Genetic Manipulation
In David Brins science fiction novel called The Uplift War, the reader is presented with a world in which humans have not only become a space faring species and made contact with extraterrestrials, but also made an astounding achievement on their own world; they have made dolphins and chimpanzees into thinking, sentient creatures through a process called uplift. Uplift is a process of elevating animal species to full sapience through methods of breeding and genetic engineering. The uplifted species, known as clients, then serve their patrons, the species who uplifted them, until the patrons release them from indenture. Naturally, this causes many problems. Client species are often looked upon as inferior; this is partly
…show more content…
This method takes a lot of time and effort because the construction of the virus is quite complicated. Another effect of infection is that the information of the viruses may not always be incorporated into all the cultured cells, requiring out breeding of selected organisms to isolate those with the desired gene (Macer). Pronuclear microinjection is another method of genetic manipulation. Linear DNA fragments containing the desired gene are injected into the nucleus of a fertilized egg, where they will be incorporated at random locations. The desired gene will eventually be expressed in a percentage of resulting organisms. While relatively simple, there is still control over the expression rate of the genes or the disruption of genes vital to the organisms survival (Macer). Nuclear transfer is the most efficient method of genetic manipulation we have yet developed. Cultured cells are transfected with the desired genes; these cells can then be analyzed to determine whether the integration of DNA is successful. Selected cells are starved so they will not divide, then the nucleus is inserted into the original egg. The transgenic animal is then born, hopefully expressing the desired gene (Macer). The biggest concern about the methods of genetic manipulation is the large number of failures, that is, animals that dont express the desired gene. What will be done with the failures? Should they be killed, and would that be merciful, or cruel? Brin acknowledged human impatience, saying For all of their unusual and rapid successes in Uplift, Terran geneticists still had a way to go with neo-dolphins and neo-chimpanzeesby Galactic standards they had made great strides, but Earthmen wanted even more rapid progress (Brin, 110). Should we even attempt to evolve other species into full
... has a genetic code second to none” (insert citation). This highlights how the existence of genetically modified humans brings out corruption in the underprivileged portion of society.
The ethics behind genetic engineering have been discussed and argued for years now. Some arguing points often include competitive advantages, playing God, and the polarization of society, but Sandel takes a different approach in explaining society’s “unease” with the morality of genetic engineering. Broadcasted through several examples throughout the book, Sandel explains that genetic engineering is immoral because it takes away what makes us human and makes us something else. He states that by taking control of our genetic makeup, or the makeup of our progeny, we lose our human dignity and humility. Our hunger for control will lead to the loss of appreciation for natural gifts, whether they are certain talents, inherited from the genetic lottery, or the gift of life itself.
The criminal justice system main focus has always been shifted towards male offenders and their responses to male crimes. Women and girls offending lacked attention simply because most crimes were known to be committed by males and not females. Nevertheless, towards the end of the 20th century, female incarceration tremendously took a turn for the worst, leading to more study on women/girls, women and crime offending, crimes, and the criminal justice system in regard to feminist. This increase rate of women incarceration was led in regard to “war on drugs”. It was explained that women’s and girl’s crime and deviance is trigger often by biological factors than by social or economic forces (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988). In the late 1960s, Bertrand
The state of women in the United States criminal justice system, an apparently fair organization of integrity and justice, is a perfect example of a seemingly equal situation, which turns out to be anything but. While the policies imposed in the criminal justice system have an effect on all Americans, they affect men and women in extremely dissimilar manners. By looking at the United States' history of females in the criminal justice system, the social manipulation of these females and the everlasting affects that incarceration have on all women, both in and out of prison, this essay will explore the use of the criminal justice system as simply another form of control from which there is no hope of escape. This system of control then leads to the examination of the everlasting, yet never successful, female struggle to balance the private sphere of domesticity with the public sphere of society and the criminal justice system's attempt to keep women within the boundaries of the private.
Coughenour, J. Separate and Unequal: Women in the Federal Criminal Justice System. JSTOR. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2014
The criminal justice system is a male dominated occupation. For many years women have tried to break down the barrier and some have succeeded. But unlike men, women have to fight to be respected and to be heard. There has always been a gender bias. Women have decided to work outside the home and “move in” on careers that were specified as male professions. Females unfortunately have to deal with the sexist remarks, jokes, sexual harassment, and any other negativity that comes with being a woman in a man’s workforce. They get ridiculed for being mothers and wives. The research that was found while writing this paper will show some of the struggles of female attorneys, and police officers.
