Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Socio ethical issues of biotechnology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Socio ethical issues of biotechnology
When introducing any new ideas, there are risks and benefits that come with it. In “Man and Superman,” Henry Greely discusses the views on biological enhancement. He introduces his ideas by first showing that humans have always tried to enhance themselves, “since we first shaped stones, controlled fire and domesticated animals.” (Greely 1) Greely then discusses the common fears and misconceptions that people have about genetic enhancement. They are: 1. Enhancement is cheating, 2. Enhancement will eliminate our sufferings, and 3. Enhancements will change our nature. These fears are pushed away by the real risks that biological enhancement proposes.
Before discussing the actual risks, let us see what people believe the threat of biological enhancement is. The first thing people think is that this enhancement is essentially a way to cheat at life. They believe that “by taking the effort out of life, it also takes away accomplishment.” (Greely 1) But How is enhancing someone, say to be good at math, cheating when there are already children who understand certain subjects better or who are even, based on their genes and traits, more fit to play sports. Saying that this is cheating is the same as saying those who are better at math than others are cheating at life. When people try to discuss why this is bad, they try to use the Fairness and Justice Approach. Having people with enhancements is unfair but having people with more talents than others is not apparently. Greely also brings up a point about how even though people with enhancements would be better in some areas they “would still strive, compete and fail, but from a different starting point.”
Seeing this as a choice may be understandable though, espe...
... middle of paper ...
...r, thus we need not be reckless. The risks that Greely discusses are very real and could be what keep biological enhancements from being supported. Regardless of support or not this technology will be developed eventually but in secret. I agree with Greely’s points and think he has taken much into consideration when talking about what are risks or not. I also look forward to seeing how this technology develops and integrates itself into society.
Works Cited
Fukuyama, Francis. We will undermine the principle of equality. Times Higher Education, 2002. Print.
Greely, Henry T. “Man and Superman: if we choose to enhance our bodies and minds it won’t be without risk, but that’s no reason to pull up the drawbridge.” New Scientist, 2006. Print
Savulescu, Julian. New breeds of humans: the moral obligation to enhance. Reproductive Biomedicare Online, 2004. Web.
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.
Galton, David J., and Clare J. Galton. "Francis Galton: And Eugenics Today." Journal of Medical Ethics, 24.2 (1998): 99-101. JSTOR. Web. 8 Mar. 2010.
Ordinary Men is the disconcerting examination of how a typical unit of middle-aged reserve policemen became active participants in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Polish Jews.
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.
Rather, famous Deontologist Immanuel Kant would argue that it has nothing to do with the results of the act at all, but it has everything to do with the intentions or reasons for the act which are contained in the principles we live by (Kant, 163). This means that a person is morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of the outcome (Shakil, n.d.). In other words, Kant would argue that some actions are always wrong, even if it leads to admirable outcomes and therefore actions should be judged independently of their outcomes (Shakil, n.d.). In regards to genetic enhancement it is always wrong to try and genetically enhance a child’s personality and body even if it would result in seemingly good consequences. In fact, Kant argues that an action morality can only be determined by goodwill which can be used by acting according to moral duty consisting of a set of maxims which have no contradictions (Shakil, n.d.). However, Julian’s points about genetic enhancements do contradict the moral
...pen manner that allows us to perceive the opportunities offered by human enhancement. I disagree with Sandel’s argument that genetic enhancement for its own sake is wrong but is permissible when used in medical context. I find it hypocritical of Sandel to argue against one form of genetic manipulation while favoring another. The subject of human enhancement is too pervasive and offers too many potential benefits to restrict its use. I believe that genetic manipulation and human enhancements are inevitable. I favor an open-minded and morally grounded approach to advances in genetic engineering, only then can we deal with the moral and social ramifications that stem from the conept of human enhancement.
