On the 26th of July 1978, Louise Joy Brown, the first test tube baby was born. Nearly 50 years on, are we any closer to editing our imperfections and what are the implications?

What is genetic engineering?

Genetic engineering is the process of modifying an organisms DNA. Aside from helping couples who are otherwise unable to have babies, recent advancements in the field ranges from the eradication of malaria to the production of synthetic human insulin to reducing the risk of genetic diseases. The benefits of genetic engineering also extends beyond humans, with the development food crops that are resistant to extreme weather, ecological and soil conditions. An example of the technology used is Crispr CAS (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Palindromic Repeats), which edits an organisms genome by removing/adding/modifying DNA. The first babies born using Crispr CAS9 edited genes was born on 25^th November 2018, suggesting we are getting closer to editing our imperfections.

The ethics debate

However, despite these benefits, the question remains: Is it ethical? Indeed, these technologies are beneficial to couples who are otherwise unable to have children, however, there is potential for this technology to be misused. The ability to select for certain genes has given rise to “designer babies” where features of interest can be selected for with other undesirable features selected against. While this can be beneficial in selecting against genes susceptible to disease, the fact remains that there are multiple ethical issues?

One major issue is the potential to increase social inequality. Due to the financial cost only the rich can afford this technology, increasing the gap between those who can afford it and those cannot. Further, we may also be creating a society where certain traits are seen as more desirable, resulting in discrimination towards those without the preferred features, aswell as a loss of diversity. Another concern is the issue autonomy and informed consent as it is the embryos that are being modified, questioning whether the parents have the right to make life changing decisions of their future children, especially if they are non-medical. Further, the long term consequences are largely unknown and could have side effects in the individual and future generations.

Conclusion

The ethics of genetic engineering are complex. Indeed, the possibility of advancement and improvement to health are massive, but the side effects and potential misuse is equally big and must be considered. Nevertheless, it is important that there is a balance between allowing for innovation and protecting human right.

Links

Guardian Research Department (2011). 1978: The First Test Tube Baby. The Guardian. [online] 2 Jun. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2011/jun/02/guardian190-test-tube-baby-1978 [Accessed 1 Mar. 2024].

Mirage News (2023). Designer Babies & Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering. [online] Mirage News. Available at: https://www.miragenews.com/designer-babies-ethics-of-human-genetic-992678/ [Accessed 1 Mar. 2024].

Rose, B.I. and Brown, S. (2019). Genetically Modified Babies and a First Application of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR-Cas9). Obstetrics & Gynecology, [online] 134(1), p.1. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000003327.

When designing prosthetics, it is evident that the most important consideration is their function. After all, what use is a prosthetic leg if it cannot be walked on? Other considerations, such as comfort, lifespan, and the impact of use on the rest of the body, are also included, but one factor is often left out of the conversation: visual appeal. It goes without saying that a primitive peg leg lacks the full range of function and motion of the human leg, and thus, over the past several hundred years, the function of the prosthetic leg has been developed to not only work more like the lost limb but in many ways look like the lost limb. However, some people note that more recently increasing the functionality has lessened the visual relationship of prosthetics and the human body. In some ways this feels like a regression in progress: historians and prosthetis specialists are unsure if archaeologically recovered early prosthetics, such as the Egyptian Toe, were primarily designed for function or appearance.

When a person loses a limb, not only their physical health is altered, but a patient’s mental health undeniably takes a toll. Feelings of depression, anxiety and low self-esteem in regards to body image are often experienced by amputees, and these are feelings that can be exacerbated with time; in a study of 207 lower-limb amputation patients, patients who had been amputated 4-6 years ago had the lowest body satisfaction. There are distinct feelings of loss of independence and bodily autonomy, as well as the aforementioned poor body image, which contribute to this. Feeling ‘other’ is common among those with physical disabilities as a result of self-sourced insecurity and insecurity due to social exclusion and discrimination. Many efforts are made in the post-operation treatment of patients to rehabilitate them both physically and mentally by psychologists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists, but often these negative self-perceptions persist.

