OCR Specification focus:
‘Evaluate positive and negative ethical issues in manipulating animals, plants and microorganisms, including GM crops, GM pathogens, pharming and technology access.’
Genetic manipulation raises significant ethical questions surrounding the modification of living organisms for human benefit, balancing scientific progress with moral, environmental and societal responsibilities.
Understanding Genetic Manipulation
Genetic manipulation refers to the deliberate modification of an organism’s genome using biotechnology to introduce, remove, or alter specific genes. This allows for genetically modified (GM) plants, animals, and microorganisms with desirable traits such as improved yield, disease resistance, or production of medicinal substances.
Genetic modification (GM): The process of altering the genetic material of an organism to produce a desired characteristic.
Modern genetic engineering techniques, including recombinant DNA technology, CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, and transgenic methods, have increased the precision and scope of manipulation, intensifying ethical debate about their use in agriculture, medicine, and research.
Ethical Principles in Genetic Manipulation
Ethical considerations often derive from broader moral principles such as:
Beneficence – promoting welfare through useful applications.
Non-maleficence – avoiding harm to organisms or ecosystems.
Justice – ensuring fair access and distribution of benefits.
Respect for autonomy – maintaining informed consent and transparency in research.
These principles underpin the evaluation of specific cases involving genetic modification of different organism groups.
Manipulating Plants – GM Crops
Positive Ethical Aspects
Enhanced food security: GM crops can be engineered for drought tolerance, pest resistance, or improved nutritional content (e.g., Golden Rice, enriched with vitamin A).
Golden Rice grains (right) display beta-carotene–induced yellow coloration compared with white rice (left). This GM trait targets vitamin A deficiency, illustrating how crop engineering can address public-health needs. Note: the image shows the phenotype only; it does not depict genetic mechanisms. Source.
Reduced pesticide use: Insect-resistant varieties lower chemical dependency, benefiting human health and reducing environmental pollution.
Higher yield and efficiency: Increased productivity supports global food supply and economic stability, particularly in developing regions.
Negative Ethical Aspects
Environmental concerns: Gene flow from GM crops to wild relatives may cause loss of biodiversity or creation of invasive “superweeds.”
Corporate control: Patenting of GM seeds by biotechnology companies restricts farmers’ rights to save and reuse seeds, raising concerns about exploitation.
Consumer autonomy: Ethical debate surrounds the right to know through labelling of GM foods, allowing consumers informed choice.
Ethical evaluation in plant manipulation therefore balances human benefit against ecological and social costs.
Manipulating Animals
Positive Ethical Aspects
Pharming: Genetically modified animals can produce pharmaceutical proteins or human-compatible organs for transplantation, potentially saving lives.
Disease research: Introducing human genes into animals enables study of genetic disorders and development of treatments.
Improved welfare: Genetic selection for disease resistance in livestock can reduce suffering and economic losses.
Pharming: The use of genetically modified animals or plants to produce medically useful substances such as hormones, antibodies or enzymes.
Negative Ethical Aspects
Animal welfare: Genetic modification may cause unintended suffering, deformities, or health issues. The moral status of animals and their right to natural existence are central concerns.
Intrinsic value: Some ethicists argue that altering an animal’s genome for human benefit violates its intrinsic worth.
Public perception: Many people are uneasy about creating transgenic animals, reflecting concerns about “playing God” or crossing natural boundaries.
These issues necessitate strict ethical review committees and compliance with Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK to ensure humane treatment and justification of all procedures.
Manipulating Microorganisms
Positive Ethical Aspects
Medical advancement: GM bacteria produce insulin, growth hormones, and vaccines, revolutionising healthcare.
Step-wise illustration of recombinant DNA insulin production: the human insulin gene is inserted into a plasmid, transformed into bacteria, cultured in a fermenter, and the insulin is harvested and purified. This image emphasises the therapeutic benefits that motivate ethical approval of GM microbes. The interactive page contains several frames; use the frame showing the fermentation tank producing insulin. Source.
Environmental benefit: Engineered microorganisms can degrade pollutants or assist in bioremediation, reducing ecological damage.
Research utility: Genetically modified microbes provide safe, controllable models for understanding gene function.
Negative Ethical Aspects
Biosafety risks: Accidental release of GM microorganisms could disrupt ecosystems or transfer genes to natural populations.
Bioterrorism potential: Modified pathogens could be misused to create harmful biological agents, demanding stringent containment.
Moral responsibility: The creation of potentially dangerous organisms raises questions about accountability and long-term monitoring.
These concerns highlight the importance of containment protocols, biosafety levels, and international regulation (e.g., Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety).
GM Pathogens
Genetically modified pathogens are sometimes created for vaccine development or to study virulence mechanisms.
Ethical justification: When aimed at preventing disease and improving public health, such research aligns with beneficence.
