Genetic Engineering: A Question of Ethics - Research

Genetic Engineering: A Question of Ethics Teresa Carlson CD 5590 [email protected]

Abstract In today’s society, genetic engineering is an increasingly important issue. Many genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) and the products of other GMO’s are currently used and consumed by humans, and research is continually conducted on ways to modify the genetic traits of organisms to better suit human lifestyles. This raises the question of whether altering an organism’s genetic structure solely for anthropocentric purposes is ethical. The aim of this paper is to present the purposes and benefits of genetic engineering, and to compare them to the ethical arguments against it. Also, an informed opinion will be provided on whether genetic engineering should ethically have a place in society.

1. Introduction The production and use of genetically modified organisms is increasing steadily. Although there are many potential benefits to humans from this process, the risks have not been adequately defined. Researchers are developing new organisms too quickly to accurately determine the effects of this procedure. There are many people and organizations that are completely against genetic engineering. The reasons for their objections, as well as the potential benefits, are both discussed in detail. It is important to thoroughly examine all of the statements both in favor of and against genetic engineering to determine whether it should have a place in our future. It is equally important to ensure that the public has access to this information, as they are the ones using or consuming the modified products. This paper outlines the history and process of genetic engineering, and details the potential benefits and risks to both humans and the environment posed by the process. A description of the ethical problems

and arguments is given, followed by an educated opinion about genetic engineering’s place in society.

2. Genetic Engineering A gene is a specific sequence of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Each gene has instructions for the expression of specific traits, such as hair color, eye color and height. All of the genes in an organism work together to create the final product: a living organism [1]. Humans have over 100,000 genes in their bodies [13]. Genetic engineering is a relatively new technique, involving the transfer of genes from one organism to another. It is also described as the “modification of genetic material by man that would otherwise be subject to the forces of nature only.” [14] Genetic engineering research has only been around since 1973, when it was first discovered that genetic material could be identified and inserted into strands of DNA. Since then, the process has become much more advanced and widely used [15]. Each gene is identified as being related to the expression of a specific trait. The gene for the desired trait is isolated, and transferred to another organism [1] using methods such as injection by needles, or biolistics (using a type of guns to ‘shoot’ the genetic material into the nucleus of the cell) [13]. In other words, genetic engineering is the technique of artificially modifying the genetic make-up of living organisms. It is even possible to exchange genes over natural species barriers [1]. For example, animal genes may be inserted into plants, and vice versa. Genetic engineering is also called gene manipulation, DNA manipulation, gene splicing, or transgenics [13]. Genetic engineering changes the physical properties of organisms, and most of the effects are not yet known [1]. One of the major concerns in genetic engineering is to ensure that the gene which is inserted in an organism will be passed on from one generation to the next, so that the

procedure will not have to be undertaken on each organism [9].

3. Uses of Genetic Engineering There are many arguments in favor of the use of genetic engineering in the future. Among these are the promises that genetic engineering will ‘feed the world’ [11], produce better crops, and be altogether good for the economy. Many different organisms are being used in today’s genetic engineering research and development, including plants, trees, animals, insects, bacteria and viruses. Today, even human genes are being used in genetic engineering [2]. The number of organisms used in genetic engineering research is steadily increasing, as is the number of types of animals being used in the research. Genetically engineered organisms are being used in many different sectors today, including agriculture, biomedical research, and animal farming.

3.1. Agriculture and Farming Benefits In the agricultural sector, plants and crops are engineered to express a resistance to herbicides and specific pests. Scientists promise that genetically modified plants will have better texture, more flavor, and higher nutritional value than wild varieties of the same crops [11]. There are also plants engineered to last longer on the shelf, appear fresher for longer, and survive the shipping process in better condition. Better crop yields may be achieved using genetically modified plants, meaning that land use will become more efficient. Also in the agricultural sector, research is being conducted to modify certain insects to attack the predators of specific crops [1]. Therefore, fewer amounts of pesticides will have to be applied to the crops, allowing for better environmental and human health [11]. Farm animals are modified to increase productivity and reduce costs for farmers. Pigs are engineered to have less fat, fish are being modified to grow larger more rapidly [1], and other animals are being engineered to increase productivity [9].

