By allowing more people to participate in this kind of science, innovation is not only permissible but encouraged. It works to increase “science literacy”—which in turn, produces a few other different reactions. Initially, some journalists respond with that same kind of moral panic evidenced by CRISPR/cas9 techniques. However, over time and after getting through that period works to make “biohacking” more popular and practiced. A global community of “hacker spaces” has emerged, and according to Jorgenson and other hackers alike, the spirit of DIYbio labs are open and positive. Naturally, there are concerns about any rookie scientist performing lab experiments. What you may not guess is that the biohacking community sets forth some pretty responsible and safe guidelines. In …show more content…
In fact, it is already occurring. Ultimately, we’re willing to re-define the limits of the human and humanity… just some limits more quickly and easily than others.
Argument
A. Working thesis
While genetic modification and “designing” raises serious moral and ethical concerns, research continues and will continue to progress in order to advance medical health and treatment, leading to an evolution of acceptance of certain genetically designed traits. The line between what is considered ethical and unethical will blur and shift over time as technology evolves.
Supporting proponents
• Moral panic will devolve over time as new technologies and practices become more commonplace. Some more so than others. Physical attributes over biosocial traits, gender selection over sexuality selection, etc.
• The emergence and increased popularity of biohacking/DIYbio will work to increase the acceptance of such
Human characteristics have evolved all throughout history and have been manipulated on a global scale through the use of science and technology. Genetic modification is one such process in which contemporary biotechnology techniques are employed to develop specific human characteristics. Despite this, there are a countless number of negative issues related with genetic modification including discrimination, ethical issues and corruption. Hence, genetic modification should not be used to enhance human characteristics.
Fear drives a call for action against drugs and violent crimes. Concept of Moral Panic The concept of moral panic emerges when the mass media sensationalizes violence as it relates to drug use and sales. It is defined as a “condition, episode, person or group emerges to become defined as a threat to social values and interests.” (Altheide, 2009, p.79) Media coverage on select topics such as drugs and the violence associated with it shows a pronounced problem.
“Moral panic has been defined as a situation in which public fears and state interventions greatly exceed the objective threat posed
Some of the governing models of moral panics include Jock Young (1971) and Stanley Cohen (1972). Stanley Cohen fabricated the idea of moral panics in his book Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972), whilst Jock Young concentrated more on the correlation of deviance amplification and drug taking. The main feature of a moral panic is deviance amplification; this was looked at in more detail by Stanley Cohen (1972) in what he called the deviancy amplification spiral. Some examples of media moral panics include; internet pornography, violence in video games, immigration, single parents etc… Moral panics can affect the public’s perceptions of crime in many ways, making the ext... ... middle of paper ... ...
People are more likely to approve of behavior that crosses an ethical line gradually rather than abruptly. Moral standards have eroded.
... therapy. With further research and development it might just be possible to take the genetic evolution of the human genome into our own hands. However, it is no surprise that there are some that question the ethical background of such a procedure.
"When they are finally attempted…genetic manipulations will…be done to change a death sentence into a life verdict." In agreeing with this quote by James D. Watson, director of the Human Genome Project, I affirm today’s resolution, "Human genetic engineering is morally justified." I will now present a few definitions. Human genetic engineering is the altering, removal, or addition of genes through genetic processes. Moral is "pertaining to right conduct; ethical." Justified is to be "proper; well-deserved." Therefore, something that is morally justified is ethically beneficial. My value today will be cost-benefit justice. When we examine the benefits that human genetic engineering provides to society, these benefits will outweigh any costs and will thus affirming the resolution will provide for justice. I will now present one observation—the existence of human genetic engineering will not be without limits. Patrick Ferreira, the director of medical genetics at the University of Alabama Hospitals, notes that a "technological imperative [states] that the development of extraordinary powers does not automatically authorize their use." In other words, the point of technology is to be careful, and as with any technology, a society will be meticulous in its understanding of human genetic engineering. I will now present 3 contentions that uphold my value of cost benefit justice.
Societies can sometimes be exposed to periods of moral panic. A condition, episode, person or group of people appears as a threat to certain societal standards and interests. This phenomenon is depicted in a stylized and stereotypical fashion and presented to the public through the moral perspective of editors, bishops, politicians, and other influential people, whose principles define the societal values. These people pronounce their diagnoses and resort to certain ways of coping (although, sometimes, the parties can come to an agreement and a way of coping could evolve). After the condition disappears, submerges or deteriorates, it becomes even more visible. Every now and then the object of the panic is quite unusual, although mostly it is something that has been debated for a long time, but that suddenly appears in the spotlight. Occasionally, the episode is overlooked and forgotten, except in folk-lore and collective memory, but at other times it manages to create a serious impact, producing changes in legal and social policy or even in the way society conceives itself (Cohen, 2002).
Goode, E. & Yehuda, N. B.1994. Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Usage of genetic modification to pick and chose features and personality traits of embryos could conceivably occur in future times. Wealthy individuals could essentially purchase a baby with built-in genetic advantages (Simmons). Ethically, these seem immoral. Playing God and taking control over the natural way of life makes some understandably uneasy. Ultimately, religious and moral standpoints should play a role in the future of genetic engineering, but not control it. Genetic engineering’s advantages far outweigh the cost of a genetically formulated baby and
In the article, “Moral Panics: Culture, Politics, and Social Construction” the authors Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda discuss two different perspectives of moral panics. Each perspective give a different way of looking at how moral panics are portrayed to come about in society. The Objectivist perspective and the Constructionist perspective show how people view moral panics. However, the Constructionist perspective is more important and valuable to society than the Objectivist perspective.
... to the point where we can no longer hold true to natural human characteristics, we are surely dooming ourselves.
Our advancements in science have enabled us to create other things that we can test on, instead of harming innocent animals. Since experiments are cruel and expensive, “the world’s most forward-thinking scientists have moved on to develop and use methods for studying
Scientists and the general population favor genetic engineering because of the effects it has for the future generation; the advanced technology has helped our society to freely perform any improvements. Genetic engineering is currently an effective yet dangerous way to make this statement tangible. Though it may sound easy and harmless to change one’s genetic code, the conflicts do not only involve the scientific possibilities but also the human morals and ethics. When the scientists first used mice to practice this experiment, they “improved learning and memory” but showed an “increased sensitivity to pain.” The experiment has proven that while the result are favorable, there is a low percentage of success rate. Therefore, scientists have concluded that the resources they currently own will not allow an approval from the society to continually code new genes. While coding a new set of genes for people may be a benefitting idea, some people oppose this idea.
Gene therapy is a powerful new technology that has the ability to change the way medicine is practiced in the future. The potential of gene therapy offers great hope for cure and alleviation of suffering from genetic disorders that now plague numerous people. Within this past decade, much research has been conducted to learn about the aspects of gene therapy, but there is still much to learn before it is an effective medical treatment. Despite failures to prove any clinical efficacy, many experts of gene therapy predict that the first clinical success will occur in the near future. Gene therapy is a highly controversial topic that entails numerous ethical issues that need to be thoroughly analyzed before it is widely available to the public. While gene therapy may pose practical medical benefits for people, ethical considerations must be addressed in order for society to utilize the potentials of gene therapy appropriately.