Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
15.4 ethics and impacts of biotechnology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: 15.4 ethics and impacts of biotechnology
The concepts of human enhancement and biotechnology are fairly new terms in the world of ethics and medicine. These words, although far from being unfamiliar, are not often heard in the medical field except in special cases. However, in the past few years, the research and use of biotechnology is on the rise and becoming more prevalent under certain situations. This week’s reading focuses on the issues of biotechnology in a historical and modern context, yet also addresses the pros and cons of such developments. In order to fully understand the uses of human enhancement and biotechnology, one must first decipher their purposes. Human enhancement is typically referred to as improving the overall functioning of a human being, both physical and mental. Biotechnology is a process that often results in human enhancement and is often achieved through genetic manipulation, nanotechnology, and cybernetics. Because of their power to completely change the human race, there is a a very fine line when it comes to the proper use of such technological advances. A key point is the difference between this technology’s use for therapeutic purposes as opposed to the …show more content…
It address the questions that are at the center of the medical field, such as what it means to be human, the role of technology in health care, and the boundaries of treatments involving advances in technology. Although human enhancement appears to have several positive affects, the negative affects are also great in number. Neither can be overlooked since this technology has the power to not only improve humanity, but also bring it to an all time low. By considering the factors that play into the outcomes of biotechnology, it is possible to answer the pressing questions at hand and to determine the circumstances in which biotechnology could result in beneficial
The use of bioethics to alter one’s physical and mental happiness is portrayed as deceitful to many. This critical analysis evaluates an essay that pledges justification for self-improvement as morally right. The essay, “Bioengineering and Self-Improvement,” was written by Arthur Caplan, professor of bioethics and the University of Pennsylvania and director of Center for Bioethics. As presented in the essay, the author is supports using technology in improving one’s vigor and appearance. In fact, he declares that bioengineering improves one’s self through boosted confidence and self-respect. The author furnishes strong points and his essay is convincing of positive outcomes provided with biotechnology. The author has effectively proven this
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 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.
Recent breakthroughs in the field of genetics and biotechnology have brought attention to the ethical issues surrounding human enhancement. While these breakthroughs have many positive aspects, such as the treatment and prevention of many debilitating diseases and extending human life expectancy well beyond its current limits, there are profound moral implications associated with the ability to manipulate our own nature. Michael Sandel’s “The Case Against Perfection” examines the ethical and moral issues associated with human enhancement while Nick Bostrom’s paper, “In Defense of Posthuman Dignity” compares the positions that transhumanists and bioconservatists take on the topic of human enhancement. The author’s opinions on the issue of human genetic enhancement stand in contrast to one another even though those opinions are based on very similar topics. The author’s views on human enhancement, the effect enhancement has on human nature, and the importance of dignity are the main issues discussed by Sandel and Bostrom and are the focus of this essay.
If we are not responsible with biotechnology and cloning, human nature can be altered into a new type of “human” or rather we will create something inhuman. Modern day biotechnology and cloning are advancing so quickly that it brings a
In his book “Better than Human”, Allen Buchanan explores the issues that stems from the highly controversial topic of biomedical enhancements. Buchanan aims to present his view on why biomedical enhancements should be embraced and is actually not much different from the enhancements that we already have presently. The main arguments posed by Buchanan include the ethical issues that arise from allowing biomedical enhancements are not novel and can be tackled (via regulation – legally or biologically, if we want to) and tackling the issue of what is seen as “natural” and how “natural” does not equate to optimal. Additionally, biomedical enhancements – a subset of biomedical science – generate new knowledge that can equip us with the capacity
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?
Morgan, S.Philip, Suzanne Shanahan and Whitney Welsh. "Brave New World: Philosophy, Politics, and Science in Human Biotechnology." Population Council (2005): 127-144.
Human Genetic Engineering: Designing the Future As the rate of advancements in technology and science continue to grow, ideas that were once viewed as science fiction are now becoming reality. As we collectively advance as a society, ethical dilemmas arise pertaining to scientific advancement, specifically concerning the controversial topic of genetic engineering in humans.
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. The benefits of human genetic engineering outweigh the risks by providing mankind with cures to multiple deadly diseases.
The controversy of these issues stems from the immense potential in genetic sciences for both positive use and harmful misuse. Though the questions and fears of critics reflect the wisdom of caution, the potentially unlimited benefits mandate that we pursue these technologies.
The field of biotechnology is absolutely huge. There is the medical area and agriculture area of development. The agriculture area concentrates on developing hybrid crops and manipulating genes so that the plants natural defenses activate. Although this is interesting and has an effect on our lives, I have chosen to concentrate on the medical aspect of biotechnology. I have also decided not to comment on the ethics of the new developments, since I believe that the reader should decide for oneself. More specifically, the concentration will be on the Human Genome Project, artificial organs, and companies that are involved in the biotech industry.
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.
Progression is a natural occurrence in human life as well as society. Natural curiosity, coupled with a desire for self improvement, has propelled mankind into the age of science and technology. As society progresses, so, too, does human life continue to advance and improve. Medical advances have allowed humans to overcome disease and illness, and ultimately prolog human life. For example, the success of stem cell research has granted doctors the resources to replace damaged cells and begin to repair severe injuries. The amount of scientific progress making its way into society is astounding. However, eventually the question emerges, how far should these advancements be allowed to continue? And at what point do humans bypass medical need to such advances and begin to strip themselves of their humanity? The question of how far humans should allow science to penetrate the natural makeup of humans is delicate, and not one that will result in an unanimous opinion. Yet, before humans can address this subject, they must question whether or not they have the right to alter nature to any extent.
Nicklin, D. S. 2001. Medical Issues: The Future Impact of Biotechnology on Human Factors. [e-book] United Kingdom: pp. 1-2. Available through: science and technology organisation collaboration support centre http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public/PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-077/MP-077-19.pdf [Accessed: 11 Apr 2014].