3.2. Biomedical Research and Human Gene Technology Genetic engineering is increasingly important in the area of biomedical research. Animals are used as locations to produce pharmaceuticals and certain proteins which have important medicinal applications [9]. Pigs are used for the production of organs which

can be transplanted into human bodies, a process which is called xenotransplantation [1]. Human genes are being studied intensely to determine which genes cause the expression of certain diseases in the individual. If the genes can be identified, they could potentially be removed, eliminating the disease in the future. If the gene cannot be removed, the disease could at least be predicted to occur in the individual [1].

4. Risks of Genetic Engineering Although the benefits of genetically modifying organisms may seem vast, it is important to consider the fact that this is a very new technique, and the risks involved are not fully understood. The test subjects are living organisms, capable of growing, reproducing, migrating and interacting with other living organisms. This means that the risks involved with genetic engineering are inherently more dangerous and unpredictable than experiments using chemicals. Because of the unpredictable nature of living organisms, once a GMO has been released into the environment, it is impossible to recall it [6]. History has shown us that scientists are not always accurate in their assessments of new chemicals, substances or technologies. There have been cases in the past where chemicals have been created, used abundantly, and the deleterious effects have only been recognized when an enormous amount of damage has been done. Take for example DDT and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s). Both of these products were thought to be ‘miracle’ products, which would help humans achieve a better lifestyle. It took a long time for scientists or researchers to realize and prove that they were causing drastic harm to the environment [16]. One risk associated with genetic engineering is that it is based on the idea that each trait of an organism is encoded in a single, specific gene, and that the transfer of that specific gene will also cause the transfer of the sought-after attribute. However, genes cannot be regarded as separate entities. They are all related, and they are all influenced by many factors including the external environment. This means that even though a gene may be related to a specific characteristic in one organism, it may not produce the same trait in another species or even in another organism of the same species. Therefore, it is almost impossible to predict the effect that transferring a specific gene will have on the individual to which it is transferred [16].

4.1. Risks of Genetically Modified Plants Plants are genetically modified to express many different traits, including the ability to survive in harsh living conditions, and resistance to pests and herbicides. One major risk posed by genetically modified plants is the inability to constrain these plants to designated areas. Plants may migrate through the spread of seeds or pollen by insects, birds, human beings, animals, or environmental factors such as the wind [1]. If these organisms enter the environment, they may have the ability to breed with their wild relatives, or with organisms of completely different species. The daughter plants of the genetically modified organisms may have the modified gene as well, causing certain unnatural traits to be expressed [16]. This could drastically effect the environment in a way which may not be easily remedied. Plants which are genetically engineered to grow in extreme climates or with a resistance to herbicides may become pests or weeds themselves, as there may be no way of removing them from the environment [1]. If the plants are resistant to herbicides, stronger chemicals may need to be created and used against the once-desired genetically modified plant in order to remove them from the land [16]. These harsher chemicals will have an even greater impact on human and environmental health. Plants that are modified to express resistance to certain pests may seem beneficial to humans and the environment, as they would ultimately reduce the amount of pesticides that would be applied to crops. However, if insects are continuously exposed to the pesticide, there is a slight chance that they could develop a resistance to it, rendering the modified crop useless.

4.2. Risks of Genetically Modified Foods Since the reason behind genetic engineering is basically to improve the quality of human lives, it is important to discuss the potential adverse affects that genetic engineering may have on human beings. Genetic material can enter the human body through food, bacteria, viruses, vaccines and medications [1]. Genetically modified foods are a major topic when discussing genetic engineering. Most genetically modified foods have a marker gene inserted in them along with the gene representing the desired trait. This gene normally causes a resistance to certain antibiotics, and is inserted as a

