem to its original condition 

The basic principles of bioremediation involve reducing the solubility of these

environmental contaminants by changing pH, the redox reactions and adsorption of
contaminants from polluted environment 

Bioremediation is the use of organisms to metabolize pollutants. Instead of simply collecting the
pollutant and storing it, bioremediation relies on living organisms to consume and break down the
compound, turning it into harmless, natural substances. Bioremediators are any organism used for
bioremediation. Typically, microbes like bacteria, archaea and fungi are the prime bioremediators.
There are lots of different types, they grow very rapidly, and they can be easily modified genetically.
This doesn't mean plants and animals can't be used as bioremediators. It simply means that these
microbes are much easier to use and often better suited to the tasks at hand. In order to better
understand bioremediation, let's continue with the theme of oil spills.

Natural Bioremediators
Fortunately, microbes capable of breaking down nearly all of these compounds already exist. You
can bet as soon as that oil started appearing on Earth, bacteria and archaea evolved ways to exploit
it as an energy source. After countless billions of mutations and generations, a large, diverse
community of microbes evolved. Each species targets one or a select few of the molecules,
efficiently breaking them down, releasing energy.
Some species are able to take their compound down to carbon dioxide and water. Other species
simply break large molecules into smaller chunks that are in turn broken down by a different species.
The process is slow but nearly 100% effective. So, bioremediation is able to clean up these oil spills
but not in a time frame that is acceptable to most environmentalists. Who has time to wait 1,000
years for nature's garbage men to take care of business? It's time to introduce another term.

Natural air purifiers

Plants can degrade harmful particles in the air as well break down carbon dioxide through
photosynthesis process to produce oxygen. Likewise, several microbes also break down toxic
chemicals, including the ones that are present in the atmosphere. We can introduce (inoculate)
these microbes into plants to give them an added advantage. The right plant-microbe combo may
help us increase food production or clean up the environment.
Recently, scientists inoculated blue pea plants with bacteria that can remove formaldehyde. This
volatile organic compound is released as a pollution by-product from industry and is also present
in cigarette smoke. Remarkably, the plants colonised by these bacteria grow better in the
presence of formaldehyde than plants without bacteria. Although some studies suggest that
plants have an innate ability to break down formaldehyde and use them as a carbon source to
make sugars, it seems that the bacteria make the plants more efficient in this process. Therefore,
plants grown inoculated with these bacteria grow better in the presence of formald

BIOTECHNOLOGY.

BOON (Boon: was something like that gives you benefit):

The Pros of Biotechnology

1. It can improve health and reduce hunger simultaneously.
Biotechnology has helped to improve the nutritional content of our food
supply. Necessary vitamins and minerals can be produced in croplands and
this reduces health issues that are related to a lack of nutrients. At the same
time, biotechnology also improves cropland yields and nutritional density, so
people can eat less and still receive the same nutritional values. That allows
more people to have the food they need.
2. It creates flexibility within the food chain.
Biotechnology can also help croplands be able to produce foods that may not
be possible under “regular” conditions. Using concepts from this field of study,
it is possible to grow crops in the desert. It is possible to create crops that are
naturally resistant to pests. Although the amount of land our planet can
provide is finite, biotechnology allows us to be able to use more of it for what
we need.
3. It offers medical advancement opportunities.
Biotechnology allows us to look within just as easily as we can look to the
outside world for advancement. Studies that involve the human genome have
allowed us to understand more about genetic diseases and some cancers,
creating more effective treatments for them – and sometimes cures. It has
allowed us to explore the reasons behind certain birth defects to understand
the importance of folic acid. That makes it possible to extend average human
lifespans.
4. It allows us to preserve resources.
Biotechnology gives us an opportunity to extend the lifespan of our food
supplies. Practices that include salting foods to preserve them date back
beyond Biblical times. Freezing and drying foods as methods of preservation
have been known for centuries. Pasteur pioneered an approach of heating
food products to remove harmful elements so they can be preserved for an
extended period.
5. It helps us minimize or eliminate waste products.
According to National Geographic, the footprint that humanity leaves on our
planet from waste is quite extensive. In 2006, the United States generated
251 million tons of trash. That equates to nearly 5 pounds of trash per person,
per day. 65% of trash comes from homes and 55% of that trash will end up in
a landfill. Biotechnology allows us to create waste products that have better
biodegradable properties. It allows us to manage landfills more effectively.
That way we can begin to minimize the footprint being left for future
generations.
6. It can reduce infectious disease rates.
Biotechnology has helped us to create vaccines. It has helped us be able to
create treatments that reduce difficult symptoms of disease. It has even
helped us to learn how infectious diseases can be transmitted so their
transmission can be reduced. That allows us to protect those who are most
vulnerable to these diseases, giving them a chance to live a happy, fulfilling
life.
 

