Over 40 years ago, two men by the names of James Watson and Francis Crick discovered deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. DNA is hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms (What is DNA?). From this finding, gene therapy evolved. Today, researchers are able to isolate certain specific genes, repair them, and use them to help cure diseases such as cystic fibrosis and hemophilia. However, as great as this sounds, there are numerous ethical and scientific issues that will arise because of religion and safety.
James D. Watson is a molecular biologist, geneticist and zoologist. He is well known as one of the two men who discovered DNA. The other man who helped discover DNA is Francis Crick. Francis is a biologist, neurologist and a biophysicist.
…show more content…
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
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.
In September 14, 1990, an operation, which is called gene therapy, was performed successfully at the National Institutes of Health in the United States. The operation was only a temporary success because many problems have emerged since then. Gene therapy is a remedy that introduces genes to target cells and replaces defective genes in order to cure the diseases which cannot be cured by traditional medicines. Although gene therapy gives someone who is born with a genetic disease or who suffers cancer a permanent chance of being cured, it is high-risk and sometimes unethical because the failure rate is extremely high and issues like how “good” and “bad” uses of gene therapy can be distinguished still haven’t been answered satisfactorily.
James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA, believes it to be the responsibility of science to address the
Genetic engineering on animals is the latest experimental practice used in the world of biomedical research. It has allowed the progression of human understanding towards the study of diseases and medicine. With the emergence of this technology, comes a wide range of ethical issues that need to be addressed, such as the welfare and the uncertainty of predisposed risk towards the animal. Furthermore, the current state of this practice in the United States is still new. Therefore, there is little regulation by the government along with the scientific community in enforcing specific guidelines to consider the welfare of the animals. The implication of the scarcity of regulating genetic engineering opens the possibilities of mistreatment of animals
People should not have access to genetically altering their children because of people’s views on God and their faith, the ethics involving humans, and the possible dangers in tampering with human genes. Although it is many parent’s dream to have the perfect child, or to create a child just the way they want, parents need to realize the reality in genetic engineering. Sometimes a dream should stay a figment of one’s imagination, so reality can go in without the chance of harming an innocent child’s life.
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.
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.
Genes are, basically, the blueprints of our body which are passed down from generation to generation. Through the exploration of these inherited materials, scientists have ventured into the recent, and rather controversial, field of genetic engineering. It is described as the "artificial modification of the genetic code of a living organism", and involves the "manipulation and alteration of inborn characteristics" by humans (Lanza). Like many other issues, genetic engineering has sparked a heated debate. Some people believe that it has the potential to become the new "miracle tool" of medicine. To others, this new technology borders on the realm of immorality, and is an omen of the danger to come, and are firmly convinced that this human intervention into nature is unethical, and will bring about the destruction of mankind (Lanza).
Since its inception, gene therapy has captured the attention of the public and ethics disciplines as a therapeutic application of human genetic engineering. The latter, in particular, has lead to concerns about germline modification and questions about the distinction between therapy and enhancement. The development of the gene therapy field and its progress to the clinic has not been without controversy. Although initially considered as a promising approach for treating the genetic of disease, the field has attracted disappointment for failing to fulfil its potential. With the resolution of many of the barriers that restricted the progress of gene therapy and increasing reports of clinical success, it is now generally recognised that earlier expectations may have been premature.
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 increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically 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 a morally obligatory. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to intervene genetically even if such intervention may be permissible under certain criteria. I will show, in contrast to Savulescu’s view, that the moral obligation to intervene is not the same as the moral obligation to prevent and treat disease. In short, I will show that the ability of humans to intervene genetically is not sufficient to establish a moral obligation.
Human Genetic Engineering: Designing the Future As the rate of advancements in technology and science continue to grow, ideas that were once viewed as science fiction are now becoming reality. As we collectively advance as a society, ethical dilemmas arise pertaining to scientific advancement, specifically concerning the controversial topic of genetic engineering in humans.
Human genetic engineering can provide humanity with the capability to construct “designer babies” as well as cure multiple hereditary diseases. This can be accomplished by changing a human’s genotype to produce a desired phenotype. The outcome could cure both birth defects and hereditary diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Human genetic engineering can also allow mankind to permanently remove a mutated gene through embryo screening as well as allow parents to choose the desired traits for their children. Negative outcomes of this technology may include the transmission of harmful diseases and the production of genetic mutations. The benefits of human genetic engineering outweigh the risks by providing mankind with cures to multiple deadly diseases.
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.
Science has taken another step forward into the future of mankind by empowering parents to give their children the best start possible. We are now presented the opportunity to decide what personality and features we want our kids to have before their even born. Although at first glance, it may seem amazing and feel as if you’re picking the exact candy bar you want at a convenient store. However, are we ready for mankind to play, what some might call “God”? Is messing with the genetic code in our babies morally right? Or is it wrong? These are questions being brought up towards the matter of genetically engineering our babies. Danielle Simmons mentioned in the 2008 Nature Education that “Genes influence health and disease, as well as human traits and behavior”. Well genetic engineering on human genes has been going on for a long period of time now. It has also been performed on babies of women who were having trouble conceiving to prevent birth deficiency and help produce a healthy baby. As time went on, scientist became more precise and accurate in the genetic engineering of human genes (Simmons). Scientist is now able to help parents make their baby exactly the way, they prefer. Now that we are able to engineer the genetic code in humans to this extent, we can now produce a healthier generation that will have our ideal traits and behavior.
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.