Humans have strived for improvement in every facet of their lives, all the way from technology down to their diet. In this current day and age, humans are now capable of gene manipulation in their children, meaning mankind is taking a great step in familial modification. Yet even with our advancements in the medical field, we still fall to the ills of cancer, Alzheimer’s, or anything else on the laundry list of genetic disorders. With such opportunity to better improve our children, what mother or father would not wish to “give their child the best chance of living a happy and successful life?” (Fox, D. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 567) The first thing we can do with genetic modification is remove the genes that, when expressed, increase the likelihood of cancer or another type of genetic disorder. With the isolation of cancer causing genes, afflicted families will no longer have to fear their son or daughter having to fight leukemia during different stages of their life. In fact, such engineering should be something to be praised about by scientists and citizens alike, not condemned as an enhancer simply for intelligence or strength. Such genetic modification does not stop at just life threatening cancers. Inherited disorders such as asthma and anemia could be stopped as soon as the first trimester of the child’s development, reducing if not eliminating the likelihood of them ever having the health issue. Even the genes which express physical characteristics can be manipulated. With so many ways to alter and choose what genes are expressed, parents can decide on how their child will turn out, allowing for the consideration of “perfection” through enhancement, and hos this perfection can actually be beneficial (Keen... ... middle of paper ... ... those affected. To further support the balance of the world population, it is up to the individual families rather than state officials on how the child is to be genetically engineered (Fox, D. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 570). With the choice given to every family, regardless if they have five, seven, or even two children, they as the mother and father have the right to a natural pregnancy unhindered by genetic manipulation. The removal of unwanted traits, inclusion of desired traits, and greater overall lifespan are all reasons why such a program should be applied in our society. Such improvement to our next generation is yet another step in taking charge of our evolution. With new medical findings each and every day, it will come down to the point when a parent is seen as good for providing “adequate genetic inputs,” (Hammond, J. Bioethics, 161).
The second article I have chosen to evaluate for this topic is The Designer Baby Myth written by Steven Pinker. This article starts off by explaining how many people fear the idea of genetic enhancement. Several citizens are concerned about creating the ultimate inequality or changing human nature itself. Many will say technology in medicine is increasing to the point where genetic improvement is inevitable. Steven presents his position on the matter in his thesis statement; “But when it come to direct genetic enhancement-engineering babies with genes for desirable traits-there are many reasons to be skeptical.” He makes it clear that genetic enrichment is not particularly inevitable or likely in our lifetime. He bases his skepticism around three sources; the limits of futurology, science of behavioral genetics, and human nature.
After the discovery of genetically altering an embryo before implantation, “designer babies” was coined to describe a child genetically altered “to ensure specific intellectual and cosmetic characteristics.” (“Designer Babies” n.p.). This procedure combines genetic engineering and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) to make sure certain characteristics are absent or present in an embryo (Thadani n.p.). The procedure also includes taking an embryo to be pre-implementation genetically diagnosed (PGD), another procedure that doctors use to screen the embryos (Stock n.p.). An embryo’s DNA goes through multiple tests to obtain an analysis of the embryo, which will list all the components of the embryo including genetic disorders and physical traits such as Down syndrome, blue eyes, and brown hair, for instance (Smith 7). Although the use of PGD is widely accepted by the “reproductive medical community” and the modifying of disorders or diseases is to a degree, once the characteristics are no longer health related “72% disapprove of the procedure” (“Designer Babies” n.p.). At this point the parents make decisions that would alter their child’s life forever and this decision is rather controversial in the U...
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.
Hemmy Cho, the author of “Enhancing Humans Through Science in Beneficial”, believes that “all people should be able to benefit from important and worthwhile advancements in human technology” (Cho 1). By claiming that enhancing humans through science is beneficial, she is a strong believer that scientist can “select the gender, hair colour, personality, IQ, and eliminate any diseases and 'negative' traits such as anti-social tendencies” (Cho 1). She also thinks that now that we have advances in human technology, we don’t have to rely on evolution, (In this case, evolution is referring to parents passing on genes to the child), parents can choose what traits they want their child to have. Cho makes the point that, “many people feel uncomfortable
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.
... 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.
