Biology • Year 12 • Module 6 • Lesson 9
Ethics and Social Implications of Biotechnology
Apply the stakeholder framework to three real-world case studies (CRISPR babies, IVF embryo selection, GMO crops) and critique a flawed media source.
1. Case study — the He Jiankui "CRISPR babies" announcement (2018)
In November 2018 Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui announced that he had used CRISPR-Cas9 to edit the CCR5 gene in human embryos to confer HIV resistance, resulting in the live birth of twin girls — the first heritable human gene-editing event reported in humans. The work was conducted outside published international guidelines, without formal regulatory approval, without independent ethics-committee oversight, and without full informed consent from the participating couples. He was subsequently sentenced to three years in prison by a Chinese court in 2019, and the global scientific community widely condemned the experiment. 8 marks
1.1 Identify four distinct stakeholder groups affected by this event and, for each, state one ethical concern they would raise. 4 marks
1.2 Using the lesson's framework, explain why the scientific community condemned this work even though the editing was technically successful. Refer to at least two of: consent, welfare, ownership, equity, environmental/heritable risk. 4 marks
2. Case study — pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) during IVF
In Australia, couples carrying single-gene disorders (e.g. cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease, Tay–Sachs disease) can undergo IVF combined with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD): one cell is removed from each 8-cell embryo, screened for the disease-causing allele, and only unaffected embryos are transferred to the uterus. NHMRC guidelines permit PGD for serious genetic conditions. Several international clinics — though not Australian ones — also offer PGD for non-medical traits such as sex selection for "family balancing". 6 marks
2.1 Describe one clear ethical benefit of PGD when used for serious heritable disease. Refer to a specific stakeholder (e.g. future child, parents). 2 marks
2.2 Explain one ethical concern about extending PGD to non-medical trait selection, using lesson terms (equity, autonomy, social implication). 2 marks
2.3 Explain why the same biotechnology (PGD) can be ethically acceptable in one context (disease screening) and ethically contested in another (trait selection). 2 marks
3. Case study — Golden Rice and the GMO food debate
Golden Rice is a genetically modified rice cultivar engineered to express β-carotene (a Vitamin A precursor) in its endosperm, aimed at addressing Vitamin A deficiency in low-income regions where rice is the staple food. The WHO estimates that Vitamin A deficiency causes blindness in around 250,000–500,000 children each year. Golden Rice was first developed in 2000 and licensed royalty-free to public-sector breeders in developing countries. The Philippines approved Golden Rice for commercial cultivation in 2021 — but field trials and approvals have been opposed by groups including Greenpeace and some farming organisations, citing concerns about ecological risk, corporate influence over food systems, and the precedent set by introducing GM staple crops. 8 marks
3.1 Identify two stakeholder groups who would likely support Golden Rice and, for each, state one reason rooted in lesson concepts (food security, equity, medical benefit). 2 marks
3.2 Identify two stakeholder groups who would likely oppose Golden Rice and, for each, state one reason rooted in lesson concepts (ownership, biodiversity, social implication, ecological risk). 2 marks
3.3 The licensing model is royalty-free for public-sector breeders in low-income countries. Explain how this addresses one ethical concern that typically applies to patented GM crops. 2 marks
3.4 Apply the evaluative sentence starter from the lesson Copy Notes panel to write a balanced one-sentence judgement on Golden Rice. 2 marks
4. Source critique — a media claim about GM crops
A community blog post about GM crops contains the following claim. Read it carefully, then identify the flaw and explain the correct science / ethics. 6 marks
"Genetically modified crops have been proven safe to eat in dozens of studies, so any opposition to them is just anti-science fearmongering. The only thing that matters when evaluating a biotechnology is whether the food is biochemically safe for consumers — everything else, like 'who owns the seed' or 'effects on biodiversity', is just politics and has no place in a biology lesson."
4.1 Identify the specific flaw in this claim using terms from the lesson. 2 marks
4.2 Explain the correct biological / ethical position: what else, beyond consumer biochemical safety, must ethical evaluation of a GM crop include? Name at least three additional criteria with a brief justification for each. 4 marks
Q1.1 — Stakeholders and concerns in the He Jiankui case (4 marks)
1 mark each, max 4. Acceptable groups + concerns include:
- The twin girls (the modified individuals): they cannot consent, yet carry heritable edits whose long-term welfare and health effects are unknown.
- Parents: reported consent forms were not full informed consent — they may not have understood the experimental nature of the procedure.
- Wider scientific / medical community: the work bypassed peer review, ethics committees and international guidelines, damaging public trust in legitimate gene-therapy research.
- Future generations: heritable edits propagate into the human germline, so any unintended off-target mutations could pass to descendants who could never consent.
- Regulators / governments: the event exposed gaps in international governance and triggered demands for stricter heritable-editing rules.
- Society more broadly: concern about a slippery slope toward non-medical "enhancement" editing and growing inequity if such technologies become available only to wealthy families.
