A World of Species When it comes to the topic of genetic modification, there is a debate as to whether or not it should be allowed. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on whether or not science should be able to improve human life. Whereas some are convinced that genetic modification can help cure diseases, others maintain that it shouldn’t be used to enhance a child’s abilities. My own view, however, is that genetic modification shouldn’t be used to stare off diseases, or be used to alter a child’s physical or mental capabilities. David Koespell, a professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, states, “Humans have been involved in the natural order to themselves, and genetic engineering is another way
Lee M. Silver, a microbiologist at Princeton University states, “humans would be two distinct species, related as humans and chimps are today and just as unable to interbreed” ( qtd. in Engdahl). Basically, Silver is saying humans will become diverse from one another. People have 46 Chromosomes, those who choose to have their children would have 48 extra traits, that scientist will have to figure out where to accommodate. (Engdahl) It is bad enough that we already live in a world where people are distinguished by their race, color, or nationality. Genetic modification will only add one more category, which people will have to worry about. Not only will people have a new category to worry about, but not all parents will be able to afford genetically modifying their children. Children who are modified will feel superior to those who aren’t. Even though genetic modification sounds like a good idea to improve a child’s health or abilities, parents should also look at the reverse effect it can
Silver states, “It is already possible to insert DNA into mice, pigs, and sheep. The obstacles to inserting them in humans are mainly technical ones. At this point in human knowledge, it could lead to mutation” (qtd. in Engdahl). Basically, Silver is saying that even though scientist have accomplished inserting DNA in animals to accomplish certain abilities, or even trying to cure some diseases, scientists haven’t developed enough knowledge to insert the same DNA to humans. Since scientists don’t have enough knowledge to accomplish this, during this process of figuring out a way to insert foreign DNA, it can cause physical characteristics. During this process of figuring out a way to insert foreign DNA, many children will be used as research projects. Just like any research project many things can go wrong during this
A problem that could arise is a repeat of history. Inequality. Our society would be divided into two groups, the “valids” or “perfect humans” and the “in-valids” or “non perfect humans.” This is just another form of discrimination, whereby people are judged because of the circumstances of they were born, something that they have no control over. "I belong to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status or the colour of your skin. We now have discrimination down to a science." -Vincent. In the film “in-valids were granted less rights than the “valids.” Sounds familiar? In the 1960’s many protests occurred because of the inequality and brutality against African-Americans, who had their rights taken away from them based on the colour of their skin. Introducing the practice of genetically modifying humans to live up to the ideology of perfection could cause protests, violence, chaos and possibly a repeat of the Civil Rights Movement. For many years our society has been attempting to eliminate inequality, but this practice could just as easily re-create
Human characteristics have evolved all throughout history and have been manipulated on a global scale through the use of science and technology. Genetic modification is one such process in which contemporary biotechnology techniques are employed to develop specific human characteristics. Despite this, there are a countless number of negative issues related with genetic modification including discrimination, ethical issues and corruption. Hence, genetic modification should not be used to enhance human characteristics.
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.
With the progression of modern biotechnology, there is much contentious debate affecting ongoing developmental affairs. Controversy aligns itself with cautious thoughts on the appropriate amount of enhancement that can be applied before it undermines the “gifted character of human power and achievement (Sandel).” Michael Sandel, author of The Case Against Perfection argues through political discourse that the passion to master all of the science dominion through the use of such technology is largely flawed by our interpretations of perfection.
...pen manner that allows us to perceive the opportunities offered by human enhancement. I disagree with Sandel’s argument that genetic enhancement for its own sake is wrong but is permissible when used in medical context. I find it hypocritical of Sandel to argue against one form of genetic manipulation while favoring another. The subject of human enhancement is too pervasive and offers too many potential benefits to restrict its use. I believe that genetic manipulation and human enhancements are inevitable. I favor an open-minded and morally grounded approach to advances in genetic engineering, only then can we deal with the moral and social ramifications that stem from the conept of human enhancement.
