Columbia University Libraries Journals
Not a member yet
6467 research outputs found
Sort by
Taming China’s Frontier: Japan’s Ethnic Control Policy and the 1920 Gando Intervention
No full textThis paper focuses on the formulation and implementation of Imperial Japan’s policy of ethnic control in the Gando region by delving into the prelude and development of the Gando Intervention from October 1920 to May 1921. The Gando region had been a significant base for the Korean independence movement due to its proximity to the Korean Peninsula, which was favorable to independence activists’ military operations along the Sino-Japanese border. From a different perspective, Japan also sought to expand its influence on Gando and eliminate anti-Japanese forces which continued to disrupt its colonial governance over Korea. China, which officially owned the territorial sovereignty over Gando, or Yanbian (based on the Gando Convention in 1909) had to deal with conflicts between Korean independent activists and Japan as well as Japan’s ambitions towards control of Gando. This formed Gando as a contested space where three sides of power existed. By analyzing newspapers and official documents produced by these three sides, this paper highlights the complex interplay of imperial expansion, ethnicity, and the geopolitical situation in the early twentieth century. This paper breaks from the traditional narrative of military history, focusing instead on Japan’s ethnic exploitation over the expatriate Koreans in Gando
Beyond Income and Education: Unveiling the True Catalysts of Green Behavior in Pakistan and South Asia: A Demand-Side Analysis
No full textThere is extensive literature on the progress of green alternatives in Pakistan, but there is no evaluation of how the people of Pakistan will respond to these proposed solutions. After conducting a literature review on green alternatives, this paper employs the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) framework. It utilizes data from the World Values Survey (WVS) in conjunction with logistic regression to assess the viability of sustainable practices in Pakistan and whether specific demographic groups, such as women, highly educated individuals, and high-income citizens, exhibit a greater inclination to adopt sustainable practices. Our regression analysis indicates that people’s income, religiosity level, and age do not affect their likelihood of adopting sustainable practices. In contrast, their attitude towards free market ideology, self-provision, and cultural values such as power distance and global connectedness have a significant impact. The paper shows Pakistan’s education system does not instill environmental values in people like other South Asian systems. Women in South Asia are less likely to adopt sustainable practices than men. These findings offer valuable insights for policymakers and financial institutions, guiding a nuanced restructuring of green alternative approaches in Pakistan and South Asia.
How Experts View the Legal System's Use of Scientific Evidence
Full text linkLegal scholars and courts frequently write about how scientific evidence is vetted and presented in legal proceedings, but the views of experts themselves have received little attention. Our research aims to fill that gap. This paper reports some of what we learned from a series of surveys we conducted, beginning with a survey in 2016 of scientists who had been elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Subsequent surveys were directed to subscribers of the journal Science who identified as scientists and engineers and to self-identified experts who advertised their availability as experts to lawyers or appeared in the expert listings on Westlaw. Responses from those surveyed capture how they regard key actors in the legal system (Judges, Jurors, Lawyers, Other Experts) as well as the weaknesses these experts see in how the legal system treats scientists and handles scientific evidence. We also examine the extent to which expert evaluations of these issues are mediated by their experience in testifying in legal proceedings
Unsticking Litigation Science
Full text linkLitigation science is increasingly out of step with academic, knowledge-producing science. Research practices in the social sciences have changed dramatically in the past fifteen years, in response to a knowledge crisis now popularly known as the “Replication Crisis.” The Replication Crisis caused an evolution in scientists’ understanding of what it takes to create reliable science and radically altered the way social science is conducted today. Central to these reforms is a focus on the elimination of “Analytical Flexibility”—the flexibility a researcher has to alter a research protocol along the way—in recognition of the fact that Analytical Flexibility has a propensity to lead to research results that are not only unreliable but also unreliable in undetectable ways.
The Replication Crisis represents a paradigm shift that has not yet been recognized by the legal community. In this symposium paper, I describe how litigation science and academic science are currently on divergent paths, and argue that it is critical for courts and litigators to start engaging with recent progress in research methodology. In the academic sciences, modern research practices such as preregistration are increasingly becoming routine and expected by journals, peer reviewers, and funders. Meanwhile, testifying experts retained in connection with litigation essentially proceed as they always have, and disclosure requirements have remained unchanged.
