After thirty years of investigation into cell genetics, researchers made startling discoveries in the 1960s and early 1970s which culminated in the development of processes, collectively known as recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology, for the active manipulation of a cell’s genetic code. The technology has DNA—which contains the building blocks of the genetic code.
Using rDNA technology, scientists can transfer a portion of the DNA from one organism to a single living cell of another. The scientist chemically “snips” the DNA chain of the host cell at a predetermined point and attaches another at that place, creating a completely new organism.
Proponents of rDNA research and development claim that it will allow scientists to find cures for disease and to better understand how genetic information controls an organism’s development. They also see many other potentially practical benefits, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Some corporations employing the new technology even claim that by the already developed, but not yet marketed, indicate that these predictions may be realized.
Proponents also cite nonmedical applications for this technology. Energy production and waste disposal may benefit: genetically altered organisms could convert sewage and other organic material into methane fuel. Agriculture might also take advantage of rDNA technology to produce new pests, and the effects of poor soil.
A major concern of the critics of rDNA research is that genetically altered microorganisms might escape from the laboratory. Because these microorganisms are laboratory creations that, in all probability, do not occur in nature, their interaction with the natural world cannot be predicted with certainty. It is possible that they could cause interdependent relationships among species, extrapolated to its extreme, could eventually result in the destruction of humanity.
Opponents of rDNA technology also cite ethical problems with it. For example, it gives scientists the power to instantly cross evolutionary and species boundaries that nature took millennia to establish. The implications of such power would become particularly profound if genetic engineers were to tinker with human genes, a practice that would of a totalitarian society that engineers human beings to fulfill specific roles.
What this question is testing
Your task
Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.
Common trap
Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.
Winning move
Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.