Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Modify humans through genetic engineering
Introduction of designer babies
Introduction of designer babies
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Modify humans through genetic engineering
Designer Babies and Nature
Improving on nature is basically when we, as a society, interfere with
the natural process of nature e.g. plant growth. A present day example
of when we have been trying to improve on nature is Genetically
Modified Foods, a topic that is currently the subject of a lot of
debate. The people who are entrusted to improve on nature, the
scientists, do it with the intention of giving us a better quality of
life.
The latest major idea to come from the world of science on how we can
improve on nature is the concept of genetically modified embryos, or
so-called "designer babies". It is reported that scientists are coming
very close to having the technology to manipulate and screen embryos
so that any diseases could be eliminated or immunised against. The
technology could even be used to manipulate eye colour and other
characteristics of an embryo, even gender.
When we began our class debating and research of designer babies, I
immediately took an extremely conservative and one-sided outlook on
the topic. I believed that any thought of genetically engineering
babies was sick and that there was no way we could put our future
generations at risk by making them into some mad scientist's warped
experiment, no matter how good were the intentions about wiping out
disease were. If we left any loopholes in the use of the technology,
it would be exploited and then it would be no time before we ended up
having mass human genetic engineering laboratories, like those in
"Brave New World" by Aldus Huxley or failed experiments such as
Frankenstein in Mary Shelly's novel of the same name.
However, as we delved deeper ...
... middle of paper ...
...d that
detailed, informed debate takes place immediately otherwise we could
end up with a human spare parts industry or a warped Utopia, like
Brave New World.
The voice of history and literature should not be ignored as they can
serve as warnings to the governments today. The attempted Swedish
eugenics of the 1970's is only today fully coming to light and Brave
New World is so frighteningly accurate it chills my spine thinking
about it.
I believe strongly that depending on the choices of our governments
now, we are either on the verge of a discovery so great it could
change human life for the better like never before, or, if the wrong
choices over legislation and the extent to which genetic engineering
can go are made, then we could, over an amazingly short period of
time, initiate our own self destruction.
Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shift. Mr. Bawazer offers a strong case. As an example from Mr. Kuhn’s theory we can understand how the different dog breeds evolved from the wolf. Depending on what type of breed you want from a hunting dog to a family dog breed, you can alter the DNA by letting the alpha dog to continue to breed or not. Next, we can realized that everything in this planet contains molecules or genes that can be altered. We also recognize that paradigm science and paradigm shift is a circular state not a steady line. This means that we have to adjust to what is going on the present time and expand from it, but always remember how it was done in the past. Thomas Edison well said “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” The only way to change science is to continue to try without being afraid of failing. If different engineers and industries unites forces to promote the use of natural resources rather than inventing new ones and also with the help of the government of going “green” will definitely help the environment to prevent
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.
A person's individuality begins at conception and develops throughout life. These natural developments can now be changed through genetically engineering a human embryo. Through this process, gender, eye and hair color, height, medical disorders, and many more qualities can be changed. I believe genetically engineering a human embryo is corrupt because it is morally unacceptable, violates the child's rights, and creates an even more divided society.
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.
In recent years, great advancement has been made in medicine and technology. Advanced technologies in reproduction have allowed doctors and parents the ability to screen for genetic disorders (Suter, 2007). Through preimplantation genetic diagnosis, prospective parents undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) can now have their embryo tested for genetic defects and reduce the chance of the child being born with a genetic disorder (Suter, 2007). This type of technology can open the door and possibility to enhance desirable traits and characteristics in their child. Parents can possibly choose the sex, hair color and eyes or stature. This possibility of selecting desirable traits opens a new world of possible designer babies (Mahoney,
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.