Litigation science is at risk of becoming a quaint, historically shaped discipline that bears scant relationship to its academic, knowledge-producing cousin. If we do not reform how litigation science is produced and presented, it will increasingly be seen as incapable of producing information that can usefully inform relevant issues in litigation
From Universal to Pluriversal: Transforming Human Rights Education Policies in Colombia
Full text linkThis paper examines Colombia’s National Plan for Human Rights Education (Plan Nacional de Educación en Derechos Humanos, PLANEDH) as a case study to discuss how positivistic, Eurocentric, and Western constructions have influenced a hegemonic understanding of human rights education. While the PLANEDH policy aligns with the United Nations human rights education mandates, its implementation remains largely symbolic, with minimal territorial impact and limited community participation. This paper encourages a shift of perspectives applying the Pluriversal Rights Education framework. It discusses the importance of integrating diverse ways of knowing into human rights education dialogues and fostering participatory, community-driven policy design. The analysis offers recommendations to reenvision a more plural implementation of the PLANEDH policy in the Colombian education system
Migration, Climate, and Education: Proposing Human Rights-Based Education for Internally Displaced Learners in Lower- and Middle-Income Countries
Full text linkThe growing impacts of climate change are forcing families in low- and middle-income countries to migrate to urban areas, resulting in widespread internal displacement. Despite the significant disruptions this causes to children’s education, its educational consequences remain underexplored in climate change research. This study addresses the gap by adopting a Human rights-based approach (HRBA) to education and integrating insights from the Education in Emergencies framework while examining the impact of climate-induced displacement on education. Through a literature review of academic and policy documents, the research examines educational vulnerabilities of internally climate-displaced learners, including restricted access to schooling, declines in academic performance, and difficulties adapting to new learning environments. The challenges are pronounced for girls, reinforcing pre-existing gender disparities in education. Based on the findings, the study proposes targeted policy interventions, including climate-responsive education frameworks and economic protection measures for affected households
Balancing Innovation and Ethics: The Role of Genetic Testing in Health and Identity
Full text linkPhoto by CDC on Unsplash
Abstract
The growth of direct-to-consumer genetic testing promises insight into health risks and ancestral roots. This essay examines how at-home DNA kits empower users to detect potential genetic conditions early, create personalized health strategies, and gain a deeper understanding of their lineage. However, the essay cautions against overreliance on these tests to define identity, noting that genetic data alone may be incomplete or imprecise. Ethical questions also arise around data privacy, psychological impact, and the need for rigorous scientific validation. By exploring cost concerns and regulatory gaps, this essay underscores the importance of balancing innovation with responsible usage. Ultimately, genetic testing can offer valuable information for proactive healthcare and self-discovery with professional medical consultation and ethical safeguards.
Introduction
Interest in genetic testing surged as social media and online marketing spread awareness about kits that can help people discover their DNA makeup. Genetic testing is the sequencing of human DNA to find genetic anomalies or mutations and can be used for many purposes, including discovering ancestral lineage. Recent innovations have made DNA testing more accessible, easy, and affordable. Currently, some of the main genetic testing companies include 23andMe and AncestryDNA, where people can effortlessly find out information about their health and family history. While genetic testing kits can improve quality of life by providing insight into health problems and helping people understand their lineage, they should not dictate identity or replace consulting medical experts.
How Genetic Testing Works
Genetic testing kits create an easy process for people to test their DNA in the comfort of their homes. Usually costing from 99, most DNA test kits include a small container for customers to spit in or a swab to collect cells from the inside of their cheeks. Then, the consumer sends the kit to a lab, where scientists isolate their cells and analyze their genes, comparing the gene alleles to those in the company database.[1] According to MIT Technology Review, “By the start of 2019, more than 26 million consumers had added their DNA to four leading commercial ancestry and health databases.”[2] The contribution of data from over 26 million people enhances the accuracy of genetic testing, as a larger dataset allows for more precise analysis and insight. After the lab receives the sample, scientists use DNA sequencing, the process of determining the sequence of nucleotides, to map out the genetics of a person. DNA nucleotides, the organic molecules that form DNA, contain four bases: adenine (A), cytosine (C), thymine (T), and guanine (G). These four bases make up the instructions that tell the body which molecules to create, allowing scientists to identify specific health and lineage traits.
