During the past few years, there has been a demand for fish and marine products, and this demand has led to a rapid growth of the aquaculture industry (Myhr et al. 543-544). The development of genetic engineering technologies offers the opportunity to increase marine crop diversity, add traits to meet consumer preferences and overall increase productivity (Shukla-Jones et al. 11-13). Gene editing is a more precise technique of genetic engineering. This technology can produce genome modifications, such as targeted mutagenesis or site-directed insertion/deletion/substitution, at specific sites in the genome of living organisms (Zhang et al. 2). While the use of gene editing technology could bring benefits to the aquaculture industry, we have to consider the ethical concerns that come with it regarding social equity for consumers, producers, and the environment.
The World Health Organization states that the number of hungry people in the world is growing, reaching “821 million or one in every nine people” (WHO). This situation is worsening in developing countries where malnutrition is increasing because of natural disasters, climate variety (WHO) and economic slowdowns. The diverse range of gene editing applications could be seen as an invaluable tool in fighting world hunger as it can “improved efficiency and greater productivity” (Shukla-Jones et al. 11). There is a talk of alleviating hunger by adapting marine crops to suit changing environments, but the availability of gene editing products does not reduce hunger if farmers cannot produce them themselves or the local consumers cannot buy them. The current economic scheme that maintains the production of genetic engineering food is not socially viable in developing countries since it does not allow the redistribution of products, thus eliminating economic growth among the population creating inequality (Natl Acad Sci 475). Fish sterilization techniques in gene editing species are being developed. Ten-Tsao Wong and Yonathan Zohar from the Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology at the University of Maryland states that farming genetic engineering infertile fish is the most effective strategy to achieve the development of environmentally-responsible aquaculture. He mentions a number of reasons of why this practice is desirable including, the decreasing deterioration of flesh quality, decreasing genetic contamination and reducing unauthorized propagation of fish strains (Wong et al.1-6). However, if an organism is genetically engineered an cannot generate a subsequent generation, how can this technology eradicate world hunger?
The ethics of patenting genetic engineering organisms is questioned because it does not safeguard equity for producers or follow the requirements applied to a patent. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office requires that to qualify for a patent, the invention must be novel, useful, and inventive (CIPO). That is, the invention must be the first of its kind, it must be functional, and it must constitute something more than an extension of what was previously known (Raines 129). These guidelines have generally excluded 'products of nature'; microbes, plants, and animals that occur in the wild are not patentable because they are not made by humans. It is not understood how patent offices are now accepting these organisms as innovation. In fact, there is an injustice, since the companies that have the technology have the path open to patent organisms with aquaculture utility. If gene editing organisms were to be licensed, “the use of this technology is likely to benefit large commercial producers who would see production gains and increased profitability”. Biotechnology companies would dominate the prices and products resulting in “commercial monopolies” (Millar et al. 447), limiting the choices of small producers. There is also another concern regarding social equity toward producers. If a marine crop that can grow in any environment is genetic engineering, small producers couldn’t compete with this new invention. This single crop could potentially take over the aquaculture industry putting in risk small businesses. The companies that invest in and create gene editing organisms are not acting on principles related to human rights since the right of small producers are not being upheld.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The right to natural resources is an essential element in many constitutions around the world (Boyd 6). It emphasizes that the government should allow the sustainable utilization, management, and protection of the environment and natural resources and fair sharing of benefits between the people (OAG). Moreover, it is the duty of the authorities to assign the task of utilizing any natural resource to the most capable, honest person or company, in order to guarantee that it is not causing damage to the people and the environment itself which is a public good. Gene editing organisms are being developed by large agricultural-biotechnology firms (Natl Acad Sci 320-322), and this technology is not being transferred showing us that the developers of genetic engineering technologies are more eager about their companies’ profit rather than the sustainable development (Millar et al. 439). There is a strong link between environmental quality and social equity (8). Any environmental degradation ends up in injustice and low quality of life.
Gene editing technologies offer the opportunity to increase productivity in aquaculture, an industry that is currently growing at a fast pace (Myhr et al. 543-544). This technique could potentially bring many benefits however, social equity is being put at risk affecting consumers, producers, and the environment. Gene editing has been shown as a potential solution for alleviating world hunger (Shukla-Jones et al. 11). Developing countries are the ones affected the most since are more prone to climate variability and economic slowdowns (WHO). Although this technology could be seen as a solution, it is not taking into account the inequity that it would bring among consumers. Scientists are developing infertile gene editing organisms unable to reproduce a second or third generation (Wong et al.1-6), preventing redistribution of products. If farmers cannot produce the products themselves then consumers would not be able to buy them. In addition, gene editing technologies could affect small producers since large biotechnology companies have the path open to patent genetic engineering organisms dominating prices and products (Millar et al. 447), It appears that patents and intellectual property rights instead of incentivizing research efforts are making access to affordable fish, crustaceans, etc. more difficult for struggling farmers.
Also, gene editing technologies could bring negative effects on public goods. The right to natural resources in an essential element. It is the responsibility of the governments to ensure the sustainable utilization of the environment and natural resources and fair sharing of benefits between the people (OAG), they should guarantee that people utilizing our public goods are not causing any damage towards our resources and ourselves. However large companies are not interested in sustainable development causing negative effects in the environment leading to low quality of life. Emmanuel Kant embraces the following principle: “So act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means” (Kant 38). Although the eradication of hunger is a genuinely good action, it is not undertaken for the sake of duty alone and big corporations are treating consumers merely as means for their own economic purposes. In the same way, small producers would not benefit from this technology in the same way as profit-seeking corporations would and our natural resources and the environment would be put at risk. As a result, a specific segment on the population would be at disadvantage generating social inequity.
Stuck on your essay?