Risks: Dual-use research may be exploited maliciously, and containment failures could lead to outbreaks.
Governance: Ethical oversight through regulatory bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) ensures controlled and responsible research practices.
Balancing innovation against biosafety remains a key ethical challenge in this area.
Access to Genetic Technology
The accessibility of genetic technologies represents a major ethical dimension of global justice.
Equity concerns: High costs and intellectual property laws limit access for low-income nations, perpetuating inequality.
Open-source science: Some advocate for free exchange of genetic knowledge to ensure collective benefit.
Biopiracy: Exploiting genetic resources from developing countries without fair compensation raises issues of consent and cultural respect.
Promoting fair use, technology sharing, and international cooperation are considered ethical imperatives to ensure the benefits of genetic manipulation are widely distributed.
Ethical Frameworks and Societal Perspectives
Different philosophical and cultural perspectives shape the ethical evaluation of genetic manipulation:
Utilitarian view: Actions are ethical if they maximise overall happiness or benefit (e.g., disease prevention outweighs risks).
Deontological view: Some actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of outcomes (e.g., manipulating life is morally impermissible).
Environmental ethics: Focuses on the rights of ecosystems and species beyond human interests.
Societal trust depends on transparency, public consultation, and ethical governance in scientific research. Ultimately, decisions must reflect a balance between innovation, welfare, and moral integrity.
FAQ
The ethical difference largely centres on the moral status of the organism.
Genetically modifying plants is typically viewed as less ethically problematic because plants are not sentient, and their modification primarily raises ecological and social concerns such as biodiversity loss or corporate control.
In contrast, modifying animals raises issues of welfare, suffering, and intrinsic value, as animals can experience pain and distress. Ethical scrutiny therefore increases with the organism’s capacity for sentience and the degree of manipulation involved.
Opposition stems from concerns about fairness, accessibility, and scientific integrity.
Patents can restrict other researchers from using the organism or its genes, limiting scientific progress.
Farmers in developing countries may become dependent on multinational corporations for patented GM seeds, reducing autonomy.
Ethical critics argue that life forms should not be treated as commercial property, since they are naturally evolved or community-derived biological resources.
Ethical review boards assess both scientific and moral considerations before approving research.
They examine:
The purpose and potential benefits of the work.
The level of risk to animals, humans, or the environment.
Whether alternatives could achieve similar results without genetic modification
The proportionality between harm and benefit — ensuring that potential benefits justify any ethical costs.
Approval is contingent on compliance with legislation, such as the UK’s Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and institutional biosafety protocols.
Gene drives promote the inheritance of a particular gene throughout a population, often to control pests or disease vectors.
Ethical concerns include:
Ecological unpredictability: Altering or eliminating a species may disrupt food webs or ecosystems.
Irreversibility: Once released, gene drives can spread uncontrollably.
Consent and governance: Affects cross-border regions, making international ethical approval complex.
These risks mean that many scientists advocate for laboratory confinement and phased testing before any environmental release.
Cultural and religious perspectives shape how societies define what is morally acceptable.
Some faiths, such as certain Christian and Islamic traditions, express caution, viewing genetic manipulation as an overreach of human authority over creation.
Others support it if used compassionately to relieve suffering, aligning with principles of beneficence.
Indigenous and environmental worldviews often stress harmony with nature and oppose altering natural species for profit or convenience.
Understanding these perspectives helps policymakers create inclusive, ethically sensitive regulations.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
State two ethical concerns associated with the genetic modification of animals for pharming.
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for each valid ethical concern (maximum 2 marks):
Potential for animal suffering or reduced welfare due to unintended effects of genetic modification.
Ethical objection to using animals purely as biological factories for human benefit.
Public perception of “playing God” or interfering with natural species boundaries.
Issues of consent and intrinsic value of animal life.
Question 2 (5 marks)
Discuss the ethical advantages and disadvantages of manipulating microorganisms to produce medical products such as human insulin.
Mark Scheme:
Award up to 5 marks for a balanced and structured discussion.
Advantages (up to 3 marks):
(1 mark) GM microorganisms can produce large quantities of medically important substances like insulin, improving treatment availability.
(1 mark) Reduced reliance on animal sources (e.g. porcine insulin) avoids ethical and religious concerns.
(1 mark) Biotechnology can enhance efficiency, reduce production costs, and ensure product purity and consistency.
Disadvantages (up to 2 marks):
(1 mark) Accidental release of GM microbes may pose environmental or ecological risks.
(1 mark) Potential misuse in bioterrorism or creation of harmful strains raises biosafety and ethical responsibility issues.
Additional notes for examiners:
Answers that provide only one side of the argument (advantages or disadvantages) can gain a maximum of 3 marks.
Award full marks (5/5) for a coherent, well-structured response showing awareness of ethical principles such as beneficence and non-maleficence.
