The Ethics of Genetic Engineering
An elderly man develops macular degeneration, a disease that destroys vision. To bolster his failing eyesight, he receives a transplant of healthy retinal tissue--cloned from his own cells and cultivated in a lab dish. A baby girl is born free of the gene that causes Tay-Sachs disease, although both her parents are carriers. The reason is a new knowledge of cells and DNA, and genetic engineering. With this new knowledge comes questions about ethics. We will explore genetic engineering though the past, through Hitler. The present with cloning, and what could happen in the future as what happened in Michael Crichton’s novel Jurassic Park.
First lets look at the past. During the 1930s a man by the name of Hitler, came to power in Germany. By 1940, he was trying to create a superhuman race. He started the most well known genocide in the world, the Holocaust. Hitler wanted all of the Jews, homosexuals, and anybody that he didn’t like, exterminated. This was one of the first attempts to create a superhuman race. Hitler was stopped in 1945, and the Holocaust stopped. Thanks to Hitler, an estimated 6 million people were killed.
Today a new way to create a superhuman race has come up, cloning. Cloning is making an exact copy of yourself. Thanks to cloning, many doors have opened. Scientist have already coned a sheep, so some say, were do we go now. Scientist want to clone humans, but laws have stopped that. The United States, along with 19 European countries have banned human cloning. However, that doesn’t stop people from going underground and cloning humans. We must put a stop to human cloning. Others have had the idea just to clone human organs. That way if someone needs a transplant you wouldn’t have to wait on a list. The organ would also be a perfect donor. Nevertheless, that would have to be closely watched. If it goes too far bad can come out it.
In the future, we might be able to clone extinct animals. This possibility is explored in Michael Crichton’s novel, Jurassic Park. In his book they bring back a few dinosaurs and put them on an island. They put up fences and keep the dinosaurs in a certain area of the park. Eventually the dinosaurs take control of the island. To clone something that we have no knowledge about their way of life is not right.
In The Case Against Perfection, Sandel warns us of the dangers that genetic engineering, steroids, and hormones poses to society and the natural order. According to Sandel, this type of control, especially in non-medical settings, violates a respect for life that should be ingrained in all of us. Life is something difficult to predict, something that shouldn’t bend to our every single will and desire. Genetic engineering, and the like, presents an egregious violation of this respect. According to Sandel, this violation serves only to reverse the human march of progress. Sandel weaves a well-balanced argument in his book. The issue of eugenic technology is most definitely not black or white. According to him, the aspects of modification can be applied selectively, so long as it doesn’t violate the respect for life society should hold closely.
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.
In today’s modern age science is moving at a rapid pace; one of those scientific fields that has taken the largest leaps is that of genetics. When genetics first comes to mind, many of us think of it as a type of science fiction, or a mystical dream. Yet genetics is here, it is real, and has numerous ethical implications.
Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary diseases, the genetic enhancement of human embryos is unethical when used to create "designer babies" with enhanced appearance, athletic ability, and intelligence.
A new trend lately is Buzzfeed quizzes that vary in category. You can take a quiz that tells you what celebrity you are most alike, who you should marry, and even what your occupation or college major should be. How these quizzes work are that you are asked a bunch of random questions that make you choose between colors, traits, hobbies and food. As if a color dictates if you should be a teacher or a lawyer. It’s ridiculous. But this isn’t just happening on Buzzfeed, it is also happening in our everyday lives. People are making lists of traits, colors, and hobbies; except the results won’t necessarily be for them. But for their child and their child has not even been conceived yet. Planning for a baby shouldn’t be as easy an online quiz. It shouldn’t be up to the parents to decide the genetic makeup of their unborn child.
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
Gene therapy is a technique that uses genes to treat or prevent diseases. It is the process of taking DNA from one organism and inserting it to another. No development in the field of biotechnology has inspired both greater fear and hope in human society than gene therapy. Here is the big question among the people. While this new advancement in gene therapy promotes new hopes to cure life-threatening diseases or help the amputee or physically disabled persons to lead life like a normal human, it also raises questions about morality as well as the adverse effects it may cause in the future society. In our media intensive society, thousands of newspapers and magazines, tv talk shows resound with different points of view about the morality of gene therapy. Proponents of this medical treatment argue that it promises enormous benefits for medicine as well as agriculture and industry. Yet, it has aroused considerable public concern because it is perceived by many as an unpredictable technology.
For years, the prospect of human cloning was fodder for outrageous science-fiction stories and nothing more. However, in more recent times, human cloning has moved significantly closer to becoming a reality. Accordingly, the issue has evoked a number of strong reactions, both praising and condemning the procedure. The fact that human cloning not just affects human lives indirectly but actually involves tinkering with human creation has forced human cloning into a position of controversy. The progress of the issue of human cloning, then, has been shaped not only by the abilities and resources of scientists but by public opinion and by governmental regulation that has resulted from public pressure.
Cloning, a topic that has recently caused mayhem all over the world, is possible, but will it be here to stay? The astonishing news that scientists had cloned a sheep a couple of years ago sent people into panic at the thought that humans might be next. "Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it's not unreasonable to be concerned that it might threaten human society and dignity" (Macklin 64). Since most of the opposition is coming from the pure disgust of actually being able to clone species, it makes it difficult for people to get away from the emotional side of the issue and analyze the major implications cloning would have for society. To better understand this controversial issue, the pros and cons of cloning will be discussed.
The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be addressed: When should genetic testing be used? And who should have access to the results of genetic tests? As I intend to show, genetic tests should only be used for treatable diseases, and individuals should have the freedom to decide who has access to their test results.
Genetic engineering gives the power to change many aspects of nature and could result in a lot of life-saving and preventative treatments. Today, scientists have a greater understanding of genetics and its role in living organisms. However, if this power is misused, the damage could be very great. Therefore, although genetic engineering is a field that should be explored, it needs to be strictly regulated and tested before being put into widespread use. Genetic engineering has also, opened the door way to biological solutions for world problems, as well as aid for body malfunctions. I think that scientists should indeed stop making genetic engineering for humans, because it will soon prove to be devastating to the human race. It would cause rivalries and tension among different kinds of genetically engineered humans for dominance and power.
Imagine a world in which a clone is created only for its organs to be transplanted into a sick person’s body. Human cloning has many possible benefits, but it comes with concerns. Over the past few decades, researchers have made several significant discoveries involving the cloning of human cells (ProQuest Staff). These discoveries have led to beneficial medical technologies to help treat disease (Aldridge). The idea of cloning an entire human body could possibly revolutionize the medical world (Aldridge). However, many people are concerned that these advancements would degrade self-worth and dignity (Hyde and Setaro 89). Even though human cloning brings about questions of bioethics, it has the potential to save and recreate the lives of humans and to cure various diseases without the use of medication (Aldridge, Hyde and Setaro).
The Problem Genetic engineering has been around since the 1960’s, although major experiments have not been really noticed until the 1990’s. 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.
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.
Due to the fact that the field of biotechnology is very serious and potentially dangerous, rules must be set down in order to keep the research in check. The high risk research of genetic therapy needs guidelines that have to be followed in order to keep the study just. The articles that are discussed in this essay focus on ethical issues and ideas that should be followed in the field in order to keep research safe and valid.