An Analysis of Gene Therapy: Social, Ethical, and Legal Implications

This essay delves into the multifaceted implications of gene therapy, a scientific technique aimed at treating or preventing diseases by replacing defective genes with normal ones. It highlights the potential of gene therapy in addressing conditions like sickle cell disease and certain cancers, while also acknowledging the associated risks and ethical concerns. The discussion explores the social, ethical, and legal implications, including the debate over the distinction between treating diseases and altering traits, the importance of informed consent, and the potential for unintended consequences. The essay also touches upon the varying legal frameworks surrounding gene therapy and emphasizes the relevance of bioethical principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and distributive justice. The essay concludes by highlighting the complexities and controversies surrounding gene therapy, including religious and societal viewpoints, and the need for careful consideration of its benefits and risks.

Running head; Gene therapy 1
GENE THERAPY
Student’s name
Institutional affiliation

Gene therapy 2
Gene therapy refers to a scientific technique whereby defective genes are replaced by
normal genes in an attempt to treat or prevent a disease. The defective genes are replaced by
normal ones that enable the body to function properly preventing negative conditions that are
related to genes for example baldness and sickle cell disease. It is mainly used for diseases that
hardly have any cure. According to Zhang et al (2016), it can be used in some types of cancers to
reverse malignancies and certain viral infections. Although it is a considerable option in such
conditions, gene therapy has been faced with a lot of criticism in our world today since it
involves a lot of risk taking on the health of a person as it is an experimental technique. There are
several social, ethical and legal implications that revolve around gene therapy. The aim of these
discussion is to explain these implications and their significance.
Gene therapy can not only be used to correct disease causing genes but also genes that are
responsible for traits such as tall and short statue (Georgiadis, et al (2016)). However there is no
clear cut distinction regarding which gene therapy is meant for disease genes and that which is
meant for the other traits unrelated to diseases. There has been both positive and negative views
in the society concerning gene therapy. The positivity comes about when a gene therapy
conducted brings about the preferred outcome of an individual. For example gene therapy has
been used lately to provide cure to gene related diseases and this has improved health provision
(Jackson, et al (2015)). An example of a gene related disease that has proved to be reversed by
this form of therapy is the sickle cell disease. People suffering from this disease make abnormal
versions of hemoglobin which is responsible for oxygen transport within the body. This
condition can be caused by mutation of the beta globin gene that is responsible for forming
subunits of hemoglobin. Scientific correction of the mutated gene through gene therapy can
reverse the condition leading to normal production of hemoglobin.

Gene therapy 3
There has been several social and ethical issues revolving around gene therapy and
genetic engineering as a whole. Critics have argued that interfering with the genetic make-up of
someone else is like playing God and though its science, it should not be acceptable in the
society. As stated by Naldini, (2015), it’s also considered as an expensive way to cure some
diseases which others might argue if it is beneficial it should be accessible to all. The thought of
generating medicine and vaccines from modification of microbial has been welcomed since it
has proven to be effective in disease prevention. Genetic engineering has also been widely used
to increase plant and animal food production and this has been received well. However, although
there are many advantages of gene therapy, there are quite a number of ethical issues raised by
the same.
Since it is an experimental field, consent from the subject must be sought before
introducing the gene therapy. The subject who is seeking cure or improvement of traits should be
willing without being cohered to be done the therapy onto. As argued by Alton et al (2015), the
introduction of the normal functional genes into a person may end up replacing important genes
instead of the mutated ones since there are no clues as to where they are being placed. This could
worsen a condition instead of curing it or lead to a new undesired negative condition. Therefore
before such therapy is conducted the benefits should be considered to outweigh the risks
associated to avoid harm onto the patient or subject. The correction of defective genes could also
create some side effects which are negative. It could result into some allergic responses since
new genes are being introduced or modified within the body.
In conclusion it is correct to say that some people have created a negative opinion on the
subject based on religious views. Others have been against gene therapy due to lack of
knowledge about its benefits with their focus being primarily on the negativity. The legality of

Gene therapy 4
gene therapy varies from country to country (Thwaite et al (2015)). However it universally
revolves around the Belmont report that contains the principles of bioethics. The principles
include respect for persons whereby any individual or subject to gene therapy should be treated
as a person who has rights and the fact that their life comes first therefore anything done to them
should be towards their well-being and safety. The second principle revolves around beneficence
whereby the focus on the subject should be minimizing the harm or risk and maximizing on the
benefit of the patient. The last principle focusses on distributive justice whereby in any research,
burdens and benefits should be shared equally.

Gene therapy 5
REFERENCES
Alton, E. W., Armstrong, D. K., Ashby, D., Bayfield, K. J., Bilton, D., Bloomfield, E. V., ... &
Carvelli, P. (2015). Repeated nebulisation of non-viral CFTR gene therapy in patients
with cystic fibrosis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial. The
Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 3(9), 684-691.
Georgiadis, A., Duran, Y., Ribeiro, J., Abelleira-Hervas, L., Robbie, S. J., Sünkel-Laing, B., ... &
Bainbridge, J. W. B. (2016). Development of an optimized AAV2/5 gene therapy vector
for Leber congenital amaurosis owing to defects in RPE65. Gene therapy, 23(12), 857.
Jackson, K. L., Dayton, R. D., Orchard, E. A., Ju, S., Ringe, D., Petsko, G. A., ... & Klein, R. L.
(2015). Preservation of forelimb function by UPF1 gene therapy in a rat model of TDP-
43-induced motor paralysis. Gene therapy, 22(1), 20.
Naldini, L. (2015). Gene therapy returns to centre stage. Nature, 526(7573), 351.
Thwaite, R., Pages, G., Chillon, M., & Bosch, A. (2015). AAVrh. 10 immunogenicity in mice
and humans. Relevance of antibody cross-reactivity in human gene therapy. Gene
therapy, 22(2), 196.
Zhang, L., Zheng, W., Tang, R., Wang, N., Zhang, W., & Jiang, X. (2016). Gene regulation with
carbon-based siRNA conjugates for cancer therapy. Biomaterials, 104, 269-278.