way of determining whether the genes were transferred successfully. If the genes were transferred successfully, the organism will exhibit a new resistance to particular antibiotics. Problems could arise for humans who eat food with these genes in them, particularly if they are unaware of the presence of the genes. The antibiotic resistance gene could reduce the effectiveness of any antibiotics that the person happens to be taking at the time they are eating the product. Also, if people are constantly eating food with antibiotic resistance genes in them, they could develop a resistance to antibiotics as well. Although this is only a small possibility, it is a very important effect to consider when discussing genetically modified food [16]. There is a risk that the nutritional quality of genetically modified food will be lower than that of unmodified foods. For example, if a gene is inserted into a vegetable to increase the ‘shelf-life’ of the vegetable, shoppers could be led to believe that it is still fresh, when it may actually be past its peak. Also, vegetables could be modified to make them look nicer, with brighter colors or bigger sizes, perhaps fooling the public into thinking that they are actually better products [16]. Genetically modified food may also have higher levels of toxins than ‘natural’ food [1]. In addition to the potential problems caused by marker genes and decreasing nutritional quality, genetically modified organisms may cause allergies in many people. If people are not fully aware of the nature of the food that they are eating, they may consume substances which are harmful to them. Even if a person knows that he should avoid a specific substance, he may not be aware that the insertion of a new gene into the product has caused the expression of a similar substance. For example, people would not expect milk genes to be inserted into carrots. If a person were allergic to milk, he may also be allergic to the carrots, without realizing that it is the same substance causing the allergic reaction [16]. For this reason, it is important that genetically modified foods be clearly labeled. Another reason why clear labeling is important is because it gives consumers the opportunity to not buy the genetically modified food if they do not support the technique. It gives the people a voice, because if many people are against genetic engineering and therefore do not buy the modified food, then perhaps the genetic engineering companies will take a closer look at the risks of their actions.

4.3. Risks to Biodiversity

The introduction of genetically modified plants into the environment may have devastating effects on biodiversity. Birds, insects, and other animals that are dependent on certain crops for survival may find themselves unable to eat the genetically engineered crops due to the introduced gene or modification [1]. They may be allergic to the new traits, or find them poisonous. Also, if they fed on the organisms which were once pests to the crop, then they may not have a source of food, as the pests would no longer be in the crop. Therefore, these animals would have to find other sources of food, or face starvation. This would impact the entire food chain and the predator-prey relationships [16]. The introduction of a modified organism into the environment may cause the displacement of indigenous fauna and flora. If the new strain is superior to the parent strain, it may take over the habitat or eliminate the wild strain [13]. Also, any change in animal behavior would affect the entire food chain as well as predator-prey relationships.

5. Ethical Debate Genetic engineering is a controversial and complicated subject, as there are not only concerns about the benefits and risks to the environment and human health, but there are also concerns about whether it is right to genetically modify organisms in the first place. Genetic engineering allows scientists to disrupt the natural evolution process, by completely changing organisms. Is it right to assume that a few scientists can improve on the results of billions of years of natural evolution? [1] Genetic engineering is seen by many people as ‘playing God’ [9] or putting people in the place of the Creator [4], as it gives to a few people the ability to change the natural world completely. By genetically modifying organisms, a scientist assumes that this extremely new science is better for populating the world than God or any other Creator, including natural evolution and natural selection. Religious groups may have specific reasons for objecting to genetically engineering. For example, a Muslim would object to pig genes being inserted into vegetables and fruits, especially if the modified products were not clearly labeled as containing pig genes [11]. Vegetarians would surely object to animal genes being inserted in fruits and vegetables, as they could no longer eat those products if they felt strongly about not eating meat [11]. Humans are modifying the world in a way which would never happen naturally. In addition to the

above issues, there are concerns about violating animal and human rights, and also about whether genetic engineering is much different from the very old practice of selective breeding.

5.1. Environmental Ethics Traditional ethics is concerned with the interactions of human beings and societies, and is completely anthropocentric in thought. Over time, ethics gradually evolved to include such things as women’s rights, children’s rights, and the rights of other minority groups. Until recently, there has been little concern over how the environment is treated. The environment was seen largely as a resource that was meant for human domination and use. However, a new field of study has emerged, which attempts to bring attention to the question, “Who speaks for the biosphere?” [3] This assumes that the environment has intrinsic value, above and in addition to other values which society places on it. Environmental ethics is concerned with responsible personal conduct towards the environment, natural landscapes, natural resources, and all species and nonhuman organisms [5]. It looks at such matters as animal rights, resource use, over-consumption, and pollution versus profit. Environmental ethics is now being used in many parts of project planning, and many companies now take full, or partial, consideration of the effects of their products on the environment. The environment, plants and animals have many values to human beings. The most recognized value is the commercial value, meaning that if a profit can be gained from something, then it has value. However, environmental ethics requires us to think about the intrinsic value or inherent worth of nature [7]. This means that the environment and all living organisms should be treated with respect, regardless of their direct value to humans. It is important to keep environmental ethics in mind when discussing genetic engineering, as many of the arguments against genetic engineering have to do with whether it is ‘right’ to modify organisms and the natural environment. Codes of environmental ethics are fairly new concepts. However, they are being developed by companies and organizations that wish to place the environment at the top of their priorities. Many companies may use this simply as a way to gain customer support, or to get an edge over their competitors. However, even if that is the reason they are protecting the environment in their everyday business, it is still a step in the right direction.

