Even after thousands of years of evolution, the human race is not perfect: it is ravaged by disease and limited by nature. Yet, in recent times, researchers have begun to ascertain an advanced understanding of the underlying genetic code of humanity. The Human Genome Project, now complete, has provided a map of the intricacies in human DNA, allowing researchers to begin looking at the purpose of each gene. When combined with selective embryo implantation, which is used occasionally today to avoid hereditary diseases or to choose gender, genetic discoveries can become a sort of artificial evolution. By changing the genes in embryos before implantation, humanity has the potential to control many aspects of its offspring. The human race should welcome human genetic engineering, because the technology will inevitably be used, is ethically sound, and provides opportunity for advancement in prevention of disease and enhancement of the human body. Modification of the human genome will occur as a natural result of genetic research, even if it does not directly pertain to reshaping human DNA. In areas such as agriculture and breeding, genetics already plays an important role in determining success. In just a few decades, genetically altered crops went from laboratories to farmland, foreshadowing the success of similar projects in humans in the future. Techniques scientists use to adjust the nature of plants are antecedents to slightly modified procedures that are today used to change the DNA of animals. In Redesigning Humans, Gregory Stock describes a specific way genetics is already used to determine traits, saying, “This is not pie-in-the-sky genetic design. Capecchi’s lab has already used the technique…in a mouse chromosome” ... ... middle of paper ... ...e?." USA Today (Farmingdale). Jan. 1999: 28-30. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 17 Feb. 2014. Green, Ronald M. "Human Genetic Engineering Should Be Allowed." Opposing Viewpoints: Genetic Engineering. Ed. Noel Merino. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven, 2013. 46-52. Print. "Learning About Cystic Fibrosis." National Human Genome Research Institute. N.p., 27 Dec. 2013. Web. 15 Feb. 2014. Naik, Gautam. "New Advance Toward 'Designer Babies'." Wall Street Journal. 04 Oct. 2013: p. A.3. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 17 Feb. 2014. Stock, Gregory. Redesigning Humans. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003. Print. Thadani, Rahul. "The Public Should Oppose Designer Baby Technology." Editorial. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Gale, 2013. Web. Wheeler, Sondra Ely. "Ethical Issues in Germline Genetic Engineering." Christian Social Action. Oct. 1999: 4-6. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.
Most people agree, in general, that designer babies are taking over and it is it’s a good thing. A designer baby is a human embryo that parents set , to produce desirable traits. According to Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection , Fertility Institutes in Los Angeles offered to let parents select their children’s hair and eye color. Crazy to think you’d be able to build your own baby. The process of creating this designer baby would be embryos modified to predetermine intellect , physical prowess , and beauty. People may question designer babies but “if you think women have the right to control their bodies , then they should be able to make this choice” right? (Citation?) There is a lot of science into creating a designer baby.
Of?"http://www.siumed.edu/medhum/electives/HealthPolicyMedia/wk5Stock.pdf 22.11 (2003). Rpt. in Designer Babies. Ed. Clayton Farris Naff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 2 May 2014.
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.
Thadani, Rahul. "The Public Should Oppose Designer Baby Technology." Designer Babies. Ed. Clayton Farris Naff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "Designer Babies Debate." http://www.buzzle.com. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.
Designer Babies: What are the Ethical and Moral Issues by TK McGhie and Designer Babies: Choosing Our Children’s Genes by Bonnie Steinbock both cover the controversy around an ever growing, ever prominent field of biotechnology. These articles focus on the recent trend of the concept that parents can essentially design the baby of their dreams. Designer babies are not an actual in use trend, but it is a very real hypothetical one. The idea of designer babies first originated in 1978, the day of the first successful in vitro fertilization. From there, more and more technology has become readily available to help improve the lives of unborn children. These two articles are about the same fundamental subject but, they differ from each
Iredale, Rachel, et al. "What Choices Should We Be Able to Make About Designer Babies? A Citizens’ Jury of Young People in South Wales." Health Expectations 9.3 (2006): 207-217. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
We are closer that humanity ever has been to being able to intentionally manipulate DNA and thereby being capable of creating organisms that can dramatically improve our lives and wellbeing as a species. However, genetic engineering has to be appropriately regulated, taking into consideration ethical issues such as human rights, the dignity of the individual, harmful consequences and issues of morality followed by them. This paper will try to expand upon various views on genetic engineering and will pay homage to my background writing engineering research papers to consider the ethics of genetic engineering-the designer baby, cloning, how it relates to ethics in engineering generally, and the responsibilities of engineers and the concerns of
"Eugenics, Genetic Engineering Lite." The Future of Human Evolution. Humans Future, 2010. Web. 14 Feb 2012.
[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
Savulescu, Julian. “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Human Beings.” Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Ed. David Kaplan. 2nd ed. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield, 2009. 417-430.
Many debilitating and severe unwanted diseases, genetic disorders and disabilities can be avoided through the creation of designer babies. A child's quality of life would be drastically increased if they evade Down Syndrome, deformities or heart disease for example. In a sense, it isn’t all that different to hearing aid, medication for an illness or chemotherapy for cancer, but on a larger scale and earlier in someone’s life, before it even really begins in fact. Some people would argue that changing genes is changing who people are, which they view as ‘wrong’, but genes aren’t exactly the only things that make up a person anyway. The way that they grow up and their surroundings also make people...
It is incredible to see how far genetic engineering has come. Humans, plants, and any living organism can now be manipulated. Scientists have found ways to change humans before they are even born. They can remove, add, or alter genes in the human genome. Making things possible that humans (even thirty years ago) would have never imagined. Richard Hayes claims in SuperSize Your Child? that genetic engineering needs to have limitations. That genetic engineering should be used for medical purposes, but not for “genetic modification that could open the door to high-tech eugenic engineering” (188). There is no doubt that genetic engineering can amount to great things, but without limits it could lead the human race into a future that no one today could even imagine.
Iredale, R, et al. “What Choices Should We Be Able to Make About Designer Babies? A Citizens’ jury Of Young People In South Wales.” Health Expectations 9.3 (2006):207-217. CINAHL with Full Text. Web. 06 Nov. 2013.
With today's technology in genetic engineering, it seems we can almost play God. Scientifically speaking, are we enabling our bodies to survive all the traumas of a hostile environment, or are we endangering future generations to a limiting gene pool? Spiritually speaking, are we improving our bodies to save more of God's people, or are we attempting to "perfect" God's creation, and damning ourselves? The technology of genetic engineering is advancing at a dizzying pace, but is the morality at which we guide our use of this technology evolving quickly enough?
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.