Germline editing is a pretty hot topic in the world of genetics right now. Many scientists are involved in the debate over whether or not this technology should be researched in greater depth. Germline editing is a form of genetic engineering which allows scientists to alter the DNA of an embryo, egg, or sperm to correct diseased genes and pass those corrections onto future generations. (Regalado, 2015) This sounds great, but it doesn’t come without some cons. While many are excited about the prospect of further research, there are others who are wary of what it may mean ethically. In this study, I will investigate the opposing viewpoints of these two parties in order to develop a fuller understanding of the cause of the conflict between …show more content…
As previously stated, one side is in favor of continued research, and one is not. Those who are for germline editing argue that the benefits far outweigh the risks. The benefits being that germline editing could be used to permanently rid families of genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis, or birth defects such as down syndrome. It may also be possible to implant genes that offer lifelong protection against infection, Alzheimer’s, and even the effects of aging. (Regalado, 2015) Another supporter, George Church, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School, believes “germline editing is unlikely to cause dangerous, unforeseen mutations….[and] Banning human-germline editing could put a damper on the best medical research and instead drive the practice underground.” (Church, 2015) The main concern of those who oppose it will be hard to predict the unintended long-term effects, such those that only occur later in life, and the effect on future generations who will inherit the alterations. (Bosley, 2015) There are also those who believe that while people may start out with good intentions, eventually they will be tempted to use this technology in an unintended and unethical manner by making “designer” babies who are more attractive, intelligent, or athletic than they would naturally be. (Bosley, 2015) My research could help develop more informed …show more content…
(Callaway, 2016) this added even more fuel to what was already a volatile issue. Shortly after, National Geographic released an article called Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos? containing pieces by John Harris, a professor of science ethics at the University of Manchester, and Marcy Darnovski, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, with each of the writers supporting opposing viewpoints. (2016) The contention between the two factions is ongoing, and will continue until the debate is settled one way or
SUMMARY: Director of the Ethics Institute, Ronald M. Green, in his article “Building Baby from the Genes Up” discusses why he thinks that genetically modifying babies genes is more beneficial than destructive. He begins his article off by mentioning a story of a couple who wishe to genetically modify their baby so that they could make sure the baby would not develop the long family line of breast cancer. Green then notifies the reader that no matter where they stand on the matter, genetically modifying babies is going to become more and more popular. Even the National Institute of Health is beginning to invest in technology that can be used to genetically modify human genes. He then explains how genetically modifying human genes can be beneficial,
What do one think of when they hear the words “Designer Babies”? A couple designing their own baby of course, and it’s become just that. Technology has made it possible for there to be a way for doctors to modify a babies characteristics and its health. Genetically altering human embryos is morally wrong, and can cause a disservice to the parents and the child its effecting.
Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary diseases, the genetic enhancement of human embryos is unethical when used to create "designer babies" with enhanced appearance, athletic ability, and intelligence.
Keiper, Adam, and Yuval Levin. “Federal Funds Should Not Be Used for Research That Destroys Embryos.” Stem Cells. Jacqueline Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from “Stem Cells, Life, and the Law.”National Review (25 Aug. 2010). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
Stem cell research has been a heated and highly controversial debate for over a decade, which explains why there have been so many articles on the issue. Like all debates, the issue is based on two different arguments: the scientific evolution and the political war against that evolution. The debate proves itself to be so controversial that is both supported and opposed by many different people, organizations, and religions. There are many “emotional images [that] have been wielded” in an attempt to persuade one side to convert to the other (Hirsen). The stem cell research debate, accompanied by different rhetoric used to argue dissimilar points, comes to life in two articles and a speech: “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress” by Virginia Postrel; “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? No, It’s a Moral Monstrosity” by Eric Cohen and William Kristol; and “Remarks by Ron Reagan, Jr., to the 2004 Democratic National Convention” by Ron Reagan, Jr. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the main categories differentiating the two arguments.
People should not have access to genetically altering their children because of people’s views on God and their faith, the ethics involving humans, and the possible dangers in tampering with human genes. Although it is many parent’s dream to have the perfect child, or to create a child just the way they want, parents need to realize the reality in genetic engineering. Sometimes a dream should stay a figment of one’s imagination, so reality can go in without the chance of harming an innocent child’s life.