One environmental ethics code is the Canadian Environment Network’s Code of Environmental Ethics and Conduct. This code outlines certain ways in which companies must act towards the environment, and how the possible impacts on the environment should be considered in all actions and decisions.

5.2. The Precautionary Principle The precautionary principle states that no activity should be undertaken until it is certain that no detrimental effects will come as a result of that activity [8]. The precautionary principle can be applied to many different situations in many different professions, including genetic engineering. By genetically modifying organisms, scientists are introducing an irreversible change into the natural environment. This change could potentially have drastic and far-reaching consequences, which could forever change the natural processes of nature. These changes could also impact the environment for many years to come. However, most of the effects are unknown, and many researchers and companies are proceeding too quickly to fully understand the implications of their actions. These researchers are short-sighted, and have only the short-term benefits in mind, the most important of which being financial profit. The precautionary principle should be employed when conducting genetic engineering. This would prevent future disasters, and ensure that development does not proceed too fast to recognize the risks. The precautionary principle could be interpreted to mean that further research into genetic engineering should proceed with extreme caution. Genetically modified organisms should be created in closed laboratories, where the organisms would be isolated. In this way, it could be assured that the new organisms would not pollute the natural environment or negatively impact native species. Also, tests should be continually conducted on the GMO’s to ensure that no effects have been overlooked. Negative impacts could take a long time to be noticed, so the GMO’s should be continuously and closely monitored. Only after it is proven that there are no harmful affects associated with the GMO should it be released for sale or human consumption.

5.3. Animal and Human Rights The Canadian Environment Network’s Code of Environmental Ethics and Conduct states, “Every life form is unique, and has intrinsic value regardless of

any perceived value that it may have for humans” [10]. This means that animals and plants are significant in themselves and should be treated as ends in themselves, rather than simply a means to a human end [9]. Many groups have objections to the use of animals in scientific testing. They recognize that animals have interests, and that these interests should not be violated. One argument for why animals have interests is because they have the ability to suffer [3]. However, other groups believe that animals do not have any rights at all. Still others agree that animals do have rights, but wonder if animal rights should be protected at the expense of human rights [9]. For example, Immanuel Kant thought that animals lack moral standing because they are not rational. This means that they are not able to see what is ‘right’, and try to act in that correct manner [3]. They are not able to change their actions to do what is considered to be ‘good’ or morally acceptable. Instead, they may either follow their instincts, or repeat the same behavior that has been learned by their species for many generations. Using animals in genetic engineering demeans them as creatures, as they are treated merely as commodities [9]. Inserting genes into animals and causing unpredictable effects can be stressful, and in some cases lethal, to the animals. Experimenting with deleting genes, gene mutations or defective genes may cause drastic physiological and behavioral changes [9], which would be very traumatic to the organisms. Also, even if the desired trait is expressed in the new organism, the result may not be the intended one. Many people are concerned that genetic engineering violates human rights. One reason given is that the well-being of humans is directly related to the health of the environment. Therefore, it follows that even with an anthropocentric world view it is in our best interest to protect nature and all living organisms [16]. If the environment is healthy and diverse, then human beings will not suffer sicknesses from such things as pollution. Also, if the environment is treated in a highly respectful manner and resources are used sustainably, then those resources will be around for years to come, benefiting the whole society. Since we are not completely aware of the effects of modifying living organisms, is it right to burden future generations with the potential adverse effects of genetic engineering? Once these organisms are introduced into the environment, there is no way to remove them, nor is there a way to predict the impacts that they will have for years to come. Therefore, the problems caused by genetically modified organisms will be the problems of many generations to come [2].

It is not right to impose this kind of stress on future generations. It is also not right to think that as long as we are seeing the benefits from genetic engineering now, that the potential effects in the future are of no concern.

than selective breeding, and it has much more unpredictable results. Whereas selective breeding builds on the results of previous experiments and may take several generations to complete, genetic engineering produces a radical change in one sudden step [9].