Health Benefits of Genetic Testing
A key benefit of genetic testing is that it helps people understand and gain early awareness of possible health problems. From DNA testing kits, individuals can learn whether a genetic condition runs in their family before symptoms appear. Mayo Clinic points out, “If you have symptoms of a disease that may be caused by genetic changes, sometimes called mutated genes, genetic testing can reveal if you have the suspected disorder. For example, genetic testing may be used to confirm a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis or Huntington's disease.”[3] Genetic testing can also reveal illnesses that may only be caught on the genetic level. For instance, Huntington's disease, an inherited condition in which nerve cells in the brain break down over time, can only be detected through DNA testing. By using a genetic testing kit, people can learn if they carry inherited illnesses such as Huntington's disease and cystic fibrosis sooner and make adjustments to their lifestyle to improve their health.
A person receiving genetic testing can potentially prevent or treat health issues earlier and save their lives. Genetic testing can help individuals identify whether they carry an increased risk of cancer, Alzheimer's, or other diseases, and find the safest and most effective treatment for them based on their DNA.[4] Advancements in technology, such as genetic testing, have made healthcare more personalized, resulting in greater accuracy and more efficient treatments. More than a third of home testers consult a medical professional and half share their results with others, an important step in understanding and decoding the results from genetic tests.[5]
In enabling individuals to gain insight into their health predispositions, genetic testing encourages behavioral adjustments and the adoption of healthier lifestyle habits. For example, with dieting, many people lose motivation to continue nutritious eating habits and exercise when they do not notice instant results. However, genetic testing can help people stay committed by providing confidence that their efforts align with their genetic profile and will yield results over time. Observing tangible results and adding other incentives will push users to continue improving themselves.
Genetic Testing and Personal Identity
Although genetic tests can help individuals trace their lineage, the results should not be used to form their identity. Each genetic testing company maintains a genetic database used to decipher ancestral history but sometimes lacks all the data needed to create a fully accurate reading. The American Journal of Human Genetics conducted a field study on how people view their identity after taking DNA testing kits. The study revealed that companies provided underdeveloped results, stating, “pie charts showing percentages of ancestry are grossly oversimplified, revealing a probability rather than a definitive answer. They are based on science that is meant to address questions at the population level, not about specific individuals.”[6] Genetic testing companies predominantly rely on the data that their consumers send, with databases differing for each business. Companies base their results on probability and population-level statistics, grouping people based on similar genetic makeup. For instance, companies possess more data on Caucasians than on Native Americans due to the larger population size of Caucasians and their substantial representation within the consumer base. Even DNA testing company 23andMe states, “Currently 23andMe has several features that can reveal genetic evidence of Indigenous American ancestry, although they are not considered a confirmatory test or proof of such ancestry in a legal context.”[7] These companies cannot fully confirm the accuracy of their tests in finding ancestral information and therefore should not be completely relied upon for discovering self-identity.
Nevertheless, people use DNA kits to reaffirm their beliefs about their identity. Eduardo, a Mexican-American man who initially identified as White Hispanic with Native American ancestry, discovered he was also part Jewish and Celtic, but later rejected his Celtic identity, explaining, “I can pass for a Jew, there’s no question about it. There’s no way I could pass for a Celtic, because I’m dark, and sort of fat, short.”[8] His reaction shows how genetic tests can reinforce what consumers want to believe. Many times, people pick the truths they want from their tests while rejecting others, just as Eduardo dismissed his Celtic ancestry based on his physical appearance.
Additionally, a multitude of factors beyond genetics, including family and culture, influence identity. Basing heritage purely on genetics ignores all other aspects of an individual’s identity. In the Native American community, many feel threatened by scientists telling them where they “really” originate from. Kim Tallbear, a member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate tribe, a researcher at the University of Texas at Austin, and the author of Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science, asks, “We know who we are as a people, as an indigenous people, why would we be so interested in where scientists think our genetic ancestors came from?”[9] This sentiment shows how identity is more than genetics. Identity is also formed by childhood, environment, close relationships, and culture of a person. Ultimately, a genetic test should not confirm what makes up a person, especially since companies require more research to increase the accuracy of their results. Genetics constitutes a very small part of self-identity, therefore remaining unreliable for capturing the full existence of an individual.
