Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Technology and its impacts
Technological revolution and its impact on society
Technology and its impacts
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Technology and its impacts
What if incurable diseases could be prevented before a baby was born? The possibility of cancer? Nonexistent. Development of physical impairments? No longer an issue. A parent could have relief in knowing their child would be born healthy, and not be at risk for any type of long lasting ailments, physical or mental. It sounds like the new American Dream. But what about couples seeking to use this technology for aesthetic benefits? Such as couple wanting a blue eyed baby, but their DNA won’t allow it. Is there a difference between diminishing the possibility of disease, and hoping to prevent aesthetic maladies? Technology has become intertwined with the everyday lives of humans, and soon may become what furthers our path of evolution. With the partnership of the two, the limitations currently stand blurry and debated. Is it inevitable that technology should help transform and better humans, or against nature’s laws and science? If we ultimately allow our children's’ genes to be altered by technology, where should the line be drawn? To analyze this hotly debated topic, we look at the following texts: Prolonging Life, Human Genome Research, Gene Therapy’s Future, The Quiet Campaign for Genetic Engineering, No to Genetic Engineering of Humans!, Reproductive Cloning, Genetic Engineering and the Autonomy of a Child: the Moral Agent and the Open Future, Designer Humans, and lastly, Reproductive Ethics.
The moral agenda for genetic engineering is one that opposers see as the downfall of mixing technology and genetics. Author David King, in his article “No to Genetic Engineering of Humans!” uses pathos to appeal to the emotions of fear, ethics, and uneasiness by claiming messing with natural evolution by “playing God” is dangerous and r...
... middle of paper ...
...g their duty to their patients, and it’s only logical to use this technology to help them in any way that they see fit. In addition to upholding their hippocratic oath, the opportunities for helping future generations with these advancements is larger than ever. If devastating ailments like cancer, cystic fibrous and many others due to gene abnormalities could be cured and no longer affect our grandchildren, and their grandchildren, why wouldn’t we want to welcome this technology with open arms? Lastly, is the fight for the knowledge that our body contains. Scientists, the logical thinkers of the world, believe we have a right to know what our own bodies are composed of, all parts and all aspects. With the decoding of the human genome, we are one step closer in becoming experts on the human species.
Pathos is a big factor for the supporters of genetic manipulation.
Without them, we would be decades behind because the average person would not find signing away a piece of their body acceptable. Skloot brings up a case where a man sues a scientist for doing research on his removed spleen without his consent. The author states that those in favor of research said it “…would ‘create chaos for reseachers’ and ‘[sound] the death kneel to the university physician-scientist’. They called it ‘a threat to the sharing of tissue for research purposes,’ and worried that patients would block the progress of science by holding out for excessive profits, even with cells that weren’t worth millions…” (203). The concern shown from the quote was that with extensive limitations on research and tight ethical codes, the information found would be inadequate at best. On one hand, you do need to be honest with the patient, but for the cost of so many lives, there needs to be a balance of creating breakthroughs and appeasing those who matter in the situation. In regards to Henrietta, she did sign a document to have any medical procedure done that was deemed necessary by her doctors. With that being said, she did unknowingly give away some of her rights as a
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 more we know about genetics and the building blocks of life the closer we get to being capable of cloning a human. The study of chromosomes and DNA strains has been going on for years. In 1990, the Unites States Government founded the Human Genome Project (HGP). This program was to research and study the estimated 80,000 human genes and determine the sequences of 3 billion DNA molecules. Knowing and being able to examine each sequence could change how humans respond to diseases, viruses, and toxins common to everyday life. With the technology of today the HGP expects to have a blueprint of all human DNA sequences by the spring of 2000. This accomplishment, even though not cloning, presents other new issues for individuals and society. For this reason the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) was brought in to identify and address these issues. They operate to secure the individuals rights to those who contribute DNA samples for studies. The ELSI, being the biggest bioethics program, has to decide on important factors when an individual’s personal DNA is calculated. Such factors would include; who would have access to the information, who controls and protects the information and when to use it? Along with these concerns, the ESLI tries to prepare for the estimated impacts that genetic advances could be responsible for in the near future. The availability of such information is becoming to broad and one needs to be concerned where society is going with it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Brave New World is a city that produces mechanical offspring and manipulates science to genetically modify citizens. In the novel, Brave New World, the citizens are all genetically modified.
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.
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.
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
Science and technology are rapidly advancing everyday; in some ways for the better, and in some, for worse. One extremely controversial advance is genetic engineering. As this technology has high potential to do great things, I believe the power genetic engineering is growing out of control. Although society wants to see this concept used to fight disease and illness, enhance people 's lives, and make agriculture more sustainable, there needs to be a point where a line is drawn.
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.
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.
It is incredible to see how far genetic engineering has come. Humans, plants, and any living organism can now be manipulated. Scientists have found ways to change humans before they are even born. They can remove, add, or alter genes in the human genome. Making things possible that humans (even thirty years ago) would have never imagined. Richard Hayes claims in SuperSize Your Child? that genetic engineering needs to have limitations. That genetic engineering should be used for medical purposes, but not for “genetic modification that could open the door to high-tech eugenic engineering” (188). There is no doubt that genetic engineering can amount to great things, but without limits it could lead the human race into a future that no one today could even imagine.