5.4. Natural Evolution 5.6. Patenting Living Organisms The most ethical question about genetic engineering is whether it is ethically right to make drastic and sudden changes to an environment which has evolved over billions of years to become what it is today. Organisms have evolved through processes such as natural evolution and natural selection, to become perfectly suited for the constantly changing environmental conditions. The conditions to which the organisms must adapt include temperature, sunlight, moisture and precipitation. By changing the genetic make up of plants and animals, scientists are assuming that they can improve upon billions of years of gradual and natural evolution. This is a very simple and uneducated way of thinking. There is a reason why certain organisms have certain characteristics, and are lacking other traits. Many religious people see genetic engineering as ‘playing God’, as it is essentially performing His duties [9]. It is saying that people are more able to create and change life than the ultimate creator, and have more knowledge about how an organism should be than God Himself has.

The creation of new or modified organisms eventually led to the patenting of these organisms. In 1971, the government of the United States of America issued its first patent on a genetically modified organism. A certain type of bacteria was genetically engineered to help clean up oil spills [1]. While this organism may benefit both humans and the environment, it raises the question of whether it is right for animals and plants to be patented. Is it right to define ownership over a specific species? Does this not violate an organism’s rights? Since then, more and more organisms have been patented. Patenting an organism requires an organism to be invented [12]. The creator or inventor of that organism should have a duty to society to ensure that it will not cause any harm to the environment or to human health. If the creator does not own the patent to the organism, then the patent owner should have responsibility over the risks of that organism. The inventor or patent owner should be held accountable for any harmful effects of his GMO.

5.5. Traditional Breeding

5.7. Duty of Scientists and Researchers

Many scientists argue that genetic engineering is no different from the older, widely used process of selective breeding. Selective breeding involves breeding individuals with specific traits over many generations to create a strain of organisms in which that specific trait will always be expressed. These people claim that if selective breeding is allowed, then genetic engineering should be allowed as well. They would question why this is where the line has been drawn, and why selective breeding is not also forbidden. Selective breeding interferes with natural selection, but uses natural processes to do so [1]. There is no mixing between completely unrelated species, and the natural reproduction barriers are not crossed. While it is highly controlled, the processes involved are all natural. For example, plants cannot be naturally bred with animals. Genetic engineering, however, has no respect for those natural barriers. It is a much more rapid process

Scientists and researchers have many professional duties, as well as duties to other human beings. Many times, these duties may be conflicting, and it is up to the individual to decide which is the right choice. It is for this reason that the question of duties leads to some complicated discussions. In their professions, researchers may have a duty to their employers, or to the cause for which they are researching. This may mean that they recognize the duty to continue their research, even if humans or animals may potentially be harmed in the process. However, a conflicting duty would be that to humans. Researchers would have the duty to protect human health, and to not undergo any processes that could place it in any danger. From all of the risks outlined in the above sections of this report, it is clear that there is the potential for human health to suffer with the introduction of genetic engineering and GMO’s. Therefore, it would seem as though by continuing with their work, scientists

involved in genetic engineering may be going against their duty to society. On the other hand, there are many potential benefits from genetic engineering, including new cures for diseases. Therefore, the scientists would have a duty to society to pursue those possibilities.

5.8. Egoism Ethical egoism is the belief that selfishness is a virtue, as each person is best suited to know his owns needs and interests. This means that each person should act in such a way that would benefit only himself, with no regard for the greater good or for society as a whole. When discussing genetic engineering, it is obvious that many researchers are practicing this technique in a very egoistic manner. While some companies or individuals may have enormous concern for the welfare of the environment and human health, others are genetically modifying organisms without thought of the possible consequences. These companies or individuals are thinking only of the benefits to themselves. Many will make a lot of money from their products, and may also achieve fame.

