More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of modern technology in this generation
Effects of modern technology in this generation
Pros and cons of genetic modification
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of modern technology in this generation
Genome editing is a genetic engineering where some part of DNA are inserted, replaced or edited in a genome of living organisms, and for the focus of this article by John Harris, is about genome editing of human DNA. John Harris’s arguments in this article are genetic editing should be used to protect the embryo from susceptibility to major diseases and prevent other debilitating genetic conditions from being passed on through them to future generations and that there is no need for consent for future generation as long as good decision are made. Furthermore, he argues that not only the assisted reproduction by means of technology affects reproduction, but all kinds of reproduction affects future generations, through passing on genetic material …show more content…
Assumptions that are made by the author are that all the people need gene editing to be pursued and if possible and safe enough to be used in humans. The reason why the authors think that all people want gene editing is that people will no longer pass on their weakening genetic conditions to their offspring therefore necessary to all human. I think that is not all people want gene editing as a matter of facts, there are movements out there against genetically modified products, and many people are signing petitions about labeling GMO products in grocery. Despite claiming the safety of GMO products, people think that it is unhealthy and don’t think that scientist fully understand what they do or consequences that may arise, people still respect nature as a beneficial and secures their wellbeing and that humans shouldn’t interfere with it. The comparison John Harris made by saying that parents make many decisions for their kids that might affect them in the future without checking on them, is way far from genetic editing that could halt evolution in organisms
SUMMARY: Director of the Ethics Institute, Ronald M. Green, in his article “Building Baby from the Genes Up” discusses why he thinks that genetically modifying babies genes is more beneficial than destructive. He begins his article off by mentioning a story of a couple who wishe to genetically modify their baby so that they could make sure the baby would not develop the long family line of breast cancer. Green then notifies the reader that no matter where they stand on the matter, genetically modifying babies is going to become more and more popular. Even the National Institute of Health is beginning to invest in technology that can be used to genetically modify human genes. He then explains how genetically modifying human genes can be beneficial,
Anyone hearing about change for the first time likes to have an understanding of what is actually happening in order to accept it. Ronald backs up her argument by illustrating how “golden rice was produced to make more vitamin A to decrease the possibility of blindness.” Reducing the risk of kids becoming blind does not seem like a bad thing. Ronald also points out that with genetic modification farmers where able to stop using insecticide spray, avoiding more possible illnesses towards health. Insecticide spray is more harmful then anything to human health, and without that genetic makeup those insects would eat away at our source of plants. These two example alone should be a huge eye opener, because by a genetic make up scientist where able to create something in plants that kept pests away. Now because of this genetic makeup that
Hayes’s article is a critique of Greens but also provides many key argumentative points against the use of genetic modification. Having access to the technology and knowledge to provide children with either less of a chance or no changes to receive hereditary diseases like cancer makes the case of using genetic modification much stronger but with regulations and restrictions we can make sure it is only used in specific cases, avoiding misuse. Hereditary is a term used to describe something that is passed from parent to child, in most cases its specific genes like baldness, height, and hair color but in other, more dangerous cases, it can refer to passing of genetic diseases like hemophilia, dementia, and specific types of cancer. Reading through Robert Green’s, Building a Baby from the Genes Up, provides readers with an insight into the latest news in genetic modification.
The authors use many different examples and counter arguments in order to prove their point in the essay. To begin, Ronald Green uses a real life example of a British family who wanted to genetically modify their embryo and use artificial ways of fertilization in order to get rid of breast cancer in the family tree (495). This example shows that genetic engineering has a wide scope and can solve many problems, and has lots of potential if we use it to our advantage. For example, Green says, “If we understand the genetic causes of obesity, for example, we can intervene by means of embryo selection to produce a child with a reduced genetic likelihood of getting fat” (496). He then talks about the fears that people have about genetic engineering, such as religion, the self worth of a genetically enhanced child, the widening of social division, and if parents would still love their kids as humans and not as a product. However, to all of these cases, Green says, “The fact is that a child is already remarkably influenced by the genes she inherits. The difference is that we haven’t taken control of the process.
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. The major ethical controversy is whether to alter the natural human genetic structure.
Genetic engineering has been around for many years and is widely used all over the planet. Many people don’t realize that genetic engineering is part of their daily lives and diet. Today, almost 70 percent of processed foods from a grocery store were genetically engineered. Genetic engineering can be in plants, foods, animals, and even humans. Although debates about genetic engineering still exist, many people have accepted due to the health benefits of gene therapy. 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.
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.
There has long been argument over whether genetic modification holds the key to our future as a species, or if the risks and downsides of genetic modification outweigh all of the possible rewards . There have been an uncountable number of papers written on the subject, arguing both for and against. Ronald M. Green's article “Building Baby from the Genes Up” argues that genetic modification has many possible benefits to the human race, such as preventing deadly diseases, and eliminating fears that genetic modification would lead to the creation of a selective “master race” where babies are hand picked to be doctors and athletes by their parents. In contrast to Green is Richard Hayes' article “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks.” in which Hayes disagrees with Green, saying that genetic modification would no doubt lead to hand picked “designer” babies, which would destroy the free will and futures of children who were born into their destiny. Hayes' final point, saying that although it is a good thing to use genetic modification to eliminate diseases such and cancer and obesity, we shouldn't go any further than that when it comes to messing with the genes of unborn babies. Although both authors make some great points in their essays, Green definitely makes the stronger more persuasive argument than Hayes, who basically just gives his opinion without backing it up with anything.
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).
[7] Stock, G., and Campbell, J.. "Engineering the Human Germline: an Exploration of the Science and Ethics of Altering the Genes We Pass to Our Children, New York; Oxford University Press, 2000. back
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.
One of these moral dilemmas is that genetic engineering changes the traditional dynamic that occurs between the parent and the offspring. This issue arose over the possibility of having a human embryo with three genetic parents which is now possible due to genetic engineering. The procedure in question “involves transplanting the chromosomes from a single-cell embryo or from an unfertilized egg into a donor egg or embryo from which the chromosomes have been removed”(Foht). The procedure itself is very useful for women with mitochondrial disorders but the issue involved with this is that the embryo would technically have three biological parents. There needs to be a real concern about “the way genetic engineering can alter the relationship between the generations from one of parents accepting the novelty and spontaneous uniqueness of their children to one where parents use biotechnology to choose and control the biological nature of their children”(Foht). There is a special relationship between children and their parents that may be disappearing very soon due to these techniques. Children could be born never truly knowing one of their genetic parents. If these procedures continue to prosper people will have to “accept arrangements that split apart the various biological and social aspects of parenthood, and that deliberately create
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 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 topic of gene therapy in humans is one that is highly debated due to the ethical implications connected to the science. Both sides of the debate have various reasons for their position, but the main factors come down to the ethics of changing someone’s genome and the consequences that accompany the altercations. The two types of gene therapy, somatic and germ-line, are seen in different light. There is more debate over germ-line therapy because the alterations have more consequences than somatic gene therapy. There are many moral and ethical decisions that need to be considered before gene therapy can be widely accepted.