Society expects the criminal justice system to provide justice for everyone by protecting the innocent, to punish and convict the guilty, and to rehabilitate them in an attempt to stop them reoffending. It is supposed to give fair justice to everyone, regardless of gender, but much is written that suggests that the criminal justice system is gender-biased. Gender bias was not formed by the justice system, but it does reflect the fundamental conditions and attitudes of society. The cost of gender bias to society, the criminal justice system, and to the people within it is enormous. To discuss if the criminal justice system is gender-biased, an understanding should be reached regarding what is meant by the term
Historically, criminology was significantly ‘gender-blind’ with men constituting the majority of criminal offenders, criminal justice practitioners and criminologists to understand ‘male crimes’ (Carraine, Cox, South, Fussey, Turton, Theil & Hobbs, 2012). Consequently, women’s criminality was a greatly neglected area and women were typically seen as non-criminal. Although when women did commit crimes they were medicalised and pathologised, and sent to mental institutions not prisons (Carraine et al., 2012). Although women today are treated differently to how they were in the past, women still do get treated differently in the criminal justice system. Drawing upon social control theory, this essay argues that nature and extent of discrimination
Men represent eight hundred ninety-six out of every one hundred thousand prison inmates, while women represent only fifty-six out of one hundred thousand. The rates have increased eight hundred percent since the war on drugs was initiated. Even among women prisoners, racial disparities are glaring. Hispanic and African American women have astronomically higher chances of incarceration than white women. Women are also more likely to be arrested for drug and economic crimes, such as possession or embezzlement (McGrath, 10/29). According to the chivalry hypothesis, the low rates of prosecuted female offenders reflect the leniency with which law enforcement treats women offenders (McGrath, 10/29). Gender differences in aggression and empathy play into the public perception of the ideal offender, and women do not fit the profile. Rather than applying the law equally across genders, police buy into the socially constructed view of women: meek, gentle, caring, empathic, and definitely not capable of cruel criminality (McGrath,
For the course of weeks spent in social issues I have decided to choose my topic on Portraits of Girls in the Criminal Justice System. I believe it’s important to acknowledge that the variety of murders and crimes committed is not only done by men but woman as well commit these crimes. As generations have passed by it has been seen that gender roles have changed woman are now more involved with crimes.
According to statistics from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, of the 455 criminals on death row in the state only 7 of them are women . This should tip us off to the manner in which we treat female criminals, even in the most pro-death penalty state in the country. Overall, women account for one in eight of people arrested for murder in America, but this ratio sinks to only one in seventy people currently on death row . This discrepancy must be a direct result of something, and is most probably attributed to society’s perception of women that place these female criminals as women first, killers second. “It’s a reflection of society’s view that women are less prone to evil than men are”, claims Jenni Gainsborough of the ACLU National Prison Project. We also seem to feel sorrier for women than we do men, and assume that if a woman has committed a crime it is because she has faced abuse in the past (usually inflicted by a man). This is true to some extent as it is claimed that 95% of women in prison were victims of abuse , but the point is that we generally stress the importance of female abuse while oftentimes neglecting abuse endured by their male counterparts.
Why do females commit crimes? Female’s percentages in jails and prisons have increase in the recent years. This has led to our society being concern of female crimes and how they affect us. This paper will discuss female inmates and some of the legal and social problems they face in the criminal justice system.
In the previous years the number of incarcerated women have increased drastically. According to the authors the recent change in arrest patterns could be because of the constructionist approach which focuses on shifts in law enforcement practices or other mechanisms of crime control to explain changes in arrest patterns.” (Schwartz, Steffensmeir & Feldmeyer, Pg.9) According to Beth Richie, “ women constitute a small fraction of the total population but the number of women incarceration rates are growing more significantly then their male counterparts… Women constituted for 16% of all people detained in correctional facilities.” (Beth Richie, Pg.2) Compared to why men are put in prison majority of women are put in prison because of drug offenses,
First, Chesney-Lind points out that research on female offenders in general is lacking, and that victimization plays a key role in the offending of women. "…Responses must address a world that has been unfair to women and especially those of color and pover...
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have tremendously improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to make humans superior by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This ability raises the question of how ought this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of human enhancement is a very general, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am specifically referring to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is morally obligatory. In this paper I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to genetically intervene, but may be permissible under the criterion established by Savulescu. I plan to argue that the argument used by Savulescu for the obligation to genetically intervene is not the same obligation as the prevention and treatment of disease. The ability for humans to genetically intervene is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation.