Bioethics: Ethical Issues in the Manipulation of Microbial Life

 

Bioethics: Ethical Issues in the Manipulation of Microbial Life

The manipulation of microbial life presents significant ethical challenges that require careful consideration and responsible action. Bioethics in microbial manipulation is important regarding assessing risks and benefits and it also involves considering broader questions about the relationship between humans and the natural world, the value of life, and the responsibilities of scientists and society.

Bioethics is the study of the ethical, legal, and social implications of biological research and applications. It addresses the moral questions regarding the genetic modification, use, and release of microorganisms in to environment. Ethical considerations are important in ensuring that technological advancements in biotechnology and genetic engineering are used responsibly and for the greater good.

The development of recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s allowed scientists to alter the genetic material of microorganisms.  The Asilomar Conference in 1975 addressed the ethical implications of genetic engineering.

With the advent of CRISPR-Cas9 and other gene-editing technologies, the potential for precise and extensive manipulation of microbial life has expanded and these advancements raise new ethical questions about the boundaries of scientific intervention, the potential for unintended consequences and the societal impacts.  The increasing use of genetically modified microorganisms (GMOs) in medicine, agriculture and industry has led to debates about the safety, morality, and regulation of such technologies.

There has been a growing concern on genetically modified organisms used as food. In 1999 the European Union prohibited the production of new genetically modified crops and in 2000, 130 countries agreed on a protocol that requires exporters to declare if the crops they are exporting contain genetically modified organisms.

Transgenic plants have raised a lot of controversial issues. It is alleged that transgenic plants may be able to pass their new gene to other plants in surrounding areas via pollination. If these transgenic plants were made resistant to herbicides, diseases or insects, the offspring of the transgenic and non transgenic plants may become super weeds that are very difficult to control.

Genetic engineering in plants has also been attributed to the loss of crop genetic diversity thus increasing the risk of famine.  It also claimed that transgenic plants can produce pollen which is toxic to butterflies. Genetic engineering is also used in the production of virus-tolerant crops. Recombination can occur between the plant-produced viral genes and closely related genes of incoming viruses which may lead to the creation of viruses that can infect a wider range of hosts or that may be more powerful than the parent viruses.

Animal right activists are concerned about the suffering which genetic engineering techniques inflict on animals. In many situations the transgenic animal does not pass on the desired gene to its offspring so repeated experiments are necessary in order to develop the desired line for breeding purposes, thus increasing the difficulty and suffering of the organism involved.

Fish which are genetically engineered can raise problems if they interbreed with fish that have not. Fish which have been genetically modified may compete with other fish for food, thus causing the extermination of certain species of fish.

The use of genetically engineered Bovine Somatotropin used to increase the yield of milk in dairy cows has raised many questions. It is found that Bovine Somatotropin increases a cow’s likelihood of developing mastitis and other infections of its udders.

The mapping of the human genome raised a lot of ethical questions. Many people question the right of others to examine someone else’s gene and to modify them, altering the manner from which it was created by GOD.   Through the process of genetic engineering, scientists extract stem cells from a human embryo approximately five days after conception, which can serve as replacement cells to treat Alzheimer's and other diseases. When the stem cells are extracted from the embryo, the embryo is destroyed. The embryo is considered to be a human life and when it is destroyed, this is considered to be murder by certain people.

Today around the world the regulatory agencies in many countries are trying to facilitate the use of DNA technology in various industries while at the same time trying to ensure its safety.

Key Ethical Issues in the Manipulation of Microbial Life

Biosafety Concerns: One of the primary ethical concerns is the safety of genetically modified microorganisms, particularly regarding their potential release into the environment. There is a risk that these organisms could interact with natural ecosystems in unpredictable ways, leading to ecological imbalances or the emergence of new pathogens.  Ensuring that genetically modified microorganisms are contained and do not escape into the environment is crucial. Ethical concerns arise when considering the potential for accidental release and the long-term effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Impact on Natural Ecosystems: The introduction of genetically modified microorganisms could disrupt existing ecosystems and lead to a loss of biodiversity. For example, engineered microbes could outcompete natural species, leading to the decline or extinction of certain microorganisms, plants, or animals.  This results in the loss of Ecological Balance leading to the potential disruption of nutrient cycles, soil health, and the relationships between microorganisms and other living organisms.

Human Health and Safety: The manipulation of microorganisms, especially in the context of food production, raises concerns about unintended health effects. For example, the use of genetically modified bacteria in probiotics or food processing must be carefully evaluated to ensure they do not cause harm to human health.  The use of antibiotic resistance markers in genetically modified microorganisms can contribute to the spread of antibiotic resistance, posing a significant public health risk.

Dual-Use Research of Concern (DURC): Dual-use research refers to scientific research that has the potential to be used for both beneficial and harmful purposes. In the context of microbial manipulation, this includes the possibility of creating harmful pathogens, either intentionally (bioterrorism) or accidentally, that could pose a threat to public health and security.