Accuracy Limitations and the Need for Medical Consultation
Genetic testing kits may contain inaccuracies and should not replace the consultation of medical experts. For instance, people should not fully rely on this technology for health information due to their inherent inaccuracy. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not completely approve the use of genetic kits for health purposes; “in general, direct-to-consumer tests for non-medical, general wellness, or low risk medical purposes are not reviewed by the FDA before they are offered.”[10] Although the FDA does not approve some genetic testing kits for health information, they endorse companies such as 23andMe based on reliability, accuracy, and consumer comprehension.[11] The FDA states that “Results from this test should be confirmed with independent pharmacogenetic testing before making any medical decisions.”[12] These tests should help inform, not dictate, discussions with a healthcare provider.
Cost and Privacy Issues
Opponents of DNA testing companies worry about the price of kits and privacy issues. Many adversaries of genetic kits claim that the cost of the technology is too expensive. However, most insurance companies will cover the cost of genetic testing, and different types of reliable kits vary in price, starting as low as $59. Opponents also point out privacy concerns and insufficient consumer data protection. While HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) and GINA (the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008) protect patient privacy, they are limited. The HIPAA Privacy Rule aims to protect the privacy of individually identifiable health information. HIPAA was designed to improve the portability of health data for administrative ease – companies outside of insurance and the delivery of health care are largely excluded from its requirements. It does not apply to companies unrelated to health care.[13] GINA is designed to prevent discrimination. Insurers and employers must adhere to its requirements. Despite their limitations, these federal acts, in addition to state-level legislation and industry initiatives like the Coalition for Genetic Data Protection, mark significant progress in addressing genetic privacy concerns.
Psychological Effects
Some may feel that genetic testing kits can carry detrimental psychological effects. Tests that reveal an increased risk of various genetic diseases may induce panic or anxiety in people. In medical venues, clinicians are more likely to address the emotional responses to reports, which is an essential part of delivering responsible genetic services. However, as ancestry and heritage companies do not deliver medical care, they are unlikely to properly emotionally support their customers. People need all the information necessary to make informed decisions about their health. Individuals should also consult a medical professional regarding their test results to help them better understand these outcomes. Although test results can elicit surprise and anxiety in consumers, they can also provide relief. Understanding genetic conditions earlier reduces uncertainty and helps a person take steps to avoid possible health issues.
Conclusion
In conclusion, genetic testing kits can enhance the quality of life by providing insight into health problems and ancestral lineage but should not dictate identity or substitute consulting medical experts. Opponents of genetic testing kits emphasize the high cost, privacy issues, and psychological effects of commercial DNA tests. The March 2025 bankruptcy filing by 23andMe highlights vulnerabilities in the genetic testing industry, raising concerns about the security of genetic data held by commercial entities. However, genetic testing provides people with a deeper understanding and awareness of potential health issues, enabling them to prevent and prepare for illnesses. These kits also offer reassurance by reducing the sense of uncertainty. Furthermore, publicly available genetic testing represents a remarkable innovation that continues to advance in both convenience and accuracy. In the future, genetic testing will play a pivotal role in health care by enabling tailored prevention strategies, early interventions, and personalized treatments, while addressing ethical and privacy concerns.
-
[1] Hugo, Kristin. “How Do DNA Test Kits Work?” Newsweek, Newsweek, 6 July 2018, www.newsweek.com/how-do-dna-test-kits-work-difference-between-birthplace-and-heritage-1011066.
[2] Regalado, Antonio. “More than 26 Million People Have Taken an At-Home Ancestry Test.” MIT Technology Review, MIT Technology Review, 22 Aug. 2024, www.technologyreview.com/2019/02/11/103446/more-than-26-million-people-have-taken-an-at-home-ancestry-test/.
[3] “Genetic Testing.” Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 14 Apr. 2020, www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/genetic-testing/about/pac-20384827.
[4] Stein, Rob. “Results of At-Home Genetic Tests for Health Can Be Hard to Interpret.” NPR, NPR, 18 June 2018, www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/18/609750963/results-of-at-home-genetic-tests-for-health-can-be-hard-to-interpret.
[5] Stewart, Kelly F., et al. “Behavioural changes, sharing behaviour and psychological responses after receiving direct-to-consumer genetic test results: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Journal of Community Genetics, vol. 10, no. 2, 2 Jan. 2018, pp. 321–321, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-017-0353-1.