5.9. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism means that all actions should be good for all of humanity, and that morality drives people to act in such a way as to improve the world. Personal interests must be bypassed so that all actions and motives benefit society as a whole. There are two sides to utilitarianism when discussing genetic engineering. First, the risks posed to human health and to the environment by genetic engineering are great enough to say that it would benefit society as a whole to completely stop all research into the field. Society would be better if new diseases were not created, or if the environment’s natural processes were not disrupted in an irreversible manner. Furthermore, the potential changes could affect generations to come, and this is not fair to the future of humanity. The second side to utilitarianism is that which says that the potential benefits from genetic engineering are great, and that research should continue. By continuing with genetic engineering research, cures for diseases could be found, prevention measures could be determined, and human health could actually improve. This means that society as a whole would benefit from ongoing research into genetic engineering. However,

this manner of thinking is clearly solely anthropocentric. To achieve a balance between the two sides of this argument, one could suggest that research continue, but under stringent and strongly enforced guidelines. This could mean following the precautionary principle. Ethical principles and guidelines should be written and strictly adhered to. This could mean that any genetically modified organisms must be grown or cultivated in a closed lab, where there is no possibility of escape into the natural environment. Also, GMO’s should not be used, consumed or sold before it is absolutely sure that there will be no harm to human health. The one problem with this solution to what would constitute as utilitarianism is that this is also clearly an anthropocentric point of view.

6. Conclusion While the benefits of genetic engineering may be far-reaching, the impacts are not entirely known. When genetically modified organisms are released into the environment, they cannot be removed, and it may take decades or centuries to fully realize the consequences. The impacts will affect the entire world, not only those people who create and release the organisms. Some people are so eager to proceed quickly and develop new potentially beneficial GMO’s that they do not stop to fully consider the impacts of their decisions. Researchers are too blinded by the opportunity for wealth that they cannot see the potential disastrous effects. Ethically, it is very wrong to proceed with genetic engineering. All of the above arguments have shown that it is not right for humans to change the world in an irreversible and radical manner. While it does not seem wise to proceed with genetic engineering, it is not reasonable to believe that all genetic engineering research with halt. Therefore, if research is to continue in the future, strict guidelines should be created and adhered to. There must be better risk assessments done for the potential impacts of the modifications, adequate testing, and reporting on the actual impacts or outcomes of the modifications. The public must become informed about the risks and benefits of genetic engineering, in order to make informed decisions about whether of not to use modified products [1]. Furthermore, it is essential that all genetically modified foods be labeled clearly with what genes have been added. Several questions remain to be answered about genetic engineering. What percentage of human genes must an organism have before it too is considered

human? Does the presence of human genes in an organism change its ethical status? If human genes are inserted in plants and animals for human consumption, does this mean that humans would become cannibals? In conclusion, genetic engineering research should proceed slowly, and only by following codes of environmental and professional ethics. The precautionary principle should be employed, and genetically modified organisms should not be produced, sold, or consumed until the effects are completely known.

7. References [1] Epstein, R. “Redesigning the World – Ethical Questions About Genetic Engineering.” Vajra Bodhi Sea: A Monthly Journal of Orthodox Buddhism. Vol 32 (76): 34-39. 2001. [2] Epstein, R. “Ethical Dangers of Genetic Engineering.” Synthesis and Regeneration, Issue 20, 1999. [3] Fox, K., McAvoy, L. “Environmental Ethics: Strengths and Dualisms of Six Dominant Themes.” < http://www.fw.umn.edu/NRES3011/FoxMcAvoy.html> [4] Lassen, J., Madsen, K.H., Sandoe, P. ”Ethics and genetic engineering – Lessons to be learned from GM foods.” Bioprocesses and Biosystems Engineering. Vol 24 (5): 263271, 2002. [5] Partridge, E. “Environmental Ethics: An Introduction.” 1980. http://gadfly.igc.org/e-ethics/Intro-ee.htm [6] Rifkin, J. “Playing Ecological Roulette with Mother Nature’s Designs.” The Trouble with Meat, Vol 9 (3). 1998. [7] Taylor, P. “Are Humans Superior to Animals and Plants?” [8] Tickner, J., Raffensperger, C. “The Precautionary Principle in Action: A Handbook.” Science and Environmental Health Network. [9] Boyd Group. “Genetic engineering: Animal welfare and ethics.” 1999. [10] Canadian Environmental

Environment Network. Ethics.

Code of 1994.

[11] Church of Scotland. “Genetically Modified Food: Pros and Cons.” Society, Religion and Technology Project. 1999. [12] Church of Scotland. “Patenting Life? - An Introduction to the Issues.” Society, Religion and Technology Project. 1996. < http://www.srtp.org.uk/scsunpat.shtml> [13] New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. “Issues and Ethics Surrounding Genetic Engineering of Foods.” [14] Online Biology Dictionary. online.org/dictionary.asp>