Leon 1

Eric G. Leon

Professor Hamilton

English 137H-12

23 November 2020

The Human Body and Technology: An Ever-Growing Relationship

Throughout the 20th century, science fiction books and movies have displayed fantastical

biomedical technologies. The cloning of organisms, genetic manipulation, and bionic body parts

on a half-human, half-robot cyborg were some of the most portrayed. As scientists and

engineers continue to advance our biomedical technologies beyond the scope of what we thought

possible, the line between science fiction and reality becomes blurred. The technology that

seemed to be otherworldly and out of reach is no longer impossible to create with the

advancements we have today, and this cycle will continue to repeat itself as humans continue to

develop in their understanding of the scientific world. As religious pressure decreases around

the world and biomedical technologies advance beyond public comprehension, the link between

the human body and technology continues to tighten, indicating that society’s emphasis on

scientific values has begun to replace religious, traditional views of the body.

The continued development of human genetic engineering is the most prevalent outward

example of how technology and the human body are becoming one. The first major

advancement of the 21st century occurred in 2006 and came from the discovery of induced

pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). iPSCs are cells that have not yet been differentiated, so by

subjecting them to various growth factors, they can turn into many different kinds of cells. This

technology has applications in countless therapies and has immense potential, but there is one
 Leon 2

large problem for those that believe that life begins at conception: iPSCs must be taken from

human embryos (Zacharias). Throughout its early stages and testing, there was public backlash

about the ethics of the issue. Testing was originally only allowed on mice, but as time has

progressed so has the public’s view of the issue. Human use of iPSCs is currently legal with

consent from both the donors (Moradi). To those that believe that an embryo is a living human,

this procedure is considered murder, and that is the basis of the religious objections. The

acceptance of this ethical dilemma was very low upon its discovery in the early 2000s, but as its

potential is becoming realized the public is beginning to change its mind.

In a very similar fashion, the advent of CRISPR in 2012 revolutionized the world of

genetic engineering. CRISPR seems like it was taken directly from a science fiction movie and

put into the real world. It allows one to delete, edit, or add DNA into a patient’s genome (“Full

Stack”). Exactly like iPSCs, CRISPR has the potential to do amazing things for the human race

including eliminating certain genetic disorders, but the ethics of the technology remain in

question. The issue that many people have with the procedure is that CRISPR can also change

appearance, athleticism, intelligence, and other preferences. “Designer babies” is a term often

used to describe the outcome of the slippery slope surrounding CRISPR technology (Foulkes).

That being said, just as the view of iPSCs changed, so has the view of CRISPR. Its vast potential

makes it difficult to argue against the uncertain disadvantages, and the possibility of regulating

its use is very promising, although not yet fully discovered. The religious and moral concerns of

superficial changes to embryotic DNA have not yet made it into the limelight as there is

currently no legislation barring the use of CRISPR, and it is even available in do-it-yourself kits

for as low as $200 (Technology Networks). Society is becoming more and more optimistic

about the benefits of incorporating advanced technology into the human body, even at the risk of
 Leon 3

ethical issues. The fact that the public is willing to do so, without concrete regulation or ethical

lines, gives insight into the values of society and how they are shifting towards a unification of

the body and technology.

Robotic prosthetics and other medical devices are evidence of society’s increasing

acceptance of technology in the body. Prosthetics have been around for thousands of years, but

their goal has changed drastically. Originally, prosthetics were made to replace a limb in order

to maintain a normal life. Now, these limbs are capable of being controlled by your nerves and

can even be stronger than existing limbs (Allen). We are currently at a tipping point in the

advancement of these wearable technologies. If engineers continue their course, bionic arms will

be a thing of preference, not a necessity, and from the support that the medical device industry is

receiving, this very well may be a reality. The global medical device sector has outperformed

the S&P 500 over the last ten years and is expected to grow another four to five percent over the

next few years (Copp). There is even a debate about whether the removal of a fully functioning

limb to be replaced with a prosthetic should be elective surgery. This removes the medical

necessity of the issue, and it becomes a choice for those that believe the human body isn’t

capable enough. Technology is on its way to making that happen and public support of the idea

is growing. Although this philosophy goes against the idea that God made humans to perfection,

it still has substantial backing worldwide.

