Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Genetic engineering and its implications
Potential benefits of genetic engineering
Opinions on human genetic engineering
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Genetic engineering and its implications
In the essays, “Building Baby from the Genes Up” by Ronald M. Green, and “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks” by Richard Hayes, take opposing sides on the issue of altering human genetics. Green argues that, “Knowing more about our genes may actually increase our freedom by helping us understand the biological obstacles-and opportunities- we have to work with” (497). In other words, we can better ourselves and our children if we alter our genetics in order to become a more “perfect” being (496). On the other hand, Hayes says that altering human genetics has no limits. If we were to misuse this technology, we could “exacerbate existing inequalities,” “reinforce existing forms of discrimination,” “undermine the foundation of civil and human rights” and more (500). Overall, if the majority of …show more content…
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.
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.
Bullying is a serious issue that can occur to various people of different age and background. It is considered a serious problem because of the long lasting health problems that comes with it. The many effects of bullying such as, depression and alcoholism can cause changes in our genes which can possibly be passed on to the future generations. In Sharon Moalem’s essay “Changing Our Genes: How Trauma, Bullying, and Royal Jelly Alter Our Genetic Destiny” he discussed about the effects of bullying on the victims and how it causes gene changes. It is important to know how to prevent bullying as the effects can influence a person mentally and genetically which can be passed on to future generations later on.
In the essay "Ethics in the New Genetics" by the Dalai Lama, the author states that before biogenetics may continue human beings must hold with them a "moral compass" that will protect all human beings from their fundamental characteristics to be taken away; the Dalai Lama hopes this will create more ethical decisions in the future. Similarly, in "Human Dignity" by Francis Fukuyama, the author examines the rise of human genetics and how it is going down a path that does not consider human essence, or in his words Factor X, as a legitimate attribute to all human beings as these biogenetics continue. The rise of biogenetics will create an unfair advantage to many, including farmers who will find that they must depend entirely on biotech companies
In the motion picture Gattaca directed by Andrew Niccol questions the ability of allowing genetic potential, calculated by birth, to establish the fate of an individual. The determination of a person’s destiny proved impossible and preposterous as mankind were defined by their capability to make decisions on their own concerning their future. The film exhibits the problems in a genetically engineered society. Development of science technologies has advanced exceedingly to the extent where immediately after birth an infant’s destiny can be identified just by taking a blood sample. This gives a glimpse at the person’s future and the opportunity to discriminate: ‘…no longer determined by social status or the colour of your skin. We now have discrimination down to a science’. Society in Gattaca was divided into two classes valids and in-valids.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
“It 's not easy as “I want to buy and egg,” states, the director of the Donor Egg Bank, Brigid Dowd. “Not everyone realizes what 's involved, and then when they hear the cost, many just pass out.” (CGS: Designing the $100,000 Baby,” par. 13) It is a fact that having certain traits are valuable, so this shows that the mere modification used on the designer baby, the more the cost. “If you are too rigid or become too obsessed with finding the perfect image you have in mind, the choice can become more difficult,” says Dowd. (“CGS: Designing the $100,000 Baby,”par. 16) The practice of human genetic modification will not be fair because only the wealthy will have enough money to spend on designing a baby. Therefore, the wealthy will have much more advantages such as longer, healthier, and successful lives. If only people of high class are able to afford designer babies, it will cause an even greater inequality between the rich and the poor (“The Ethics of Designer Babies”). It will also create a society based on “Social Darwinism”- The survival of the fittest. If creating designer babies will cause more inequalities and Social Darwinism, why should we allow this practice? (“The ethics of Designer Babies”)
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.
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.