[6] Wendy D. Roth. “Genetic Ancestry Tests Don’t Change Your Identity, but You Might.” The Conversation, 19 Dec. 2024, theconversation.com/genetic-ancestry-tests-dont-change-your-identity-but-you-might-98663.
[7] “Can 23andMe Identify Indigenous American Ancestry? – 23andme Customer Care.” 23andme, customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/202906870-Can-23andMe-Identify-Indigenous-American-Ancestry.
[8] Roth.
[9] Eveleth, Rose. “Genetic Testing and Tribal Identity.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 27 Jan. 2015, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/the-cultural-limitations-of-genetic-testing/384740/.
[10] Rotshenker-Olshinka, Keren, and Michael H. Dahan. “Fertility Care in the era of commercial direct-to-consumer home DNA kits: Issues to ponder.” Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, vol. 37, no. 3, 26 Feb. 2020, pp. 689–692, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01711-y.
[11] Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Direct-to-Consumer Tests.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, www.fda.gov/medical-devices/vitro-diagnostics/direct-consumer-tests#list.
[12] Office of the Commissioner. “FDA Authorizes First Direct-to-Consumer Test for Detecting Genetic Variants That May Be Associated with Medication Metabolism.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-first-direct-consumer-test-detecting-genetic-variants-may-be-associated-medication.
[13] Clayton, Ellen Wright, et al. “The Law of Genetic Privacy: Applications, Implications, and Limitations.” Journal of Law and the Biosciences, vol. 6, no. 1, 14 May 2019, pp. 1–36, https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz007
Gene Editing Anxiety: The Uncertain Cost of Engineering Peace of Mind
Full text linkPhoto ID 93567823 © Nataliia Mysik Dreamstime.com
Introduction
Many parents diagnosed with debilitating anxiety disorders fear their children will suffer from the same psychiatric illness that has plagued their entire lives. While Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis has long allowed parents to screen out embryos with a predisposition to certain disorders, the practice collides with many religious or personal beliefs. With the advancement of genetic-engineering technologies, such as CRISPR-Cas9, scientists have speculated about using such techniques to alter genetic material to reduce the risk of acquiring – or passing along – complex psychiatric disorders. Although somatic cell engineering could theoretically correct genetic variants associated with anxiety in any one individual, the prospect of editing the germline to permanently induce genetic changes for multiple generations proves enticing. However, the unforeseen consequences of applying germline engineering for complex anxiety disorders raise important moral considerations. The unpredictable health risks to future generations incurred by germline genetic engineering for anxiety disorders outweigh the potential probabilistic benefits through a consequentialist lens.
Health and Genetic Risks of Germline Editing
Editing the human germline to prevent psychiatric disorders poses serious health risks to individuals. Currently, scientists warn that genetically altering the human genome can result in off-target mutations that increase the risk of disease. For instance, gene-editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 can make unintended cuts in the genome, possibly preventing important genes from functioning properly. Additionally, cells may divide before gene-editing has completed, or the editing technology may inadvertently modify only one copy of the target alleles. Such mistakes produce a mixture of distinct genotypes within a single individual—a phenomenon known as genetic mosaicism.[1]
However, even assuming germline editing has advanced enough for these off-target effects to prove negligible, serious consequences still may arise from the intended genetic alterations due to pleiotropy. Many individual genes impact various aspects of physiology or behavior. For example, the CCR5 gene encodes a macrophage receptor targeted by certain HIV strains. Interestingly, a naturally-occurring 32 base-pair deletion within the CCR5 gene confers greater resistance to these strains of HIV.[2] While inducing this deletion in the germline via genetic editing would seemingly reduce HIV transmission – a clear benefit to humanity – such a mutation may increase a person’s susceptibility to infection due to CCR5’s role in staging an immune response.[3] These pleiotropic effects extend to psychiatric disorders influenced by multiple genes, in which alleles associated with OCD risk, for example, positively contribute to educational attainment and performance.[4] Therefore, even if off-target effects are mitigated, editing anxiety risk genes can lead to unforeseen consequences due to their non-specific nature.
There is a risk that genetic germline engineering would affect all of society due to its generational implications. While somatic engineering ensures any effects are contained to a single individual, altering the genetic material of germline cells may create pleiotropic consequences or genetic mosaicism that will persist for generations. Importantly, without sufficient quality control measures, researchers cannot know the precise effects of germline editing until after birth—and some problems may only emerge years later.[5] As a result, large portions of society may endure the unintended ramifications or elevated risks of editing anxiety-related genes for generations.
