More handpicked essays just for you.
Usage of biotechnology with recombinant dna
Recombinant DNA technology a boon or bane
Usage of biotechnology with recombinant dna
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Usage of biotechnology with recombinant dna
According to M.R. Pollock, the true hazard of recombinant DNA is the technology falling into the hands of irresponsible individuals or communities. He explains that this is possible because it is very easy for detailed explanations of scientific techniques to spread all over the world. However, the major concerns in his time are about the escape of dangerous and out-of-control recombinant DNA. Pollock argues that although these concerns are warranted, they are not the most important and if scientists only worry about taking maximum precautions in their laboratories, the danger of improper exploitation of the technology of recombinant DNA would still lie. Pollock aims to raise awareness on the history of humans and how we have handled inventions
In today’s modern age science is moving at a rapid pace; one of those scientific fields that has taken the largest leaps is that of genetics. When genetics first comes to mind, many of us think of it as a type of science fiction, or a mystical dream. Yet genetics is here, it is real, and has numerous ethical implications.
. DNA can be left or collected from the hair, saliva, blood, mucus, semen, urine, fecal matter, and even the bones. DNA analysis has been the most recent technique employed by the forensic science community to identify a suspect or victim since the use of fingerprinting. Moreover, since the introduction of this new technique it has been a large number of individuals released or convicted of crimes based on DNA left at the crime sceneDNA is the abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA is the genetic material found in cells of all living organisms. Human beings contain approximately one trillion cells (Aronson 9). DNA is a long strand in the shape of a double helix made up of small building blocks (Riley). There are four types of building
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 book Genome by Matt Ridley tells the story of the relationship between genome and life by examining the twenty three chromosomes of the human DNA. Each chromosome literally and metaphorically becomes a chapter in the literal and metaphorical book of DNA. In this book of DNA, Ridley examines a particular aspect of the chromosomes chapter by chapter to see how it affects life and humanity’s understanding of life, humans and genetics itself. Although each chapter dives into different aspects of DNA and gathers stories as varied as the genes’ applications, Ridley connects them with important ideas about life and humanity’s understanding of life.
Many people change their position on this overarching question: What responsibility do people have when developing new technology? In the texts “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley, “the Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot, and “De-Extinction” answers the questions that it may impose. Each of these texts share one same belief: Society holds heavy responsibility towards technological advancements. Throughout the article, she talks about how the HeLa helped create cures for various diseases, and how groundbreaking they are.
Science is not inherently evil and never will become evil. Though the knowledge gained from science can be used toward producing evil, intended or not, and can be dangerous. The story of Victor Frankenstein shows the irresponsibility possible in the advancement of science and furthers the caution which humanity must take when it attempts to master its environment or itself. The proponents of cloning humans today should remind themselves of the lesson which Victor Frankenstein before they have to deal with the products of their research and learn the hard way.
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.
The technology of today’s world is astounding. We have learned how to battle diseases that were once thought to lead to a certain death, we have invented incredible technologies that allow us to communicate with people across the world instantly, and maybe most impressively of all, we are able to create human life. We now hold in our hands the technologies that allow those who may not have been able to conceive naturally to have children they can call their own; children who will enrich their lives in a way nothing else can, and who will continue their names and lives after they are gone. In an age where we have more power than ever to use the bodies and DNA of others for our own benefit, it becomes increasingly important that we remain open-minded and fully understand both the disadvantages and advantages equally and create stricter regulations to control how we as a people progress our civilization.
In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley tests the motives and ethical uncertainties of the science in her time period. This is a consideration that has become more and more pertinent to our time, when we see modern scientists are venturing into what were previously unimaginable territories of science and nature, through the use of things like human cloning and genetic engineering. Through careful assessment, we can see how the novel illustrates both the potential dangers of these scientific advancements and the conflict between that and creationism.
