Genetic engineering versus genetic enhancement
When it comes to the topic of genetic enhancement versus genetic engineering there is a debate whether which of these theories should be pursued, whereas some are convinced that genetic enhancement could help future generations in becoming smarter, faster and taller others maintain that genetic engineering can make future generations healthier. My own view however is that genetic engineering would help cure disesase and should be pursued, but genetic enhancement should not be allowed.
These two theories have been a contoversial topic, because it is not a common theme or a topic people have knowledge about, and eventually become alarmed at the thought that these theories could be carried out,
…show more content…
The principal purpose of genetic engineering is to cure deadly diseases, contrary the principal purpose of genetic enhancement is to improve the human capacities, for example make them more handsome , taller or more smarter.
The pricipal reason why genetic enhancement should not be allowed is because it would limit children 's autonomy to shape their own destinies. Dr. Arthur Caplan Ph.D. serves as Chief of the Division of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, states “Renegade scientists and totalitarian loonies are not the folks most likely to abuse genetic engineering. You and I are--not because we are bad, but because we want to do good. In a world dominated by competition, parents understandably want to give their kids every advantage. ... The most likely way for eugenics to enter into our lives is through the front door as nervous parents ... Will fall over one another to be first to give Junior a better set of genes” (Caplan). The essences of
Caplan 's argument is that,if these theory is allowed perhaps the scientists would not be the
…show more content…
The English embryologist Ian Wilmut state “I see nothing wrong ethically with the idea of correcting single gene defects [through genetic engineering]. But I am concerned about any other kind of intervention, for anything else would be an experiment, [which would] impose our will on future generations [and take unreasonable chances] with their welfare ... [Thus] such intervention is beyond the scope of consideration.” (Wilmut) .Wilmuts point is that genetic engineering would help future generations to become healthier, and it could be more affordable, it will be cheaper to cure a disease rather than trying to control it for years.
Yet some readers may challenge my opinion by insisting that genetic enhancement would have many benefits it will improve humans, for example improving the childs intelligence or give the parents the oportunity to select the pysical characteristic of the baby. All these are true, but this would be for the sole desire to satisfy superficial longings,genetic enhancement also can
“The problem with eugenics and genetic engineering is that they represent the one-sided triumph of willfulness over giftedness, of dominion over reverence, of molding over beholding” (Sandel, 2004, p.59).
However, some theorists would have to disagree with this theory.
Eugenics is the future of modifying the Human body naturally with no injections or experimental drugs necessary. This could lead to the best version of the human race that has walked this planet. This could make the world all of us live in a disease free world full of healthy people. According to Biograpghy.com Eugenics got
In order to understand the arguments for and against genetic enhancement, one must first understand what it entails. In 19...
Many people often ask, “Is it acceptable for human beings to manipulate human genes” (Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy). Most of the ethical issues centralize on the Christian understanding of a human being. They believe God made them the way they are and people should accept their fate.The Society, Religion and Technology Project have researched and found that countless people are curious if gene therapy is the right thing to do. They have a problem with exploiting the genes a person is born with due to the fact they consider it to be “playing God” (Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy). They are also concerned with the safety. On account of the unfamiliar and inexperienced technology. Gene therapy has only been around since 1990, so scientists are still trying to find the best possible way to help cure these diseases. Multiple scientists are cautious with whom they share their research. For the reason that if it were to get into in the wrong hands it could conceivably start a superhuman race. Author Paul Recer presumes using germline engineering to cure fatal diseases or even to generate designer babies that will be stronger, smarter, or more immune to infections (Gene Therapy Creates Super-Muscles). Scientists could enhance height, athleticism and even intelligence. The possibilities are endless. Germline engineering, however, would alter every cell in the body. People would no longer have to worry about the alarming and intimidating combinations of their parents’ genes. Genetic engineers are able to eliminate unnatural genes, change existing ones or even add a few extra. Like it or not, in a few short years scientists will have the power to control the evolution of
The history of harmful eugenic practices, spurring from the Nazi implementations of discrimination towards biologically inferior people has given eugenics a negative stigma (1,Kitcher, 190). Genetic testing, as Kitcher sees it through a minimalistic perspective, should be restrained to aiding future children with extremely low qualities of life (2,Kitcher, 190). He believes that genetic engineering should only be used to avoid disease and illness serving the role of creating a healthier human race. He promotes laissez-faire eugenics, a “hands off” concept that corresponds to three components of eugenic practice, discrimination, coercion and division of traits. It holds the underlying works of genetic testing, accurate information, open access, and freedom of choice. Laissez-faire eugenics promises to enhance reproductive freedom preventing early child death due to genetic disease (3,Kitcher, 198). However there are dangers in Laissez-faire that Kitcher wants to avoid. The first is the historical tendency of population control, eugenics can go from avoiding suffering, to catering to a set of social values that will cause the practice of genetics to become prejudiced, insensitive and superficial. The second is that prenatal testing will become limited to the upper class, leaving the lower class with fewer options, creating biologically driven social barriers. Furthermore the decay of disability support systems due to prenatal testing can lead to an increased pressure to eliminate those unfit for society (4,Kitcher, 214).
In this paper I will make an argument between genetic therapy and genetic enhancement. My argument for genetic therapy will state that it should be used, as for genetic enhancement it should be used but to an extent. However, when making the argument as to why genetic enhancement should not be fully used, I will come across to stating some accepted enhancements.
... a theory should be able to explain a wide variety of things, not just only what it was intended to explain.
And so, the idea that it is perfectly acceptable for scientists to freely manipulate the course of nature is ridiculous. Genetic engineering is by no means a tool to be tampered with or abused, especially when it defies so many natural laws. Would you be prepared to take responsibility for the extinction of a species purely because curiosity got the better of you?I think not. And for that reason it is my firmly held belief that we should stop meddling with a force as unpredictable as nature - for we will have no one else to blame for the outcome other than ourselves.
Science and technology are rapidly advancing everyday; in some ways for the better, and in some, for worse. One extremely controversial advance is genetic engineering. As this technology has high potential to do great things, I believe the power genetic engineering is growing out of control. Although society wants to see this concept used to fight disease and illness, enhance people 's lives, and make agriculture more sustainable, there needs to be a point where a line is drawn.
Long, Heather. "Selecting a Child's Genetic Traits Will Create a Privileged Elite." Human Genetics, edited by Louise I. Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
Human Genetic Engineering: Designing the Future As the rate of advancements in technology and science continue to grow, ideas that were once viewed as science fiction are now becoming reality. As we collectively advance as a society, ethical dilemmas arise pertaining to scientific advancement, specifically concerning the controversial topic of genetic engineering in humans.
The Benefits The reconstruction of DNA has brought many cures against genetic diseases that before were undetectable. Although it is not a treatment for those already infected with the disease, it is a brand new chance for a couple to have a child who can live life without the hindrance of a genetic disease their entire lives.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Although genetic engineering seems to be more harmful than helpful, when used correctly, it will help the society prosper. Considering the technology our society has currently developed, genetic engineering is a difficult topic to discuss and confirm. If the researchers confirm this process, it may become easier for the scientists and will help cure the diseases easily. The debate, however, will still be on the rise because of the issue in human morals and ethics.