The decrease in religious pressure throughout developed countries has allowed

biomedical sciences to flourish. Since the beginning of civilization, religion has governed the

actions of humans. It has been a constant force. Religion is responsible for instilling righteous

morals, values, and teachings, but it is also responsible for death and war. The most popular

religion in the world is Christianity, and it has about 2.4 billion followers. In Christianity, the
 Leon 4

word of the Bible is seen as law, and it says, “So God created mankind in his own image”. God

is seen as a perfect entity, so for God to make humans in his own image implies that humans too

are the perfect representation of God on Earth (CMF Publications). Because of just a few lines

in the Bible, devout followers of the dominant religion in the world can have vast objections to

medicine. This is one of the reasons why religion and science are seen as opposites by much of

the world. But just as religion was the controlling factor for many people in the past, science is

beginning to take on that very same role. In just 10 years, 12% fewer American adults consider

themselves to be Christian, while those who do not identify with religion have grown 9% (“In

U.S., Decline”). The numbers are startling for those associated with the Christian church, and if

the trend continues, religious affiliation will be a minority behavior very soon. Secularism is on

the rise and young people are pushing for this change (“The Real Reason”). Even though

religion and science are not in reality mutually exclusive, they are seen as such by much of the

polarized world. For those who believe in this juxtaposition, the decline in religion throughout

the globe implies a necessary and tangible increase in scientific appreciation. Naturally, this

metric is much harder to measure, but its effects can be felt in the global attitude towards the

biomedical examples explained above.

Religion has the unique ability to guide decisions, and this implicit bias is very difficult,

though not impossible, to change. Isolated and often illegal experimentation regarding the human

body have shown the world the potential of scientific advancement and helped the public move

away from religion. The most notable example of illegal experimentation began in June of 2017.

A Chinese man, He Jiankui, used CRISPR technology to remove certain immune cells from

embryos in order to remove the possibility of their fathers passing along their HIV to the babies.

The procedure, in theory, is safe, but no testing has been done to prove the efficacy. In addition
 Leon 5

to the vast risks associated with the procedure, it is also illegal to use CRISPR without consent

from the patient, in this case, the patients are the embryos. He was recently stripped of his

university job, company title, blacklisted from any scientific work, and sentenced to three years

in prison. Although what Dr. Jiankui did was morally and legally wrong, his experimentation

sparked fierce debate in the scientific community over the use of CRISPR and other genetic

engineering technologies (Cohen). The twins that were operated on were born just recently, and

although no one is monitoring their health besides the parents, it can be reasonably assumed that

the infants are healthy and HIV-free. The world was caught off guard by Dr. Jiankui’s

experiment, and the public was shocked by the result. It made everyone who heard about it stop

and think about what the future could hold for genetic engineering and biomedical technology in

general (Normile). The world is slowly opening up to the idea of genetic engineering, and

experiments like this one help to speed up the process. At the end of the day, the thought that

most likely stays with you is not, “I can’t believe this man broke the law” it’s probably, “Wow, I

can’t believe we’ve reached this level of genetic engineering”. In this way, Dr. Jiankui is almost

a martyr for the advancement of his field. His work has shown the world what is possible and

opened our eyes to what is to come. It also prepares the world for proper regulation and

legislation that will aid the development of such ethically challenging technology.

New legislation and lack thereof allow for the enhancement of scientific knowledge in

the field of genetic engineering. Currently, there are no international laws that govern genetic

engineering. There are groups that are trying to create registries of clinical trials in the field, but

they have no real authority. Each country regulates the experimentation as they see fit, and they

range wildly. Russia may potentially let a man perform similar experiments to Dr. Jiankui,

although that is still up for debate. The United States lets the FDA preside over the marketable
 Leon 6

products such as do-it-yourself CRISPR kits. China now requires national approval before any

genetic engineering trials because of Dr. Jiankui (“How on Earth”). The moral of the story here

is that the lackluster regulation of genetic engineering is allowing companies to essentially do

whatever they want. These companies are able to show the general public the vast potentials

they are pursuing and get them excited about what is to come. This influence can be extremely

powerful and is beginning to overcome that of religion. The regulations seen in the United

States by the FDA also serve to validate the science in a way. If the FDA approves a product,

ideally it is completely safe, and this approval can influence the public as well. The FDA

approval works to legitimize genetic engineering and remove some of the religious stigma

surrounding it.