Imagine a parent walking into what looks like a conference room. A sheet of paper waits on a table with numerous questions many people wish they had control over. Options such as hair color, skin color, personality traits and other physical appearances are mapped out across the page. When the questions are filled out, a baby appears as he or she was described moments before. The baby is the picture of health, and looks perfect in every way. This scenario seems only to exist in a dream, however, the option to design a child has already become a reality in the near future. Parents may approach a similar scenario every day in the future as if choosing a child’s characteristics were a normal way of life. The use of genetic engineering should not give parents the choice to design their child because of the act of humans belittling and “playing” God, the ethics involved in interfering with human lives, and the dangers of manipulating human genes.
[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 order to fully argue against Savulescu there must first be a thorough explication of his arguments for the permissibility and obligation of genetic enhancement. The first argument given for the permissibility of genetic enhancement is the postulate of the “Neglectful Parents”. Savulescu considers the case of two types of parents, the neglectful parents, and the lazy parents. The neglectful parents have a chi...
One of these moral dilemmas is that genetic engineering changes the traditional dynamic that occurs between the parent and the offspring. This issue arose over the possibility of having a human embryo with three genetic parents which is now possible due to genetic engineering. The procedure in question “involves transplanting the chromosomes from a single-cell embryo or from an unfertilized egg into a donor egg or embryo from which the chromosomes have been removed”(Foht). The procedure itself is very useful for women with mitochondrial disorders but the issue involved with this is that the embryo would technically have three biological parents. There needs to be a real concern about “the way genetic engineering can alter the relationship between the generations from one of parents accepting the novelty and spontaneous uniqueness of their children to one where parents use biotechnology to choose and control the biological nature of their children”(Foht). There is a special relationship between children and their parents that may be disappearing very soon due to these techniques. Children could be born never truly knowing one of their genetic parents. If these procedures continue to prosper people will have to “accept arrangements that split apart the various biological and social aspects of parenthood, and that deliberately create
In October of 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration held a two-day public meeting to talk about genetic mutation involving the human egg and which changes will be passed on generationally (“Genetically Modified Children”). Human gene mutation has been practiced since 1990, but most of the practices involved non-heritable genes which was called a somatic gene mutation (“Genetically Modified Children”). Somatic gene changes only affect the individual and are not passed on to future generations, and so these somatic gene mutations do not affect the human genome (“Genetically Modified Children”). Genetic mutation changed with the first successful birth of 30 attempted genetically mutated children by 2001 (“Genetically Modified Children”)....
In their research article, “Genetic modification and genetic determinism”, David B. Resnik and Daniel B. Vorhaus argue that all the nonconsequentialist arguments against genetic modification are faulty because of the assumption that all the traits are strongly genetically determined, which is not the case. Resnik and Vorhaus dispel four arguments against genetic modification one-by-one. The freedom argument represents three claims: genetic modification prevents the person who has been modified from making free choices related to the modified trait, limits the range of behaviors and life plans, and interferes with the person 's ability to make free choices by increasing parental expectations and demands (Resnik & Vorhaus 5). The authors find this argument not convincing, as genes are simply not “powerful” enough to deprive a person of free choice, career and life options. In addition to that, they argue that parental control depends not on genetic procedure itself, but rather on parents’ basic knowledge of what the results of the modification should be. In a similar fashion, the giftedness arguments, which states that “Children are no longer viewed as gifts, but as
The first argument given for the obligation of genetic enhancement is the postulate of the “Neglectful Parents”. Savulescu considers the case of two types of parents, the neglectful parents and the lazy parents. Neglectful parents have a child that has a condition wherein a simple, cheap dietary supplement must be given so that the child maintains an advanced intellect.... ... middle of paper ... ... World Health Organization.
Human genetic engineering can provide humanity with the capability to construct “designer babies” as well as cure multiple hereditary diseases. This can be accomplished by changing a human’s genotype to produce a desired phenotype. The outcome could cure both birth defects and hereditary diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Human genetic engineering can also allow mankind to permanently remove a mutated gene through embryo screening as well as allow parents to choose the desired traits for their children. Negative outcomes of this technology may include the transmission of harmful diseases and the production of genetic mutations. The benefits of human genetic engineering outweigh the risks by providing mankind with cures to multiple deadly diseases.
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.