Jill U. Adams, an expert science writer, wrote an article about manipulating the human genome through embryonic stem cells. In the article an important aspect mentioned is the research the Chinese have successfully accomplished. Chinese scientists have developed a method called, CRISPR, which allows to edit the genes using a, “finding/replacing” method, similar to the one in a word processor. CRISPR has brought up many ethical concerns to scientists bringing endeavors for the FDA and NIH to allow embryonic research. Adams insures to address both pros and cons, background information, and the current situation of embryonic stem cell research all essential in aiding to give readers of the research paper background information.
[7] Stock, G., and Campbell, J.. "Engineering the Human Germline: an Exploration of the Science and Ethics of Altering the Genes We Pass to Our Children, New York; Oxford University Press, 2000. back
In today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost every day, an individual can see or hear about new discoveries and advances in these fields of study. One science that is rapidly progressing is genetic testing; a valuable science that promotes prevention efforts for genetically susceptible people and provides new strategies for disease management. Unnaturally, and morally wrong, genetic testing is a controversial science that manipulates human ethics. Although genetic testing has enormous advantages, the uncertainties of genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life, and thereby result in psychological burden, discrimination, and abortion.
The rhetoric that usually employs the phrase, “play God,” is aimed at inhibiting, if not shutting down, certain forms of scientific research and medical therapy. This applies particularly to the field of human genetics and, still more particularly, to the prospect of germline intervention for purposes of human enhancement—that is, the insertion of new gene segments of DNA into sperm or eggs before fertilization or into undifferentiated cells of an early embryo that will be passed on to future generations and may become part of the permanent gene pool. Some scientists and religious spokespersons are putting a chain across the gate to germline enhancement and with a posted sign reading, “Thou shalt not play God.” A Time/CNN poll cites a substantial majority (58%) who believe altering human genes is against the will of God.
But what of the moral and ethical component of this kind of genetic intervention and modification in 2067? I
Pray, Leslie A., Ph.D. “Embryo Screening and the Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering.” Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 2008. Web. The Web.
Germline therapy entails altering the genes in egg or sperm cells before they are fertilized. It necessitates the use of in-vitro fertilization when dealing with embryos (“Human Gene Transfer Research,” 2011) and any genetic variations will be passed to future offspring (“Germ Line Therapy,” 2011). Currently, germline therapy is still in its infancy and has only been tested on animals (Darnovsky, 2013). Although this type of therapy decreases the risk of defective genes and thus, has the possibility of preventing congenital diseases, it has elicited substantial ethical controversies.
There are different ways and reasons why people wish to change the genes in their cells; the two categories split into “somatic and germline genetic engineering”. When a scientist uses “somatic genetic engineering” -the sex cells-- eggs and sperms are not affected; a specific gene code is changed and the genes do not pass down to the next generation. The other genetic engineering used is “germline” which, in contrast to somatic engineering, affects the eggs and sperms. When germline genetic engineering is used, the genes will be passed down to the next generation, affecting the physical and genetic traits. The debate rises and people question people’s free will. Bioethics is the formal and recognized term that describes the advantages and disadvantages that genetic enginee...
Human Genetics Alert believes “Once we begin to consciously design ourselves, we will have entered a completely new era of human history, in which human subjects, rather than being accepted as they are will become just another kind of object, shaped according to parental whims and market forces”. HGA gives background information on the current available resources used in Genetic Engineering. Mentioned later in the article, “Most scientists say that what is preventing them from embarking on HGE is the risk that the process will itself generate new mutations, which will be passed onto future generations. Official scientific and ethical bodies tend to rely on this as the basis for forbidding attempts at HGE, rather than any principled opposition to the idea.” The idea of creating mutations in humans is one of the main reasons why human genetic engineering is such a controversial topic. The main positive effect on HGE is the elimination of a disease in a family line. Although this is true, genetic engineering is rarely the only option for curing a genetic disease. A pregnant woman that has a disorder that is most likely to be passed on has several options. The woman could adopt a child, or choose to not have children, as well as using donor eggs and sperm. HGA understands there are limited choices for helping and preventing HGE from occurring, “Not only are there no accepted criteria for deciding