BANE
The Cons of Biotechnology
1. It creates an all-or-nothing approach.
One of the biggest problems that biotechnology faces is a lack of genetic
diversity. The processes included in this field can increase crop yields and
improve medical science, but it comes at the price of a genetic bottleneck.
Should something unforeseen happen, an entire crop or medical treatment
opportunity could go to waste or even threaten the survival of certain species.
2. It is a field of research with many unknowns.
Although our database of biotechnology has greatly expanded in the last
generation, there are still many long-term unknowns that we face. What
happens if we tinker with the genetics of a person to treat a disorder? What
happens to the environment if we dramatically alter crops to grow in locations
that would normally not support crop growth? Should every action have an
equal and opposite reaction, future generations could pay the price for our
research that is happening today.
3. It could ruin croplands.
Biotechnology has allowed more vitamins and minerals to enter our food
chain, but it could be coming at a cost. Many crops obtain their nutritional
content from the soil in which they grow. If that soil is overloaded by the crop,
it may lose its viability, even with crop rotation occurring. That may reduce the
amount of growing time each land segment is able to provide while extending
its recovery period at the same time. In some situations, the croplands could
be permanently ruined.
4. It turns human life into a commodity.
In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that DNA which is lab
manipulated is eligible to be patented. The foundation of this ruling was that
altered DNA sequences are not found in nature. At the moment,
complementary DNA, or cDNA, has been specifically mentioned as an
example of what could be patented. Obtaining DNA to create altered DNA
sequences for profit minimizes human life (or plant and animal life) to profit
potential. It also opens the door to ethical and moral questions, such as when
human life begins, with the purpose of maximizing the dollars and cents that
can be obtained.
5. It can be used for destruction.
All the benefits that biotechnology can provide could also be turned into a
weapon that is used for mass destruction. Crops can be improved, but they
can also be destroyed. Medicines can be made with biotechnology, but
diseases can also be weaponized. If left unchecked, biotechnology could even
create a societal class that is created specifically for research purposes only.
Biotechnology has done much to improve our way of life. It has helped the
world to become a much smaller place. At the same time, we still face many
challenges that must be overcome.

 Bioethics is commonly understood to refer to the ethical implications and applications of

the health-related life sciences. These implications can run the entire length of the bench-to-bedside
“translational pipeline.” Dilemmas can arise for the basic scientist who wants to develop synthetic
embryos to better study embryonic and fetal development, but is not sure just how real the embryos
can be without running into moral limits on their later destruction. 

Bioethics concerns itself with addressing ethical issues in healthcare, medicine, research,
biotechnology, and the environment.  Typically these issues are addressed from many different
disciplines. People contribute to the bioethics discussion drawing on expertise and methods from the
sciences, social sciences, and the humanities.  Professionals working in the field of bioethics include
philosophers, scientists, health administrators, lawyers, theologians, anthropologists, disability
advocates, and social workers. People may teach, do research, treat patients in the clinical setting or
work to change laws or public policy. The issues of bioethics are at the intersection between
medicine, law, public policy, religion, and science. Each field contributes important insights,
resources and methodologies and efforts to think about or make changes to practices and policies
that raise ethical concerns are often strongest when they draw on resources across disciplines. The
Showcase submission formats include some commonly used formats to present bioethics-related
proposals or findings.
Examples of topic areas that have been the focus of bioethics for a long time are organ donation and
transplantation, genetic research, death and dying, and environmental concerns.  New
developments in science and technology have focused attention on topics such as assisted
reproductive technologies, neuroethics (ethical issues around brain imaging and testing), and
nanotechnologies (using small particles to deliver medicine or other medical treatments).

Pros of genetic testing

It offers insight: With genetic testing, “we’re targeting the coding part of the gene
that is relevant to your particular disease,” Aatre says. That, she notes, involves
reading a DNA sequence from start to finish to see if there are any
“interruptions/disruptions” — mutations associated with the disease in question —
that stop the gene from making normal proteins.

Uncertainty is lessened: Worried about a future ailment? Knowing that a particular

mutation is absent can help people ease anxiety about their own health and that of
their children. “A big part of genetic testing is trying to determine who else in the
family is at risk,” Aatre says. “But you’re also providing reassurance.”

Cons of genetic testing

Not everyone is eligible: To get tested, a loved one must already have been affected
by a disease or disorder — and been genetically tested, too. The reason? “You need to
know what to go after,” Aatre says. Everyone’s body has seven to 10
nonworking/altered genes, she notes, so family and clinical history must dictate when
and where to focus attention (and avoid unnecessary anxiety).
Some advantages of genetic testing include:
 A sense of relief from uncertainty
 Reduce the risk of cancer by making certain lifestyle changes if you have a positive
result
 In-depth knowledge about your cancer risk
 Information to help make informed medical and lifestyle decisions
 Opportunity to help educate other family members about potential risk
 Earlier detection, which increases the chance of a successful outcome

Some disadvantages, or risks, that come from genetic testing can include:
 Testing may increase anxiety and stress for some individuals
 Testing does not eliminate a person’s risk for cancer
 Results in some cases may return inconclusive or uncertain

Benefits
 Direct-to-consumer genetic testing promotes awareness of genetic diseases.
 It provides personalized information about your health, disease risk, and other
traits.
 It may help you be more proactive about your health.
 It does not require approval from a healthcare provider or health insurance
company.
 It is often less expensive than genetic testing obtained through a healthcare
provider.
 DNA sample collection is usually simple and noninvasive, and results are
available quickly.
 Your data is added to a large database that can be used to further medical
research. Depending on the company, the database may represent up to several
million participants.

Risks and limitations

 Tests may not be available for the health conditions or traits that interest you.
 This type of testing cannot tell definitively whether you will or will not get a
particular disease.
 Unexpected information that you receive about your health, family relationships,
or ancestry may be stressful or upsetting.
  People may make important decisions about disease treatment or prevention
based on inaccurate, incomplete, or misunderstood information from their test
results.
 There is currently little oversight or regulation of testing companies.
 Unproven or invalid tests can be misleading. There may not be enough scientific
evidence to link a particular genetic variation with a given disease or trait.
 Genetic privacy may be compromised if testing companies use your genetic
information in an unauthorized way or if your data is stolen.
 The results of genetic testing may impact your ability to obtain life, disability, or
long-term care insurance.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing provides only partial information about your health.
Other genetic and environmental factors, lifestyle choices, and family medical history
also affect the likelihood of developing many disorders. These factors would be
discussed during a consultation with a doctor or genetic counselor, but in many cases
they are not addressed when using at-home genetic tests.
(https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/dtcrisksbenefits)