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
"When they are finally attempted…genetic manipulations will…be done to change a death sentence into a life verdict." In agreeing with this quote by James D. Watson, director of the Human Genome Project, I affirm today’s resolution, "Human genetic engineering is morally justified." I will now present a few definitions. Human genetic engineering is the altering, removal, or addition of genes through genetic processes. Moral is "pertaining to right conduct; ethical." Justified is to be "proper; well-deserved." Therefore, something that is morally justified is ethically beneficial. My value today will be cost-benefit justice. When we examine the benefits that human genetic engineering provides to society, these benefits will outweigh any costs and will thus affirming the resolution will provide for justice. I will now present one observation—the existence of human genetic engineering will not be without limits. Patrick Ferreira, the director of medical genetics at the University of Alabama Hospitals, notes that a "technological imperative [states] that the development of extraordinary powers does not automatically authorize their use." In other words, the point of technology is to be careful, and as with any technology, a society will be meticulous in its understanding of human genetic engineering. I will now present 3 contentions that uphold my value of cost benefit justice.
Matt Bird explains “Genetic engineering can eliminate age barriers,” but he also states, “Genetic engineering’s ability to expand life has a drawback in that it can cause overpopulation.” This shows that the genetic engineering that Jonas’s community can have good things, but it may also have bad aspects to it. Matt Bird says that genetically modified babies can be made stronger, faster, tougher, and smarter, but his article also claims that doing so would have a larger chance for a mutant. In Jonas’s community they genetically modify the babies so they can’t see colors, but there is a chance that they could create a
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 1913 Teddy Roosevelt, who is considered to be one of the greatest US presidents to serve in office, wrote to the Department of Genetics, “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind [...]. The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity....” (Dykes, 2008, p. 1). What Teddy Roosevelt was referring to was the idea of enhancing the human population. Today genetic enhancement is paired specifically with technology, but throughout history genetic enhancement has been a very popular but controversial topic. It can be dated back to ancient times when men would pick wives who the men felt would reproduce the best offspring. Then genetic enhancement became extremely popular in the 19th century when Charles Darwin brought the idea of natural selection and eugenics to society. And it is taking new leaps today, where technology is being introduced with genetic enhancement. With this new technology scientists and ethicists are having a hard time trying to find an answer of whether or not this new and growing technology of genetic enhancement should be permitted. We, society, need to analyze the situation very carefully and ask ourselves, should genetic enhancement be allowed in society, or should it not?
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
In their research article, “Genetic modification and genetic determinism”, David B. Resnik and Daniel B. Vorhaus argue that all the nonconsequentialist arguments against genetic modification are faulty because of the assumption that all the traits are strongly genetically determined, which is not the case. Resnik and Vorhaus dispel four arguments against genetic modification one-by-one. The freedom argument represents three claims: genetic modification prevents the person who has been modified from making free choices related to the modified trait, limits the range of behaviors and life plans, and interferes with the person 's ability to make free choices by increasing parental expectations and demands (Resnik & Vorhaus 5). The authors find this argument not convincing, as genes are simply not “powerful” enough to deprive a person of free choice, career and life options. In addition to that, they argue that parental control depends not on genetic procedure itself, but rather on parents’ basic knowledge of what the results of the modification should be. In a similar fashion, the giftedness arguments, which states that “Children are no longer viewed as gifts, but as
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.
According to Linda MacDonald Glenn, J.D., L.L.M., “The introduction of these diseases to the human population could have devastating consequences” (Glenn). Human genetic engineering may also cause the production of unwanted mutations, such as developmental issues. The procedures that would be used for genetically modifying human cells would include numerous alterations to sperm, eggs, stem cells, or embryos before entering a woman’s uterus. This could potentially modify the growth and development of the fetus in ways that have not yet been thoroughly explored (Genetics and Public Policy Center).... ...
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.