The idea of Frankenstein babies and human clones is shifting from the safe nightmare that will never be to a plausible and nearly expected advance in the scientific achievements of our society. Increasingly the effects of genetic discovery have become more evident: the rise of GMOs (and correspondingly non-GMOs), the technology to pick and choose certain desired traits in potential offspring, and the emergence of genetic screening to warn of lurking diseases. These are incredible feats, each with strong implications about the infinitude of human intelligence and the boundlessness of natural curiosity. Accompanying this development for humanity, however, is a story which tells a much darker tale: the extremes of discovery, of manipulation, of corruption, and of the opening of Pandora’s Box. Every step humanity takes in the direction towards an understanding of the universe elicits the fear that we might uncover something impossible to recover from, because after all, once information is gained, it is seldom forgotten and even more rarely ignored. Despite this concern for the well-being of our future world, the pursuit of science, of genetic engineering, cannot be stopped or considered detrimental; however, the risks associated with such quests can be noted and fail-.safes can be developed before this technology is handed to the masses.

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World includes no shortage of arguments against genetic engineering using a utopian totalitarianism world in which the consequences are a completely controlled and stratified society. Huxley defends his opinion that further exploration into genetic engineering will undermine the morals of humanity. This book was written nearly ninety years ago, yet today we see controversial texts disputing the legitimacy and moral complications of, say, genetically manipulating your son to be born deaf (McElroy). Perhaps the largest danger facing the world with the advancements of genetic technologies is the possibility for ridged and “finely-tuned” social classes, providing little to no movement among socioeconomic levels. The rich would have access to technology that would make their offspring beautiful prodigies, catapulting these babies to the highest rung of the metaphysical social ladder, with those too poor to afford genetic manipulation struggling to catch up (Wright). Or so it seems. What if before society, government, humanity, or whomever you believe calls the shots made the decision to study or discontinue genetic engineering and to put it into use or to hide it away; the subject was studied completely, the consequences predicted, and solutions to such results developed? To further explain this point it is necessary to digress into the subject of plastic.

The invention of plastic occurred in 1907, and less than a century later, the synthetic, non-biodegradable material dominated marketplaces. Today we see the ramifications of such a speedy trust and dependence on a product about which we had little knowledge. One hundred and ten years later, the Earth faces a dire battle against pollution as landfills overflow with plastic bottles and packagings, our oceans are littered with the destructive element, and we continue to demand the product, refusing to see that we are in fact harming, if not killing, ourselves. Surely the potential for harm was realized before plastic was let out of the laboratory, perhaps not seen to the extent a modern society now observes, but recognized nonetheless. Our world would be different if the scientists who created plastic had thought of recycling (or something better) before the public got ahold of this useful, crippling product. Humanity would have benefited from experimentation, from research, from science. Now society, the government, and humanity must assess the risks of genetic engineering and come up with a “recycling” of sorts, a solution to inevitable consequences such as pollution or a stratified world.

After all, there is no alternative to not developing genetic technologies. We cannot live in the dark, ignoring the natural curiosity that comes with being human, shutting our eyes to potential world-altering, beneficial advancements in disease prevention, a more capable generation, and a knowledge of our “biological destiny” (Cohen). Perhaps we could have, if the information on such technology had not become public knowledge but rather remained restricted and unknown. This prospect is particularly unlikely for this reason: imagine a world without cancer. Every person you’ve known who was afflicted, who fought against the disease, who lost to the merciless and tragic plague, suddenly restored to their former health. What would you sacrifice for that dream, for your loved ones; would you have wanted to explore, at least question, the possibilities, despite the risks? This hope is the potential that genetic engineering holds to change the future. Nothing could ever completely stop it once it gains momentum; it offers too sweet a promise. The world will forever shift. There has never been, and never will be, a period, even a moment, when everything remains the same. The world simply (a complicated word) cannot remain stagnant. It is an impossibility, a direct conflict with humanity and the environment due to an “interplay between genes and environment [that] is too complex to permit the easy fine-tuning of mind and spirit” (Wright). The world will continue to change, and humanity must continue to evolve, whether in the form of genetic engineering, philosophy, or art.

If we give up genetic engineering because of potential risks, if we sacrifice the integrity of science, we may just open up a different kind of Pandora’s Box. The censorship of art, literature, philosophy and history could come next. The point of no return will become blurred; there is no fair decision regarding who chooses what humanity pursues and what it locks away. There is a very fine line between censorship and the withholding of scientific discovery. We can never stop experimenting; we can never sacrifice the sciences and arts for happiness disguised as ignorance. There are no right or wrong answers, no sharp contrasts between black and white among the question of genetic engineering; each possibility has associated risks and potential benefits. However, we are not entering a “brave new world”, but rather a brave new today that may change tomorrow, a tomorrow for which we cannot stop and must prepare.