Genetic Engineering

.It is apt and usual to cogitate and ratiocinate man and human rights; it is less so about or with (other) animal rights; and much more less and lesser so with/about “plant rights” and (possibly) the rights of cloned/the artificially intelligent agents’. This condition is unfair and not ideal because man, other animals, plants, and other human manipulations (AI) from nature constitute varying levels of being; therefore, they possess varying levels of rights. Hence there is need to espouse the nature/levels of being, on the one hand, and to adumbrate the nature/types of rights and as related to being as such—which is the imperative of this article. Dwelling on the cornucopia of literature/and common biological (and other) features in nature as basis for analysis, this article, first, seeks to establish that man, other animals, plants, and other human manipulations from nature constitute varying levels of being; and second, argues that each level of being as such possesses some rights associated with it. It argues further that either all beings have rights, or they don’t. The work concludes that if one accepts that all the levels of being possess rights (accordingly including plant, cloned and AI agents), then one has certain obligation to all levels of being; but accepting either poses the most existential and ontological threat to humanity and all of nature.

The rapid advancement of genome editing technologies, particularly CRISPR-Cas9, has revolutionized biomedical science while raising unprecedented ethical and human rights concerns. This paper examines the implications of genetic engineering through a human rights lens, focusing on three critical challenges: threats to equality from potential genetic enhancement, consent paradoxes in germline editing, and emerging forms of genetic discrimination. Using an interdisciplinary methodology that integrates bioethics, political philosophy, and international law, supplemented by case studies like the He Jiankui affair and DIY biohacking movement, the study reveals how current governance frameworks remain inadequate against these challenges. Key findings demonstrate that unequal access to genetic technologies risks creating "genetic privilege" and new forms of biological stratification, while germline interventions pose unresolved intergenerational justice issues. Furthermore, existing protections like GINA fail to address contemporary genetic privacy risks in direct-to-consumer testing and data commercialization. The paper proposes a tripartite governance model combining international cooperation (through WHO/UNESCO frameworks and a global registry), adaptive national policies (including regulatory sandboxes), and strengthened institutional oversight (with mandatory ethics training). These recommendations aim to balance scientific innovation with ethical safeguards, preventing genetic technologies from becoming tools of inequality while harnessing their therapeutic potential. The conclusion emphasizes the need for ongoing monitoring of social impacts and development of culturally sensitive implementation strategies, as the genomic revolution continues to challenge fundamental notions of human dignity, equality, and self-determination in the 21st century.