The human body and technology are steadily becoming entangled revealing how society

has begun its shift from religious and traditional views about the body to scientific and fact-

based ideas. Simple things like the acceptance of genetic engineering, or the appreciation for a

bionic arm are ideas that would have been shunned just a few decades ago. The cultural

acceptance of scientific advancement in the field of biomedical engineering is at an all-time high

and the trend looks as if it will continue. Although the recognition of a tightening in the

relationship between science and the body is just a standalone example of how society’s

traditional views are beginning to change, the trend can be seen elsewhere. With theology

degrees decreasing worldwide and STEM degrees increasing, the future of the world can be seen

through its youth.

As time passes, the influence of the scientific community will continue to increase. The

human body is just one avenue that science is being given room to evolve, and the list is infinite.

As each sector feeds off of each other, science will continue to grow. As catastrophes like global
 Leon 7

warming continue to threaten our existence, science will continue to grow. As fantastical science

fiction problems endure challenges to become reality, science will continue to grow. Science

will continue to grow. That much is certain. With that in mind, there are still questions that

remain: will religion continue to be seen as the opposition to science, will biomedical

technologies fall down the slippery slope they are so carefully balanced on, and will legislation

continue to allow room for scientific discovery in the field of genetic engineering?

The link between the human body and technology grows tighter each day, and society’s

preference for science over religious values become more and more apparent. This shift in

society’s beliefs is visible through the public appreciation for advancement in genetic

engineering, prosthetics, and medical devices. Caused by a worldwide decrease in religious

popularity and pressure, isolated experiments that awe the public, and favorable legislation, the

scientific movement as it relates to the human body is flourishing. This transformation is

indicative of a wider cultural shift from religious views to those backed by science, fact, and

research. Science will one day control our lives as religion did in the early years of civilization.

The only question is how soon?

 Leon 8

Works Cited

Allen, Jeffery, et al. “Advancements in Limb Prosthetics.” Science in the News, 26 Oct. 2015,

sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/limb-prosthetics/.

“CMF Publications.” Christian Medical Fellowship - Cmf.org.uk,

www.cmf.org.uk/resources/publications/content/?context=article.

Cohen, Jon, et al. “The Untold Story of the 'Circle of Trust' behind the World's First Gene-Edited

Babies.” Science, 2 Aug. 2019, www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/untold-story-circle-

trust-behind-world-s-first-gene-edited-babies.

Copp, Josh, et al. “The Growth Imperative for Medical-Device Companies.” McKinsey &

Company, McKinsey & Company, 8 Jan. 2018,

www.mckinsey.com/industries/pharmaceuticals-and-medical-products/our-insights/the-

growth-imperative-for-medical-device-companies.

Foulkes, Alexandra, et al. “LEGAL AND ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF CRISPR

APPLICATIONS IN PSYCHIATRY.” North Carolina Law Review, U.S. National Library

of Medicine, 2019, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6927684/.

 Leon 9

“Full Stack Genome Engineering.” Synthego, www.synthego.com/learn/genome-engineering-

history.

“How on Earth Are We Regulating Human Genetic Modifications?” Rising Tide Biology, 6 Nov.

2020, www.risingtidebio.com/human-gene-therapy-regulations-laws/.

“In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace.” Pew Research Center's Religion &

Public Life Project, 9 June 2020, www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-

christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/.

Moradi, Sharif, et al. “Research and Therapy with Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (IPSCs):

Social, Legal, and Ethical Considerations.” Stem Cell Research & Therapy, BioMed

Central, 21 Nov. 2019, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6873767/.

Normile, Dennis, et al. “Chinese Scientist Who Produced Genetically Altered Babies Sentenced

to 3 Years in Jail.” Science, 30 Dec. 2019, www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/chinese-

scientist-who-produced-genetically-altered-babies-sentenced-3-years-jail.

“The Real Reason Religion Is Declining In America.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 27

May 2015, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-changing-culture/201505/the-real-

reason-religion-is-declining-in-america.

Technology Networks. “First CRISPR Law: Selling ‘Gene-Therapy Kits’ Will Be Illegal in

California Unless They Carry a Warning.” Genomics Research from Technology Networks,

Technology Networks, 16 Aug. 2019, www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/first-

 Leon 10

crispr-law-selling-gene-therapy-kits-will-be-illegal-in-california-unless-they-carry-a-

322889.

Zacharias, David, et al. “The Science and Ethics of Induced Pluripotency: What Will Become of

Embryonic Stem Cells?” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Mayo Foundation for Medical

Education and Research, July 2011, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3127559/.