While learning in sociology 101, I found an interesting theory that relates to the topic, “Designer Babies”. I will be stating viewpoints about some examples that I researched. In the book, Essentials of Sociology by James M. Henslin, our class identified the interpretation of the word McDonaldization. The definition of the word works perfectly with the principles and understanding tactics of designer babies, or gene editing. The definition of McDonaldization is the process by which ordinary aspects of life are rationalized and efficiency comes to rule them, including such things as food preparation (Henslin,year). Although I 'm not discussing fast food, I 'm discussing how designer babies are unique and are out of the normal tradition .
How far is society willing to advance genetic enhancement technology before it becomes a moral wrong? Medical technology is well on the way to allowing parents to create designer babies, permitting parents to pick physical and internal qualities of unborn children. Due to the advance in technology allowing parents to genetically designer their own child, The American Medical Association (AMA) should create stronger codes of medical ethics and acts imposing limitations. The manipulating with embryos in order to create a parent’s ideal child is morally wrong, and should be against codes of ethics. In order to create a fine line between enhancement that prevents disease and birth defects, and the self-absorbed society that prefers children with little to no flaws; laws of ethics in medical practice need to be implemented. Therefore, with distinguished lines on medical ethics, society will not become divided and unrecognizable due to genetically enhanced humans.
Although the advancement of genetic science has provided humans with the ability to choose their child’s sex, eye color, or even intelligence, some believe that it is highly immoral to commercialize this new found power. The Oxford English Dictionary defines eugenics as the science of improving the (especially human) population by controlled breeding for desirable inheritable characteristics (Suckling, 2000). The original purpose of the trait selection, called eugenics, was to check for certain disease-bearing genes. This allowed for parents to choose non-disease bearing embryos using In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) (Steere, 2008). The technology has recently been developing into detecting various other physical traits that will undoubtedly become abused by the general public if it is brought to the commercial market (Suckling, 2000).
Engineers are developing new systems to use genetic information, sense small changes in the body, assess new drugs, and deliver vaccines.
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.
Atwood takes many of today’s potential scientific developments and illustrates the worst possible outcome of what may happen if we continue the unregulated pursuit of knowledge. In reality, the scientific advances of today will yield a higher standard of living for the majority of the world tomorrow. We will continue to push for the best in everything including science, medicine, and technology; we will not allow any single person to make the sole decision to develop an idea. Scientific progression will save many lives; therefore, it should and will always be there for us.
2). As a result, this scientific experiment changed the relationship of humankind and nature by foreseeing the modification of DNA of bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals to discover new medicines and to provide solutions for inherited diseases (Le Vine, 1999, p. 2).
Many scientists in the past, such as Aristotle and Plato, believed that there were no changes in populations; however, other scientists, such as Darwin and Wallace, arose and argued that species inherit heritable traits from common ancestors and environmental forces drives out certain heritable traits that makes the species better suited to survive or be more “fit” for that environment. Therefore, species do change over a period of time and they were able to support their theory by showing that evolution does occur. There were four basic mechanisms of evolution in their theory: mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection. Natural selection is the gradual process by which heritable traits that makes it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce increases, whereas there is a decline in those who do have those beneficial heritable traits (Natural Selection). For example, there is a decrease in rain which causes a drought in the finches’ environment. The seeds in the finches’ environment would not be soft enough for the smaller and weaker beak finches to break; therefore, they cannot compete with the larger and stronger beak finches for food. The larger and stronger beak finches has a heritable trait that helps them survive and reproduce better than others for that particular environment which makes them categorized under natural selection (Freeman, 2002).
“One need not be deeply religious or oppose abortion to be troubled by the prospect of a society in which, as bioethicist Alexander Capron puts it, ‘The wanted child becomes the made-to-order child’" (Shannon). With rising concerns of building a baby through eugenics and IVF or In Vitro Fertilization, the government, court systems, activists, and public media is starting to take notice. Being able to pick your babies’ generic make up would be an ethical disaster with a slippery slope into an era where one’s child is created by man with build-a-baby qualities instead of the natural creation of a new life. Creating a designer baby through IVF technology would have severe consequences not only affecting this generation by all the future generations to arise.