These negative self-perceptions may go beyond the general physical insecurities and contribute to fashion insecurities. Social pressure to fit in is worse than ever with the dissection of fashion trend cycles into microtrends and the rise of social media. Trying to conform a part of you that does not fit society’s idea of ‘perfect’ into trends that demand perfection can feel demoralising and therefore trying to adapt your prosthetic to your own journey of experimentation with fashion can be a frustrating experience. These sentiments were echoed by Chinese fashion model Xiao Yang, who has worn a prosthetic leg for over 25 years and is one of several in the fashion and art industries who have ventured to add individuality and personality to prosthetics by using accessories such as patterned leg covers or shaped knee caps, developed in collaboration with jewellery brand YVMIN.

Though Yang’s collaboration with the YVMIN was temporary and specifically for Yang, another company, Alleles Design, had a similar concept and continues to provide custom-manufactured prosthetic covers with thousands of possible designs with the aim of ‘giving the power of self-expression back to [prosthetic wearers]’. You can even design your own using their design tool.

With companies aiming to fill this gap in the market, personalised prosthetics are likely to become more common as knowledge of these accessories grows and the costs decrease. Personalised prosthetics have the potential to reduce body image and self-esteem issues amongst limb-prosthetic users and are a step towards prosthetics that feel more like man than machine.

The idea of bio-mechanical technologies has always fascinated me ever since I was young. Good old cyborgs and humanoid robots we always see in fictions was the starting point for my interest in engineering.

That was my childhood daydream, making robot and prosthetics. After a while, this field seems a bit too big for my ability. But after finding this youtube video, It gave me another spark to tackle it again.

I recently read that Elon Musk has made grand advancements in his neurotechnological company ‘Neuralink’. It is a revolutionary invention especially since Neuralink have recently been successful in implanting their first brain chip in a human. He claimed that the first Neuralink product ‘telepathy’ enables control of their devices just by thinking.

However, we only have Elon Musk’s word to take for it as Neuralink are yet to make an official statement regarding the operation. Despite claiming that the patient was recovering well, there are fears from neurologists that the procedure may cause inflammation and bleeding to tissues. Although it may not be a completely untested technology, there are always risks to brain surgeries so they must be carried out with caution. So the question arises: is Neuralink advancing too fast and should they pay more attention the possible side effects of implanting?

Recently, I stumbled across a new idea, or shall I say, a new invention from none other than Elon Musk. As we all know, Musk has been at the forefront of revolutionising the technological world with his ideas and innovations, culminating in his successes achieved with Tesla and SpaceX. So it comes as no surprise that he’s back with another idea, but this time involving the human brain. This new innovation is called Neuralink. You may be curious to know what it actually is. Neualink is Musk’s new neurotechnology company which aims to create generalised computer interfaces which can be implanted into the brain to be able to unlock the human potential and restore autonomy by enabling wireless communication across the world. Now this sounds quite innovative and would definitely change the landscape of the world, but is there more to this that we should be skeptical about?

Today I came across the concept of Neuralink. You may wonder what it is, just as I did. Neuralink is an implant designed by Elon Musk to be inserted into the brain of patients with quadriplegia. His aim is for people with quadriplegia to be able to control their phones by using their brain with no movement required! I think that sounds amazing! But is it too good to be true?

After conducting my own research through literature, I found that there has been many controversies associated with this venture. There have been rumours that the testing has resulted in animals/ monkeys have been left with debilitating after effects. Elon did combat this by stating that no animal has been harmed in the process of testing the product – all of which is still being investigated.

It is not surprising that Elon Musk is now at the forefront of implementing computer interfaces in the human brain. His recent successes with Tesla and Space X has revolutionised technology and he continues to innovate now with the ‘goal to restore autonomy to those with unmet medical needs’ , but more importantly he aims to unlock human potential.

What is neuralink?

Founded in 2016 by Elon Musk and Jared Birchall , Musk has stated that neuralink is an implant in the human skull and will essentially work symbiotically with the brain connecting the user to the internet allowing control over different technologies.

Stem cells have played a key role in regenerative medicine since their introduction in 1958. They’ve been irreplaceable in their clinical applications, including treatment of skin burns, reproductive disorders and pulmonary dysfunctions, and have great potential for treating currently untreatable conditions and growing organs for transplants. But my question is whether they will ever have the potential to regrow entire limbs?

I appreciate this is a significant leap from e.g. a liver regrowing after donation for a transplant (which really is just tissue hyperplasia), but what makes us so different from creatures such as the axolotl that are capable of regrowing entire limbs?

I found an article that has provided some insight into why this simply isn’t possible in humans. 🙁