Many people often ask, “Is it acceptable for human beings to manipulate human genes” (Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy). Most of the ethical issues centralize on the Christian understanding of a human being. They believe God made them the way they are and people should accept their fate.The Society, Religion and Technology Project have researched and found that countless people are curious if gene therapy is the right thing to do. They have a problem with exploiting the genes a person is born with due to the fact they consider it to be “playing God” (Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy). They are also concerned with the safety. On account of the unfamiliar and inexperienced technology. Gene therapy has only been around since 1990, so scientists are still trying to find the best possible way to help cure these diseases. Multiple scientists are cautious with whom they share their research. For the reason that if it were to get into in the wrong hands it could conceivably start a superhuman race. Author Paul Recer presumes using germline engineering to cure fatal diseases or even to generate designer babies that will be stronger, smarter, or more immune to infections (Gene Therapy Creates Super-Muscles). Scientists could enhance height, athleticism and even intelligence. The possibilities are endless. Germline engineering, however, would alter every cell in the body. People would no longer have to worry about the alarming and intimidating combinations of their parents’ genes. Genetic engineers are able to eliminate unnatural genes, change existing ones or even add a few extra. Like it or not, in a few short years scientists will have the power to control the evolution of
Perkins, H.F.. A Decade of Progress in Eugenics: Scientific Papers of the Third International Congress of Eugenics. 1993 Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Company.
"When they are finally attempted…genetic manipulations will…be done to change a death sentence into a life verdict." In agreeing with this quote by James D. Watson, director of the Human Genome Project, I affirm today’s resolution, "Human genetic engineering is morally justified." I will now present a few definitions. Human genetic engineering is the altering, removal, or addition of genes through genetic processes. Moral is "pertaining to right conduct; ethical." Justified is to be "proper; well-deserved." Therefore, something that is morally justified is ethically beneficial. My value today will be cost-benefit justice. When we examine the benefits that human genetic engineering provides to society, these benefits will outweigh any costs and will thus affirming the resolution will provide for justice. I will now present one observation—the existence of human genetic engineering will not be without limits. Patrick Ferreira, the director of medical genetics at the University of Alabama Hospitals, notes that a "technological imperative [states] that the development of extraordinary powers does not automatically authorize their use." In other words, the point of technology is to be careful, and as with any technology, a society will be meticulous in its understanding of human genetic engineering. I will now present 3 contentions that uphold my value of cost benefit justice.
Matt Bird explains “Genetic engineering can eliminate age barriers,” but he also states, “Genetic engineering’s ability to expand life has a drawback in that it can cause overpopulation.” This shows that the genetic engineering that Jonas’s community can have good things, but it may also have bad aspects to it. Matt Bird says that genetically modified babies can be made stronger, faster, tougher, and smarter, but his article also claims that doing so would have a larger chance for a mutant. In Jonas’s community they genetically modify the babies so they can’t see colors, but there is a chance that they could create a
Some observers are concerned that genetic engineering allows humans to tamper with evolution in an unsafe way. Many think that God created man as he is, and we should not attempt to alter its form in any way. Others, however, argue that we as a society should do everything in our power to better our standards of living. It is hard to argue one way or another unless you know the facts about genetic
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.
Father and Son by Bernard McLaverty 'Father and Son' by Bernard McLaverty is a short story which is set in
The current issue facing societies around the world is human-animal hybrids experiments. These experiments are viewed in two lights, positive and negative. The positive of having these tests are that scientists could rid the world of diseases. However on the other hand people see these studies as inhumane and detrimental to everyone’s well being. This paper will be broken down into 6 areas including (1) a brief history of hybrid experiments dating within the decade, (2) a view of the stakeholders in the issue at hand, (3) how people would interact with humans receiving these treatments, (4) cultural and ethical considerations, (5) problems still at hand, and (6) a conclusion.
Human enhancement is any attempt to temporarily or permanently overcome the current limitations of the human body through natural or artificial means. It is in our human nature that we somehow increase our life expectancy, become stronger, fearless, independent and smarter. It is no surprise we turn to all sorts of technologies – neurotechnology, nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology – to improve human performances. While they might improve our performances and abilities, their use raises serious health, ethical and economic issues, furthermore, not enough is known about the long-term consequences.