The time of gladiators and battles in arenas ended two millennia ago, but in the scorching summer of 2006, the brutal duels to the death resurfaced in my backyard. Surrounded by walls of thick, unbreakable glass, two warriors circled about each other. One of the warriors, yellow in color and wearing glistening broad armor, stood well over the other. Across the arena, hugging the wall, frantically scratching his sharp swords against the glass to find any sort of crack or crease in it to lift himself out, the feeble warrior couldn’t find a way to escape his demise.

Above the arena, my gaze pierced the soul of the frantic warrior. I could see the fright in his large, beady eyes. Behind him, the mighty gladiator prepared his swing. The gladiator was ready to drop the force of his bulky, armored arm upon its foe. I flinched, grimacing, as I witnessed the front leg of the praying mantis get torn from its thorax. Only the strong praying mantises would be released back into the violet bougainvillea bush. The mantises were pinned against each other in a jar, allowing only the most fit insect to survive the biology experiment. After a few months of frequent gladiator battles, only yellow, thick-armored praying mantises inhabited the bush.

While orchestrated gladiator battles - such as the ones in my backyard - aren’t necessarily happening across the globe, similar experiments are occurring. Parents now have the ability to potentially silence or express the genes of their unborn children, ensuring that certain characteristics will be endowed. This practice, known as gene regulation,has many benefits. However, critics argue that gene regulation is immoral. The roles of nature and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution are undermined when the fate of an individual is tinkered with, and a question is raised as to whether humans should have the ability to permanently change the predetermined bluepapers of another human being.

Genetic diseases hold an important role in nature. When a genetic disease spreads through a population, only the individuals with genetic resistance will viably fight off the disease. Soon after the spread of the disease, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution dictates that only the ones with the genes resistant to the disease will survive the epidemic. This influences evolution in a population, as only the strong individuals will survive. When gene regulation is introduced to a population to make the population resistant to the disease, the entire population has the ability to overcome it. Not only does gene regulation negate natural evolution, it also leads to overpopulation - this entails malnourishment from lack of resources for the population and also territorial complications as a large population requires land for settlement. The introduction of gene regulation is argued as immoral because it conflicts with the natural laws that an ecosystem abides by - such as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution - and causes an imbalance in the populations of the ecosystem.

With the potential to use gene modifications to influence one’s interests, critics also argue that governments could likely upgrade their civilians by silencing weak genes and expressing strong ones. A simple fortification upon the genes of a population could be achieved by the manipulation and insertion of a few G’s,C’s,T’s and A’s in their genetic makeups. These manipulations would fabricate new mRNA sequences and create new proteins that make a more strong and resilient human. After years of gene expression experimentation, critics insist that the world would be ruled by a superior race of humans - similar to how the gladiator battles in my backyard produced a stronger population of praying mantises. Radical views from critics arguing that governments will use gene expression as a way to create the perfect human race are influenced by Hitler’s atrocities when, during the mid 1900’s, the Nazi Regime experimented with eugenics by euthanizing any Germans with mental or physical disabilities. After World War II, however, a more ethical approach was implemented in society by the regulation of genes with genetic engineering that doesn’t involve euthanasia.

Moral responsibility is a prevalent problem in recent genetic enhancements, but the ability to use gene modification as a way to save lives and entire generations of families ridden with genetic diseases has to be taken advantage of. Genetic diseases such as sickle cell anemia, Huntington’s disease, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and many other genetically inherited diseases cause the death of millions of humans every year. The unnecessary and premature demise of countless amounts of humans will continue to occur as long as genes containing codons for genetic diseases are passed on to new generations through reproduction.

Much like the genetic fortification of a praying mantis’ exoskeleton for increased thickness, genetic modification could be implemented to prohibit the spread of genetic disease through entire generations of families. No longer would a mother have to worry about all five of her children dying at the age of forty from cystic fibrosis. No longer would a father have to worry about his children inheriting osteogenesis imperfecta and being constrained to a wheelchair for the entirety of their lives. No longer would a person have to worry if they would be the next family member to die from pancreatic cancer. A few adjustments to a string of codons in the genetic makeup of just one baby could prevent the dissolution of an entire family line.

We won’t be participating in any gladiator skirmishes anytime soon to create a super-race - hopefully - but we can give our future generations the fighting chance to live a long and fulfilling life. Everyone deserves the opportunity to make a positive impact on the life of another, or on our society as a whole. Gene regulation and modification will allow the many children, once fated to a life of hardship or early death, to have the opportunity to significantly influence the world and have a meaningful existence.