In contrast, the British bioethicist John Harris equates the potential harms inflicted by germline editing as no more risky than natural sex: “Human reproduction involves genes being recklessly combined in the dark, with unforeseeable consequences for the resulting children, parents, and the generations to come.”[6] However, the risks associated with conception through “natural sex” do not justify conducting an expensive procedure with unknown effects given the mere probabilistic nature of anxiety-related genes. Proposing such a comparison assumes a cavalier attitude towards the real risk of pleiotropic effects and increasing the prevalence of ill-suited alleles. In essence, if germline editing is no different from conventional reproduction, why bother using the technique at all for anxiety disorders? At least with natural reproduction, parents avoid unnecessary costs and the potential guilt of unintentionally harming their child’s cognitive development or increasing their risk for other disorders.
The Complex Heritability of Anxiety Disorders
Because genetic germline engineering does not guarantee desired outcomes for anxiety-related disorders, its potential harms outweigh the anticipated benefits. The germline is not a sacrosanct entity considering its fluidity in everyday life: the genetic material of sperm modulates with age while sexual selection determines the combination of genes for potential offspring.[7] Researchers and clinicians should approach germline editing like any other medical procedure, weighing the benefits against potential harms. Of course, anxiety-related disorders lead to serious manifestations in patients, often requiring decades of psychopharmacology and psychotherapy.[8] However, genetic germline engineering does not provide a definitive and permanent solution to the underlying causes given the very nature of anxiety-related disorders. While anxiety disorders exhibit a heritability of 30-60 percent depending on the specific disorder, genes associated with such disorders behave probabilistically – not deterministically.[9] Whether a person develops a disorder and the severity of a disorder depend significantly on environmental factors.[10] As such, the variants associated with anxiety do not invariably lead to disorders.
As a result, parents may be opting in to preemptively treat a disorder their child may not develop in the first place. Despite this, even if their offspring do develop an anxiety disorder, the magnitude of the condition may not warrant a treatment as drastic as germline engineering—one that risks unforeseen pleiotropic effects that last generations. Even if genes for anxiety could be edited with great predictive success, the line separating non-genetic anxiety from pathological versions is unclear. Emotions like fear and anxiety have evolved as important survival mechanisms for dangerous situations.[11] Gene editing could inadvertently weaken their protective functions.
Safer and Less Intrusive Alternatives
Genetic germline engineering offers a drastic option for individuals concerned about their high genetic risk for anxiety disorders, especially when safer and less extreme alternatives are available. Currently, multiple treatment options exist to improve the quality of life of patients living with mild anxiety disorders. For instance, medication and cognitive-behavioral therapy commonly manage many disorders, such as mild to moderate forms of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).[12] Unfortunately, many individuals living with severe anxiety disorders do not respond to mainstream interventions. In these patients, overwhelming thoughts and compulsive tendencies that prevent basic facets of daily life may warrant treatments more aggressive than standard medication or therapy. Nonetheless, these patients could still explore the possibilities of genetic engineering technology without altering their germline and potentially endangering future generations. Somatic cell engineering more closely resembles standard medical treatments in that an individual weighs the benefits and harms to his or her own person. In the case of somatic cell editing, any unforeseen complications will die with the patient, preventing multiple generations from inheriting elevated health risks. Therefore, editing somatic cells to alter anxiety-correlated genes can yield similar results as genetic germline engineering without the added unknown ramifications. Although germline engineering may appear more cost-effective due to its long-lasting, multi-generational impact, the potential savings do not justify the risks of a therapy that could have severe consequences for many individuals. In addition, while the current costs of somatic engineering could be prohibitive, ongoing innovation may reduce its price over time. Considering individuals can benefit from less severe treatment plans if and only if they develop an anxiety disorder in the first place, germline engineering should not be offered for anxiety-correlated genes.
