Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics of genetic engineering
Ethics of genetic engineering
Ethics of genetic engineering
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Morality of Human Genetic Engineering
The question has brushed through the pages of newspapers and has been mentioned on talk shows and television. It has even appeared in books written by well educated men and even on the internet. Its morality and justification have been questioned since the day of its conception. You ask, what is it that has causes such a demand of attention? The concept is simple, the alteration of human genes, but the outcome is vague. The alteration of human genetics, or scientifically, genetic engineering. What is to come of this relatively new idea? Will it be the center of debate and conversation, or will it be like some new invention that quickly races into our lives and then fades like the sun at night? Human genetic engineering has caused many people to act out in rage and anger, and at the same time it has shed new light on life-on progression and science. Is human genetic engineering morally justified? I suppose you will have to decide that for yourself.
Many years ago, in fact almost 5 decades ago a French scientist named Jauque Fernier set on a journey of discovery and adventure, he set out to determine if there could be a way to alter the human gene, or basic make-up of the human body. Fernier quit his job at the famous Paris Laboratory of Science, and decided to work on his project in secrecy. From the lightly lit, two room laboratory in his Paris home, Fernier discovered one of the most miraculous discoveries of our time, the true possibility of changing the very make-up of the human being. By careful research and study, Jauque Fernier discovered that it was possible to alter or change completely the human genome. It was from that small basement lab that genetic engineering was born. As the years moved on, Fernier attended and hosted a variety of science convention and research meetings. He laid out his findings, and hoped that he could find the right person to float is project financially. At last Fernier had found his man. At a convention held in New York City, Fernier found the proper funding he needed to begin research on this new and exciting development. From that day forward, the world would not be the same.
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.
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.
Manipulating the genes of plants and animals is a feat we have mastered already. We are very close to doing the same thing with humans in an attempt to make them smarter, bigger and leaner (McKibben 22). Gregory Stock, an apostle of human engineering,' said of human germ line engineering, "It touches at the very core of what it means to be human. We are seizing control of our own evolution" (Gianelli 25). Mr. Stock summarized the very basis of genetic enhancement in this quote.
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.
Genetic Engineering has recently become a contentious topic within medical and social circles. Controversial topics such as Sex Selection and Designer Babies are linked to Genetic engineering. They are destructive in every circumstance. Genetic Engineering is detrimental towards the individual and all posterity.
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.
One of the most necessary uses of genetic engineering is tackling diseases. As listed above, some of the deadliest diseases in the world that have yet to be conquered could ultimately be wiped out by the use of genetic engineering. Because there are a great deal of genetic mutations people suffer from it is impractical that we will ever be able to get rid of them unless we involve genetic engineering in future generations (pros and cons of genetic eng). The negative aspect to this is the possible chain reaction that can occur from gene alteration. While altering a gene to do one thing, like cure a disease, there is no way of knowing if a different reaction will occur at the cellular or genetic level because of it; causing another problem, possibly worse than the disease they started off with (5 pros and cons of gen. eng.). This technology has such a wide range of unknown, it is simply not safe for society to be condoning to. As well as safety concerns, this can also cause emotional trauma to people putting their hopes into genetic engineering curing their loved ones, when there is a possibility it could result in more damage in the
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.
Genetic Engineering is the deliberate alteration of an organism's genetic information (Lee 1). The outcome scientists refer to as successful entitles the living thing’s ability to produce new substances or perform new functions (Lee 1). In the early 1970’s, direct manipulation of the genetic material deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) became possible and led to the rapid advancement of modern biotechnology (Lee 1).
If a limit is not set between using genetic engineering for treatment and using genetic engineering for enhancement, then many parents could use it purely for eugenic purposes. This could cause ethical concerns but social concerns as well. If this was allowed to occur, it would also give the rich even more advantages than they already have to begin with and drive the social classes even farther apart. The use of genetic engineering may also lead to genetic discrimination. As in the movie Gattaca, a person could easily get a print-out of his or her genotype, this information could then be used by schools, employers, companies, and others; giving rise to a new form of discrimination based on a person’s genetic profile. As the world is already full of discrimination, genetic engineering would even increase the numbers of discrimination against people.
But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code. ”(Hawking). The advancements that genetic engineering will provide for the human race is incredible and we will soon benefit from science and technology more than ever
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.
In conclusion and my personal opinion, genetic engineering could lead to a technically better and more advanced world despite the fact that it suffers from deep moral downfalls. The main issue that causes debate seems to be if artificial superiority is a viable alternative to nature. It could work in society if people only used it for things such as evading cancer, but if a new social class is formed or people start creating super humans, it’s unquestionably a problem.
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.
The moral conflicts put aside, the process of genetic engineering is difficult. Changing the proteins in people’s body differently is an unnatural action. Scientists state that genetic engineering only works 50% of the time. Also, when a new gene is placed in the gene code, there will be various mutations that will definitely result in change but may not be for the better.