The age of genetic technology has arrived. Thanks to genetic technological advancements, medical practitioners, with the help of genetic profiling, will be able to better diagnose patients and design individual tailored treatments; doctors will be able to discern which medications and treatments will be most beneficial and produce the fewest adverse side effects. Rationally designed vaccines have been created to provide optimal protection against infections. Food scientists have hopes of genetically altering crops to increase food production, and therefore mitigate global hunger. Law enforcement officers find that their job is made easier through the advancement of forensics; forensics is yet another contribution of genetic technology. Doctors have the ability to identify “high-risk” babies before they are born, which enables them to be better prepared in the delivery room. Additionally, oncologists are able to improve survival rates of cancer patients by administering genetically engineered changes in malignant tumors; these changes result in an increased immune response by the individual. With more than fifty years of research, and billions of dollars, scientists have uncovered methods to improve and prolong human life and the possibilities offered by gene therapy and genetic technology are increasing daily.
Although humans have altered the genomes of species for thousands of years through artificial selection and other non-scientific means, the field of genetic engineering as we now know it did not begin until 1944 when DNA was first identified as the carrier of genetic information by Oswald Avery Colin McLeod and Maclyn McCarty (Stem Cell Research). In the following decades two more important discoveries occurred, first the 1953 discovery of the structure of DNA, by Watson and Crick, and next the 1973 discovery by Cohen and Boyer of a recombinant DNA technique which allowed the successful transfer of DNA into another organism. A year later Rudolf Jaenisch created the world’s first transgenic animal by introducing foreign DNA into a mouse embryo, an experiment that would set the stage for modern genetic engineering (Stem Cell Research). The commercialization of genetic engineering began largely in 1976 wh...
[Cover: discussion about how risks are balanced during risk assessment, why this is a difficult task -> proposing a set of principles and practical measures that might assist both researchers and patients, to enable more informed decisions about risk]
The birth of genetic engineering and recombinant DNA began in Stanford University, in the year 1970 (Hein). Biochemistry and medicine researchers were pursuing separate research pathways, yet these pathways converged to form what is now known as biotechnology (Hein). The biochemistry department was, at the time, focusing on an animal virus, and found a method of slicing DNA so cleanly that it would reform and go on to infect other cells. (Hein) The medical department focused on bacteria and developed a microscopic molecular messenger, that could not only carry a foreign “blueprint”, or message, but could also get the bacteria to read and copy the information. (Hein) One concept is needed to understand what happened at Stanford: how a bacterial “factory” turns “on” or “off”. (Hein) When a cell is dividing or producing a protein, it uses promoters (“on switches”) to start the process and terminators (“off switches”) to stop the process. (Hein) To form proteins, promoters and terminators are used to tell where the protein begins and where it ends. (Hein) In 1972 Herbert Boyer, a biochemist, provided Stanford with a bacterial enzyme called Eco R1. (Hein) This enzyme is used by bacteria to defend themselves against bacteriophages, or bacterial viruses. (Hein) The biochemistry department used this enzyme as a “molecular scalpel”, to cut a monkey virus called SV40. (Hein) What the Stanford researchers observed was that, when they did this, the virus reformed at the cleaved site in a circular manner. It later went on to infect other cells as if nothing had happened. (Hein) This proved that EcoR1 could cut the bonding sites on two different DNA strands, which could be combined using the “sticky ends” at the sites. (Hein). The contribution towards genetic engineering from the biochemistry department was the observations of EcoR1’s cleavage of
Nine years after synthetic biology was first practiced, the IASB finalized the Code of Conduct for Best Practices in Gene Synthesis. They said that “this event is a breakthrough in self-regulation in synthetic biology” (“Code of Conduct for Best Practices in Gene Synthesis). IASB’s code gives engineers and scientists the freedom to research organisms and genes that may hold environmental or health risks, but in a safe and secure manner. IASB addresses the possibility that synbio materials could be used inappropriately, for instance, in terrorist activities. Engineers and scientists are expected to follow previous “standards of good practice” set forth in the general engineering code of ethics and perform risk assessments of DNA sequences for genes. “Records of suspicious inquiries” and “statistics on biosecurity and bios...
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.