Q1.2 — Why the work was condemned despite technical success (4 marks)
Even though CRISPR successfully edited CCR5, the experiment failed almost every other ethical criterion from the lesson framework [1]. Consent was inadequate — the modified individuals could not consent and the parents' consent appears incomplete [1]. Welfare of the twins was placed at unknown risk because off-target editing and long-term health effects had not been characterised, and HIV resistance was not medically necessary in this context [1]. The work also bypassed regulatory oversight and ethics-committee approval, undermining stakeholder trust and creating a heritable change with potential equity consequences (germline edits could create a new axis of biological inequality if generalised) [1]. Scientific success on the editing step does not in itself satisfy welfare, consent, oversight or equity — exactly the misconception the lesson warns against.
Q2.1 — Benefit of PGD for serious heritable disease (2 marks)
PGD allows parents who are carriers of a serious heritable disorder to have a biological child without passing on the disease-causing genotype [1]. The future child stakeholder benefits by being born without a serious genetic disease, and the parents benefit by avoiding the medical and emotional consequences of an affected pregnancy or affected child — both outcomes align with the welfare criterion the lesson lists [1].
Q2.2 — Concern about non-medical trait selection (2 marks)
Selecting embryos for non-medical traits (e.g. sex) raises equity concerns: access to IVF + PGD is expensive and skews available only to wealthier families, and population-level sex selection has been associated with skewed sex ratios in some countries — a clear adverse social implication [1]. It also raises autonomy / value concerns: there is no medical benefit to the future child, so the selection serves parental preference rather than welfare, which the lesson identifies as a weak ethical basis on its own [1].
Q2.3 — Same technology, different judgement (2 marks)
The biotechnology (embryo biopsy + genotyping) is the same in both cases, but the lesson's framework holds that ethical acceptability depends on context — who benefits, who bears risk, and which values are prioritised [1]. Disease screening produces a clear welfare benefit for the future child and the family with limited risk of misuse; non-medical selection produces no welfare benefit and carries equity and social-implication risks. Different contexts produce different ethical judgements about the same technology [1].
Q3.1 — Supporters of Golden Rice (2 marks)
1 mark each, max 2. Examples: WHO / public-health bodies — Golden Rice addresses Vitamin A deficiency in regions where conventional supplementation has not solved the problem (food security + medical benefit). Subsistence farmers in regions with high Vitamin A deficiency — they gain a free or low-cost nutritious staple. Governments of affected countries — Golden Rice is a domestic-scale public-health intervention with potential to reduce child blindness and mortality.
Q3.2 — Opposers of Golden Rice (2 marks)
1 mark each, max 2. Examples: Some farming organisations / food sovereignty groups — concern that introducing a GM staple creates a long-term dependence pathway and erodes traditional rice varieties (ownership / biodiversity). Environmental NGOs (e.g. Greenpeace) — concern about gene flow into wild rice relatives and reduced agricultural biodiversity (environmental criterion). Anti-corporate-influence advocates — concern about precedent: even though Golden Rice is royalty-free, its adoption normalises GM staples and could open the door to patented GM staples controlled by agribusiness (social implication).
Q3.3 — Royalty-free licensing addresses which concern? (2 marks)
The standard ethical concern about patented GM seed (Card 2 of the lesson) is that farmers become economically dependent on a corporate seed supplier and lose the ability to save and replant seed [1]. Royalty-free licensing to public-sector breeders in low-income countries removes that ownership / dependence concern for this specific cultivar: farmers can plant, save and share the seed without paying ongoing royalties, addressing the equity-of-access and ownership criteria the lesson highlights [1].
Q3.4 — Balanced judgement (2 marks)
Sample: "Although Golden Rice may improve nutritional outcomes and reduce childhood blindness in low-income regions, its overall ethical acceptability depends on stakeholder impact (farmer choice and consumer trust), fairness of access (the royalty-free model strengthens equity), welfare (low direct welfare risk), and environmental consequences (potential gene flow into local rice varieties) — so it is best evaluated case-by-case rather than approved or rejected outright."
Marking notes. 1 mark for naming the benefit + 1 mark for naming at least two of the four ethical criteria as conditions on the judgement.
Q4.1 — The flaw (2 marks)
The claim equates "scientifically safe to eat" with "ethically acceptable" — exactly the misconception the lesson explicitly corrects [1]. Biochemical food safety is one criterion, but a biotechnology can be biochemically safe and still raise legitimate ethical concerns about ownership, equity, environmental impact and social implication; dismissing those as "just politics" mis-defines what ethical evaluation is [1].
Q4.2 — What ethical evaluation must include (4 marks)
1 mark per criterion + justification, max 4. Accept any three (or more) of:
- Ownership — patented seed systems can create farmer dependence and concentrate economic benefit in a few companies, which is an ethical/social concern even if the food is biochemically safe.
- Equity of access — whether the benefits of the GM crop reach the populations most in need or are captured by wealthier producers; this is independent of food safety.
- Environmental impact / biodiversity — gene flow to wild relatives, reduced crop diversity if a few GM varieties dominate, effects on non-target species; these can occur even when human consumption is safe.
- Stakeholder consent and community engagement — farmers and communities should have a voice in adoption decisions; imposing GM crops without consultation is ethically problematic regardless of food safety.
- Cultural and social implications — effects on traditional food systems, seed-saving practices, and food sovereignty.