The Moral Implications of Genetic Engineering
Buddhism's most prominent aspect of teaching is that one should not harm or kill any living being. Each and every animal possesses Buddha-nature, and has the potential to become a Buddha, that is, to become fully and perfectly enlightened. Among the sentient, there is no superior or inferior class of animal. Human beings are not privileged in the manner that they have the right to decide who is chosen to live, die, be altered, or not be altered. The world was not created specifically for the benefit and pleasure of human beings. Furthermore, in accordance to their karma, a human can be reincarnated as an animal, and an animal can be reincarnated as a human. Each sentient being is equal, and on this basis, the iniquitous and irrevocable result of genetic engineering is and will always be morally unjust.
The most important and contradictory aspect of genetic engineering, is that one should not harm or kill another sentient being. In Buddhism that is of utmost importance. Because Buddhism is the continuous process of becoming enli...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Religion-what does that mean to me? Do I believe in my religion, what has religion done for me lately? I would have to say religion has brought me hope for a better life and knowing that I can bring a better life to my family. I believe in God, I believe that god created humans and created the earth the water the moon and stars, and all creatures that exist on earth. What have I given back to religion? Generation after generation the emphasis on worshipping God in church has been on the decline in my family. My faith has not declined I just believe that God is everywhere and I feel that I can worship Him anywhere and at anytime. Does my faith in Him come into question when I look into the advancement of technology in science? Science of genetic engineering can sometimes heal and cure the ill. Genetic engineering can reproduce foods and recreate species of any kind. Makes me wonder if my faith can handle the concept that mankind can alter what God has created, and whether or not I want to be apart of a world that is not original but fake. I will contend with these two subjects and try to find if I want to belong to a society that is engineering a new world.
A new trend lately is Buzzfeed quizzes that vary in category. You can take a quiz that tells you what celebrity you are most alike, who you should marry, and even what your occupation or college major should be. How these quizzes work are that you are asked a bunch of random questions that make you choose between colors, traits, hobbies and food. As if a color dictates if you should be a teacher or a lawyer. It’s ridiculous. But this isn’t just happening on Buzzfeed, it is also happening in our everyday lives. People are making lists of traits, colors, and hobbies; except the results won’t necessarily be for them. But for their child and their child has not even been conceived yet. Planning for a baby shouldn’t be as easy an online quiz. It shouldn’t be up to the parents to decide the genetic makeup of their unborn child.
Over 40 years ago, two men by the names of James Watson and Francis Crick discovered deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. DNA is hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms (What is DNA?). From this finding, gene therapy evolved. Today, researchers are able to isolate certain specific genes, repair them, and use them to help cure diseases such as cystic fibrosis and hemophilia. However, as great as this sounds, there are numerous ethical and scientific issues that will arise because of religion and safety.
Widely considered a revolutionary scientific breakthrough, genetic engineering has been on a path toward changing the world since its introduction in 1973 by Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer (What). However, as genetic engineering slowly permeates the lives of humanity, the morals and ethics behind what are now common practices are entering public attention, and as a culture we are left to question whether the change brought on by such a discovery bring benefits and positive change, or damage and destruction. Genetic engineering is justified through applied bioethics and despite arguments against its societal implantation, should be fully utilized in efforts to develop into the 21st century.
Genetic engineering is the modification of an organism’s genetic composition by artificial means, often involving the transfer of specific traits, or genes, from one organism into a plant or animal of an entirely different species. Genetic engineering offers the promise of such things as cures for disease and the creation of a better world. However, although some people believe that humans will be able to use the powers given by new biotechnologies to create an enlightened society, it is more likely that they will be used for destructive purposes. “If genetic engineers can discover how to redesign human beings, the result will be people with the worst characteristics of humanity. At that point, equipped with the new powers conferred by biotechnology, we will be what [Russian Communist leader Vladimir] Lenin could only dream of becoming—engineers of souls (Gray).” “Humanity will be unable to reach a global consensus on the uses of genetic engineering, and the development of science and technology will continue to be controlled by economic and military interests, as they have been throughout history. The insidious weapons created through biotechnology will be used in wars of unimaginable brutality (Gray).”
The theory of eugenics has changed throughout time from its conception by Sir Francis Galton to its modern technological interpretation in the 21st century. The term has been embraced by Social Darwinists, Progressives, human genetic engineers, and Nazis, to just name a few. The theory’s popularity has undergone cycles of approval and upheaval as it is a fairly conceptually fluid idea. Today its definition is still hazy, with both sides of its controversial spectrum debating what it really means. Is it the unethical practice used by Nazis, or a promise of a better future for the human race? It is necessary to investigate its presence throughout history, as well as examining its context in modern society to completely understand the concept of eugenics.
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.
Genetic engineering gives the power to change many aspects of nature and could result in a lot of life-saving and preventative treatments. Today, scientists have a greater understanding of genetics and its role in living organisms. However, if this power is misused, the damage could be very great. Therefore, although genetic engineering is a field that should be explored, it needs to be strictly regulated and tested before being put into widespread use. Genetic engineering has also, opened the door way to biological solutions for world problems, as well as aid for body malfunctions. I think that scientists should indeed stop making genetic engineering for humans, because it will soon prove to be devastating to the human race. It would cause rivalries and tension among different kinds of genetically engineered humans for dominance and power.
The Problem Genetic engineering has been around since the 1960’s, although major experiments have not been really noticed until the 1990’s. Science comes in different forms, the two major being cloning and genetic reconstruction. Cloning is the duplicating of one organism and making an exact copy. For example, in 1996 the creation of the clone sheep named Dolly, the first mammal to be cloned, which was a great achievement. The other form, genetic reconstruction, is used to replace genes within humans to help or enhance the life of an unborn child for a medical reason or just for the preference of a parent.
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.
Due to the fact that the field of biotechnology is very serious and potentially dangerous, rules must be set down in order to keep the research in check. The high risk research of genetic therapy needs guidelines that have to be followed in order to keep the study just. The articles that are discussed in this essay focus on ethical issues and ideas that should be followed in the field in order to keep research safe and valid.