Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Opinions on genetic engineering
Human genetic engineering argument
Genetic engineering ethical debate
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Opinions on genetic engineering
Doctor visits are expensive; fatal diseases are even more costly. Some diseases that cost one his or her life are passed down generation-to-generation, making the disease genetic. With today’s technological advancements, genes of an embryo can be screened for mutant, disease-carrying genes. Embryo screening gives parents the option to have a child or opt out of having a child with future potential flaws, difficulties, or a shortened life. Though embryo screening is seen as a gift because of its ability to detect diseased genes, human genetic engineering can be viewed as a greater blessing with its ability to modify the gene carrying the disease. In my research paper, I will discuss how Kant and Mill believe determining the fates of our future generation, and how its future is unethical, while also discussing how Julian Savelescu believes it is a moral obligation to select for valuable characteristic traits. The focal argument and debate between the two opposing sides lies on the ethics of parenting: “whether parents should be maximizing their children’s well-being, or simply giving them a good enough life” (Savelescu 1).
Recently, a project by scientists, The Human Genome Project, has come to completion. This project took years of compiled knowledge and advancement in technology to be able to successfully map out a sequence of three billion nucleotides of the human genome. With this step in the right direction, scientists located genes for various traits on our chromosomes, thus allowing for future testing determining whether genomes contain sequences associated with specific diseases. Embryo screening, also recognized as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows for detection of diseases without waiting to undergo ...
... middle of paper ...
...Cited
Burgess, J. A., and Adrian J. Walsh. "Is Genetic Engineering Wrong, Per Se?" The
Journal of Value Inquiry 32 (1998): 393-406. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
Gunderson, Martin. "Seeking Perfection: A Kantian Look at Human Genetic
Engineering." Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28.2 (2007): 87-102. Print.
Gunderson, Martin. “Genetic Engineering and the Consent of Future Persons.” Journal of
Evolution and Technology. (2008): 1-8. Print.
Pray, Leslie. "Embryo Screening and the Ethics of Human Genetic
Engineering."Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 2008. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.
PDF:http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/genetic_engineering/Explain_how_Kantian_Ethics_might_respond_to_issues_raised_by_genetic_engineering.pdf
"Eugenics." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 09 May 2014.
"Nazi Eugenics." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 09 May 2014.
It helps medics to find a direct genetic cause of the patient’s condition and target it with pharmaceutical or other therapies. The technology is used for the identification of DNA sequences that increase risks of current diseases and disorders; with this information carriers can start to make efforts to prevent them before the development of the problem. The video mentioned 200 actionable genes, structures that have direct links with a specific condition. Knowing about their presence, people have a chance to bring in preventive measures like taking anticoagulants in the case of identification of a thrombogenic gene. The technology led to the significant improvement of diagnostics and personalized treatments. It helped to find a rare, life-threatening mutation in case of Beery twins and assign a drug to a girl (Alexis) that returned her to a normal life. In the case of cancer genome sequencing led to the development of genetic drags, which target essential tumor genes and make malign structures to shrink. The video mentioned a product that works with the BRАF protein that induces cells to uncontrolled division; the drug led to the remission in the patient with metastasizing melanoma. Such treatment was effective in the case of cystic fibrosis. In the case of the breast cancer the technology helps to evaluate the aggressiveness of the condition and make a personalized decision about chemotherapy. The video also mentioned the pre-implantation genetic diagnosis – an early-staged technology that prevents the development of inherited disorders in
To choose for their children, the world’s wealthy class will soon have options such as tall, pretty, athletic, intelligent, blue eyes, and blonde hair. Occasionally referred to as similar to “the eugenics of Hitler’s Third Reich” (“Designer Babies” n.p.), the new genetics technology is causing differences in people’s opinions, despite altering DNA before implantation is “just around the corner.” (Thadani n.p.). A recent advance in genetically altering embryos coined “designer babies” produces controversy about the morality of this process.
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.
Genetic engineering, the process of using genetic information from the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of cells to fix or improve genetic defects or maladies, has been developing for over twenty years. When Joseph Vacanti, a pediatric surgeon at Children’s Hospital, and Robert Langer, a chemical engineering professor at MIT, first met as researchers in the 1970’s, they had little knowledge of the movement they would help found. After they discovered a method of growing live tissue in the 1980’s, a new science was born, and it races daily towards new discoveries and medical breakthroughs (Arnst and Carey 60). “Tissue engineering offers the promise that failing organs and aging cells no longer be tolerated — they can be rejuvenated or replaced with healthy cells and tissues grown anew” (Arnst and Carey 58). The need for genetic engineering becomes quite evident in the promises it offers in various medical fields, as well to financial ones. Despite critics’ arguments about the morality or practicality of it, genetic engineering should continue to provide the essential benefits it has to offer without unnecessary legal impediment.
Genetic engineering has been around for many years and is widely used all over the planet. Many people don’t realize that genetic engineering is part of their daily lives and diet. Today, almost 70 percent of processed foods from a grocery store were genetically engineered. Genetic engineering can be in plants, foods, animals, and even humans. Although debates about genetic engineering still exist, many people have accepted due to the health benefits of gene therapy. The lack of knowledge has always tricked people because they only focused on the negative perspective of genetic engineering and not the positive perspective. In this paper, I will be talking about how Genetic engineering is connected to Brave New World, how the history of genetic engineering impacts the world, how genetic engineering works, how people opinions are influenced, how the side effects can be devastating, how the genetic engineering can be beneficial for the society and also how the ethical issues affect people’s perspective.
In this paper, I will argue that genetic therapies should be allowed for diseases and disabilities that cause individuals pain, shorter life spans, and noticeable disadvantages in life. I believe this because everyone deserves to have the most even starting place in life as possible. That is no being should be limited in their life due to diseases and disabilities that can be cured with genetic therapies. I will be basing my argument off the article by “Gene Therapies and the Pursuit of a Better Human” by Sara Goering. One objection to genetic therapies is that removing disabilities and diseases might cause humans to lose sympathy towards others and their fragility (332). However, I do not believe this because there are many other events and conditions in society that spark human compassion and sympathy towards others.
A controversial issue is the possible application of new techniques in genetic engineering to produce human clones. Up until now genetic engineering and cloning has been used to clone plants, unicellular organisms, amphibians and simple mammals. This has led to significant advances in agriculture, industry, and medicine. Newer techniques in genetic engineering have enabled scientists to clone more complex mammals and opened up the possibility of cloning humans. Although there are many potential benefits to this technology, the prospect of cloning humans has raised many practical, ethical and religious dilemmas that are currently being debated by society. As of now, the actual cloning of humans does not seem likely to occur in the foreseeable future.
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
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.
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 today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost each 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.
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
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.
Prenatal genetic screening in particular is a polarizing topic of discussion, more specifically, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). PGD is one of the two techniques commonly used to genetically screen embryos in vitro; it is usually done at the eight-cell stage of division. PGD is most often performed when there is the risk that one or both parents carry disease-causing mutations. It is extensively used by high-risk individuals trying to conceive babes who will be free of particular mutations. PGD can test for over 50 genetic conditions and even allows for sex selection if there are underlying gender-associated medical conditions. When the results are satisfactory, the selected embryo is implanted into the mother’s uterus. While a controversial technique, preimplantation genetic diagnosis is one example of some of the good genetic testing can do, more benefits will be furthe...
Pray, Leslie A., Ph.D. “Embryo Screening and the Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering.” Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 2008. Web. The Web.