In 1913 Teddy Roosevelt, who is considered to be one of the greatest US presidents to serve in office, wrote to the Department of Genetics, “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind [...]. The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity....” (Dykes, 2008, p. 1). What Teddy Roosevelt was referring to was the idea of enhancing the human population. Today genetic enhancement is paired specifically with technology, but throughout history genetic enhancement has been a very popular but controversial topic. It can be dated back to ancient times when men would pick wives who the men felt would reproduce the best offspring. Then genetic enhancement became extremely popular in the 19th century when Charles Darwin brought the idea of natural selection and eugenics to society. And it is taking new leaps today, where technology is being introduced with genetic enhancement. With this new technology scientists and ethicists are having a hard time trying to find an answer of whether or not this new and growing technology of genetic enhancement should be permitted. We, society, need to analyze the situation very carefully and ask ourselves, should genetic enhancement be allowed in society, or should it not? Genetic enhancement is very similar to genetic engineering. But many ethicists feel genetic engineering is necessary, while genetic enhancement is not. GE is the process of parents choosing certain traits for their offspring (children). It starts with the parents telling the doctor what traits they would like to be implemented into their child, eye-color, height, intelligence, etc. Then the doctor would take about the embryo from the woman’s fetes and insert spe... ... middle of paper ... ...ciety. Society would be opening a Pandora’s Box by unleashing genetic enhancement. Francis Fukuyama (2004), a professor of international political economy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, urges society to consider humility when regarding genetic enhancement, “If we do not develop it (humility) soon, we may unwittingly invite the Transhumanists (GE) to deface humanity with their genetic bulldozers and psychotropic shopping malls (p. 2). How we respond to the upcoming events and policies regarding genetic enhancement in the future will forever change our lives. If we do not act accordingly society as we know it could be devalued to what Francis Fukuyama suggested. Genetic enhancement will lead to no bio-diversity and bring an end to our long and prosperous evolutionary phases. Would you want to leave this turmoil for future generations?
“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).
In order to understand the arguments for and against genetic enhancement, one must first understand what it entails. In 19...
...dvances in genetics that are hurting the human race. Schaeffer (2005) stated, "advocates of genetic engineering...support the position that the weak should not be kept alive through medical advances to produce a weaker next generation" (p. 151). Genetic advances have done so much more than improve the lives of the strong. The field of genetics has been able to identify the gene that causes cancer and other diseases that debilitate human beings. I believe the field of genetics has been working towards improving the lives of the weak instead of finding a way to eradicate their existence. I cannot agree with Schaeffer on his discussion of the use of genetics in society.
The advancement of progress in the fields of biology and technology and, by extension, the scion of these two fields – biotechnology – is generally being lauded by experts and laymen alike. Genetically modified foods, Dolly the sheep, stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are but some of the achievements in this field that have changed the scientific landscape, drawing attention to the past, present and also potential future exploits of men and women involved in biotechnology. Mainly because it is becoming increasingly apparent that the field may, in the near future, extend beyond therapy into human enhancement. With the possibility of such expansion looming ahead, it may be prudent to question whether or not such enhancement is morally and ethically desirable within the context of human nature and also nature itself. And although transhumanists, advocates of enhancement, themselves agree that there are concerns such as potential danger to health, technological difficulty or the impact on the environment tied to human enhancement, their opposite numbers from the bioconservative side of the divide feel that there is much more to be concerned about. Some even argue that the idea of human enhancement beyond therapy, or in other words makign ourselves “better than well”1 is inherently flawed. In any case, should human enhancement in its many forms become commonplace, it is surely going to “affect the rate of human intellectual, material and political progress”2. This essay will focus on illustrating the conviction of the bioconservatives about the detrimental nature of human enhancement in relation to two hypothetical but nonetheless very controversial forms of it – expansion of human cognitive abilities using nanotechnology and ...
How far is society willing to advance genetic enhancement technology before it becomes a moral wrong? Medical technology is well on the way to allowing parents to create designer babies, permitting parents to pick physical and internal qualities of unborn children. Due to the advance in technology allowing parents to genetically designer their own child, The American Medical Association (AMA) should create stronger codes of medical ethics and acts imposing limitations. The manipulating with embryos in order to create a parent’s ideal child is morally wrong, and should be against codes of ethics. In order to create a fine line between enhancement that prevents disease and birth defects, and the self-absorbed society that prefers children with little to no flaws; laws of ethics in medical practice need to be implemented. Therefore, with distinguished lines on medical ethics, society will not become divided and unrecognizable due to genetically enhanced humans.
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.
As a species we’ve always looked for ways to be faster, stronger, smarter, and live longer. Many enhancements we take for granted today; blood transfusions, vaccinations, and birth control, seemed unnatural or immoral when first introduced. Yet over time we’ve become accustomed to these controls over our minds and bodies, and have used them to better ourselves and our world. Imagine a society without disease, cancers, or heredity disorders. Life span would increase and IQ raised. Mental illness eliminated. Alzheimer’s gone. Hereditary problems, like baldness eradicated. Technology exists to diagnose flawed DNA in pre-implantation embryos, empowering humans to create a stronger, healthier child. Scientists place a new/modified gene into a virus like organism that enters the cell and inserts the new gene. Genetic modification is utilized to correct defective genes that lead to disease or genetic disorders; in simple terms, manipulating human genes to provide a brighter genetic future for humanity. In the future we may also be able to "cure" genetic diseases in embryos by replacing faulty sections of DNA with healthy DNA, in a process called germ line therapy. This has been performed on animal embryos but is currently illegal for humans.