Intellectual Property and Access: The patenting of genetically modified microorganisms raises ethical questions about ownership, access, and the commercialization of life forms. While patents can incentivize innovation, they can also limit access to essential technologies resulting in the monopoly of inventions by developed countries.  Ethical considerations include ensuring the benefits of microbial manipulation, such as new medicines or agricultural technologies to be accessible to all, regardless of economic status or geographic location.

Environmental Ethics:  Some ethical frameworks argue that all forms of life, including microorganisms, have intrinsic value and deserve moral consideration. This perspective challenges the view that microorganisms can be freely manipulated for human benefit without considering their inherent worth.  Decisions made today about the manipulation of microbial life could have long-lasting impacts on the environment and human society.

Ethical Frameworks and Principles

Precautionary Principle: The precautionary principle advocates for caution in the face of uncertainty. When the potential risks of manipulating microbial life are unknown or not fully understood, this principle suggests to be on the side of caution to avoid unintended harm. This is particularly relevant in the context of releasing genetically modified microorganisms into the environment, where the long-term impacts may be difficult to predict.

Beneficence and Non-Maleficence: Beneficence emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the manipulation of microbial life produces positive outcomes, such as improved public health, environmental sustainability, or economic benefits.  Non-Maleficence is the principle of "do no harm." It underscores the need to avoid actions that could cause harm to humans, animals, or the environment.

Justice and Equity: Benefits and risks of microbial manipulation should be distributed fairly across society. This includes ensuring that vulnerable populations are not disproportionately affected by the risks and they should not be excluded from the benefits.  There should not be any potential for widening the gap between developed and developing countries in terms of access to biotechnology.

Respect for Autonomy: This involves acknowledging the rights of individuals and communities to make informed decisions about the use of biotechnology in their lives and environments. This principle is closely tied to informed consent and public engagement regarding the release of genetically modified microorganisms.

Regulatory and Policy Considerations

International Regulations: International organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN) play a role in establishing guidelines and frameworks for the safe and ethical use of biotechnology.

National Regulations: Countries have developed regulatory frameworks to regulate the manipulation of microbial life. These regulations typically involve risk assessments, safety protocols, and approval processes for the use and release of genetically modified microorganisms.

Ethical Review Boards and Institutional Guidelines: Ethical review boards, such as Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs), play a critical role in evaluating the ethical implications of research involving microbial manipulation. These bodies are responsible for ensuring that research is conducted in accordance with ethical principles and safety standards.

Patenting life

Patents are exclusive government-granted right for an invention, either a product or process, which allows its owner to exclude others from making, using, or selling the patented technology for a limited period of time.  Patenting scientific advancements in the field of biotechnology is an extremely complicated process.  For over 200 years living organisms were excluded from patent laws; life forms were considered a ‘product of nature,’ not a human invention.  

The non-patentable status of living organisms changed with the landmark decision of the Supreme Court, USA, in Diamond v. Chakraborty in 1980. Ananda Chakrabarty’s invention of a new Pseudomonas bacterium genetically engineered to degrade crude oil was rejected by US Patent Office, but the Supreme Court decision went in favour of Chakrabarty in a landmark case, Diamond (USPTO commissioner) v Chakrabarty (inventor). Chakrabarty’s Pseudomonas bacterium was a manipulated version that contained four plasmids controlling the breakdown of hydrocarbons and thus was ‘a new bacterium with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature’. The Supreme Court stated that new microorganisms not found in nature were either ‘manufactured’ or ‘composition of matter’ and thus patentable. Thus, it was not a ‘product of nature’ and can be patentable.

Following Chakrabarty case, European Patent Office (EPO) and the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) also started granting patent protection for microorganisms in 1981. The Government of India permitted patenting of microorganisms in India under the Patents (Second Amendment) Bill, 2002 and the microorganisms and microbiological inventions can be patented in India provided the strain is new.

USPTO issued the first patent on transgenic non-human animal ‘Harvard Mouse’ developed by Philip Leder and Timothy Stewart. The ‘Harvard Mouse’ was created through a genetic engineering technique of microinjection. To the fertilized egg, a gene known to cause breast cancer was injected and then this egg was surgically implanted into the mother. The resulting transgenic mice were extremely prone to breast cancer.

There are many ethical issues related to patenting life, such as: 

• ·         Whether living material can be privately owned or if it should be considered a common good 
• ·         Whether modifying the gene structure of living beings is against nature 
• ·         Whether conferring rights over a part of the human body violates human dignity 
• ·         Whether certain types of objects should be made the object of commercial exploitation 
• ·         Whether patenting and modifying the gene structure of living beings could create environmental changes

Some arguments against patenting life are: 

• No one can take the rights of nature's creations 
• Life forms are creations of God and Nature 
• Life forms are not inventions and thus do not meet the criteria of patentability 

Since biotechnology has brought many benefits to society, such as inventing new medicines and eradicating diseases, some argue that the risks of patenting life can be controlled through proper regulatory systems.