Autonomy Concerns
Genetic germline engineering violates the autonomy of potential offspring by imposing a procedure without their informed consent. Medical professionals and researchers must disclose enough information for individuals to weigh the benefits and risks of participation, enabling fully informed consent. However, germline editing causes repercussions that extend many generations into the future. It is clearly impossible to obtain consent of future individuals.[13] Proponents of genetic germline engineering refute this, citing the immense influence society generally allows parents to hold over their children’s education, medical issues, and more.[14] Although true, this argument assumes an absolute totalitarian view of parenthood in which parents never discuss medical risks with their child before making a final decision. Moreover, there is a huge ethical difference between genetically correcting a fatal disease caused by a single gene and altering anxiety-related genes in terms of autonomy. For instance, suppose a couple decides to genetically correct the gene that causes cystic fibrosis in their germline, obviously without clear consent from their potential offspring. This decision arguably promotes the overall autonomy of their children by removing the physical limitations imposed by the disease, thus outweighing any previous infringements on autonomy. In contrast, variants influencing anxiety-related disorders are not as concrete, given their complex genetic nature and susceptibility to environmental factors. Therefore, children would be subject to the risks and unknowns of germline editing all to preemptively treat a disorder they may or may not have developed. Rather, parents should allow future generations to dictate their own treatment – if any treatment is indicated at all – whether that entails medication, therapy, or (one day) somatic cell engineering.
Conclusion
While genetically engineering the germline to permanently reduce transmission of anxiety-related genes may seem like an ideal solution to prevent anxiety disorders, the practice presents substantial risks and unclear benefits. There is a risk of pleiotropic effects that could trigger health problems as serious or more severe than the targeted anxiety disorder itself.
The potential complications not only endanger the recipient but jeopardize the health of future generations by altering the germline. These ramifications trump the prospective benefits of germline engineering for anxiety disorders considering anxiety-correlated genes act probabilistically – not deterministically — and are subject to a host of environmental influences. Based on a typical risk-benefit analysis, genetic germline engineering of anxiety-related genes crumbles in comparison to therapy, medication, and somatic cell engineering – all safer treatments that can be applied after birth, if necessary.
-
[1] Edward Lanphier and Fyodor Urnov, “Don’t Edit the Human Germ Line,” Nature; London 519, no. 7544 (March 26, 2015): 410–11, http://dx.doi.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.1038/519410a.
[2] Alison P. Galvani and John Novembre, “The Evolutionary History of the CCR5-Δ32 HIV-Resistance Mutation,” Microbes and Infection 7, no. 2 (February 1, 2005): 302–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2004.12.006.
[3] Jean K. Lim et al., “Genetic Deficiency of Chemokine Receptor CCR5 Is a Strong Risk Factor for Symptomatic West Nile Virus Infection: A Meta-Analysis of 4 Cohorts in the US Epidemic,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases 197, no. 2 (January 15, 2008): 262–65, https://doi.org/10.1086/524691; Maximiliano Ruben Ferrero, Luciana Pádua Tavares, and Cristiana Couto Garcia, “The Dual Role of CCR5 in the Course of Influenza Infection: Exploring Treatment Opportunities,” Frontiers in Immunology 12 (January 20, 2022), https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.826621.
[4] The Brainstorm Consortium et al., “Analysis of Shared Heritability in Common Disorders of the Brain,” Science 360, no. 6395 (June 22, 2018): eaap8757, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8757.
[5] Lanphier and Urnov, “Don’t Edit the Human Germ Line.”
[6] John Harris, “Germline Modification and the Burden of Human Existence” 25, no. 1 (2016): 6–18, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000237.
[7] Harris.
[8] Borwin Bandelow, Sophie Michaelis, and Dirk Wedekind, “Treatment of Anxiety Disorders,” Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 19, no. 2 (June 2017): 93–107.
[9] In addition, many DNA variants linked to anxiety disorders are not exclusive to a single syndrome, further complicating the ability to predict risk scores for polygenic anxiety conditions.
[10] The Brainstorm Consortium et al., “Analysis of Shared Heritability in Common Disorders of the Brain.”
[11] Joseph E. LeDoux, “Chapter 21 - Evolution of Human Emotion: A View through Fear,” in Progress in Brain Research, ed. Michel A. Hofman and Dean Falk, vol. 195, Evolution of the Primate Brain (Elsevier, 2012), 431–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53860-4.00021-0.
[12] Bandelow, Michaelis, and Wedekind, “Treatment of Anxiety Disorders.”
[13] Lanphier and Urnov, “Don’t Edit the Human Germ Line.”
[14] Harris, “Germline Modification and the Burden of Human Existence.