Throughout history, human beings have pushed the limits of popular belief and evolved immensely by embracing technology. The quest for efficiency and the betterment of society, quality of life, medical procedures and diagnosis, and methods of healing has been an endless road of progression. Many new methods and technological advances, particularly in the medical field, have been debated with the question of ethics. Ethics is defined as the moral correctness of specified conduct. Morality is simply what one would consider right or wrong in human nature. The definition of morality leaves much to be considered when considering the ethics of genetic testing, enhancements and engineering.
Ronald M. Green answers that there are four major objections to the concept of ‘building babies” through gene engineering, arguing that basic human nature counters the possibility that parental love or people’s appreciation of their nature counters the possibility that parental love or people’s appreciation of their natural abilities will decline; that a society making extensive use of gene manipulation is as likely to move towards egalitarianism as toward oligarchy; and that no religion expressly forbids genetic engineering. Green’s major four points are first, they worry about the effect of genetic selection on parenting. He states that will the ability to choose our children’s biological inheritance lead parents to replace unconditional love with a consumerist mentality that seeks perfections? Second, they ask weather gene manipulation will diminish our freedom by making us creatures of our genes or our parents’ whims. An example Green uses is “In his book Enough, the techno- critic Bill Mckibben asks: if I am a world- class runner, but my parents inserted the “Sweatworks2010 Gene Pack” in my genome, can I really feel pride in my accomplishments? Third, he states that many critics feat that reproductive genetic will widen our social division as the affluent “buy” more competitive abilities of their offspring. Green also states that will we eventually see “speciation,” that emergence to two
Regardless of one’s reason to practice eugenics, either to solve medical issues or commit discrimination, the misuse of this technology can affect the genetic diversity of the entire specie. Since the decline in genetic diversity threatens the existence of the specie, people must put regulations on the practice of genetic modification, and eugenics as a whole, to preserve genetic diversity. In Owning Genetic Information and Gene Enhancement Techniques, professor Adam D. Moore wrote, “If humans were to achieve genetic homogeneity (a genetic uniformity obtained by gene enhancement techniques), then a newly emerged disease could decimate the entire human population, since all individuals would be susceptible.” Furthermore, during an United Nation
With all factors put into place the potential benefits of perfecting human genetic engineering far outweigh the negatives. A world with genetic engineering is a world that would be advantageous to all who undergo the procedure to positively modify their DNA. A genetically engineered human race will be able to have defeated all genetic mutations and diseases, rid humans of possible illnesses in young and unborn children, create drastically longer lifespans, and provide generations with a high quality of life. Human genetic engineering has progressed more rapidly than projected; according to Stephen Hawking, when human genetic engineering is consummated he hypothesizes, “With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve the human race. But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code.”(Hawking). The advancements that genetic engineering will provide for the human race is incredible and we will soon benefit from science and technology more than ever
Genetic engineering, also referred to as biotechnology, is a fairly new science where the genes of an organism are modified to change the features of an organism or group of organisms. Genes are found in the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) of an organism, and each gene controls a specific trait of an organism. Scientists have discovered what many of these genes control, both in plants and animals. Scientists then can modify these genes to benefit the organism. For example, if a person has a gene that codes for a certain disease, scientists can insert healthy copies of that gene to heal the patient. Genetic engineering is the hottest new field in medical research (Elmer-Dewitt). Although there have been some questions about whether genetic engineering is ethical or safe, there are too many benefits to ignore it.
In order to fully understand the uses of human enhancement and biotechnology, one must first decipher their purposes. Human enhancement is typically referred to as improving the overall functioning of a human being, both physical and mental. Biotechnology is a process that often results in human enhancement and is often achieved through genetic manipulation, nanotechnology, and cybernetics. Because of their power to completely change the human race, there is a a very fine line when it comes to the proper use of such technological advances. A key point is the difference between this technology’s use for therapeutic purposes as opposed to the
Genetic engineering has been around since the 1960’s although major experiments have not been really noticed until the 1990’s. The science comes in different forms the two major being cloning and genetic reconstruction. Cloning is the duplicating of one organism and making an exact copy. For example in 1996 the creation of the clone sheep named Dolly the first mammal to be cloned which was a great achievement. The other form, genetic reconstruction, is used to replace genes within humans to help or enhance the life of an unborn child for a medical reason or just for the preference of a parent.
Genetic Engineering is a wide spread growth in America, but the general public is asking the big question; “is it ethical”? Genetic engineering is the changes of characteristics to remove unwanted traits and add the ones desired. Using genetic altering techniques allows a person to play God, instead of letting the course of natural selection take place. According to Fukuyama “…The road to designer babies, when he calls attention to what people around the world want from modern technology” (669). Although America is stepping into a more modern age of technology, will scientist know when they are over stepping boundaries on what is ethically right?