Since the beginning of scientific research, the information discovered has led to many technological breakthroughs and advancements at a rapid pace. The velocity of the incoming discoveries may allow one to overlook the powerful emphasis we as humans hold over human life itself. While human research has been developing an understanding of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) since Friedrich Miescher isolated the double-helix shaped molecule, efforts in recent decades to map the human genome have instigated a great amount of opportunity to the potential manipulation of the basic elements of life. This potential had escalated to a reality by 2001, as the first genetically altered babies had been born and were confirmed by scientists to be genetically altered. These successful operations have sparked a mass overflow of possibility and further technological advancements with regard to human genetic modification (Whitehouse). While there is an enormous amount of potential in human genetic modification, there is an equal amount of controversy that questions the ethics of such practices. For example, should the ability to modify a child’s genetic code be viewed as a technological possibility, or should it be a social obligation to ensure that all children are disease-free? Should it be the parents’ right to modify their unborn child’s genetic code to whatever they wish or see fit? Or should the fetus hold the right to live a life without genetic modification? There are many valid arguments for both positive and negative aspects of human genetic engineering. To make a claim concerning the ethics of human genetic engineering, one must analyze each potential point in order for their opinion to hold validity. Human genetic engineering without a dou... ... middle of paper ... ...gels. Dir. Frauke Sandig. 2005. Film. 19 Feb. 2014. Evans, J. H. Playing god: Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2002. Print. Hindmarsh, Richard. “The Problems of Genetic Engineering.” Peace Review 12.4 (2000): 541-547. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Feb. 2014 Murray, Peter. “US SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT GENES CAN BE PATENTED.” Singularity Hub 22 04 2013, n. pag. Web. 22 Feb. 2014. http://singularityhub.com/2013/04/22/us-supreme-court-to-decide-whether-or-not-genes-can-be-patented/. Whitehouse, David. “Genetically altered babies born.” BBC NEWS [UK] 04 05 2001, n. pag. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1312708.stm Winston, Morton E., and Ralph D. Edelbach. Society, Ethics, and Technology. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 2012. Print.
Usage of genetic modification to pick and chose features and personality traits of embryos could conceivably occur in future times. Wealthy individuals could essentially purchase a baby with built-in genetic advantages (Simmons). Ethically, these seem immoral. Playing God and taking control over the natural way of life makes some understandably uneasy. Ultimately, religious and moral standpoints should play a role in the future of genetic engineering, but not control it. Genetic engineering’s advantages far outweigh the cost of a genetically formulated baby and
SUMMARY: Director of the Ethics Institute, Ronald M. Green, in his article “Building Baby from the Genes Up” discusses why he thinks that genetically modifying babies genes is more beneficial than destructive. He begins his article off by mentioning a story of a couple who wishe to genetically modify their baby so that they could make sure the baby would not develop the long family line of breast cancer. Green then notifies the reader that no matter where they stand on the matter, genetically modifying babies is going to become more and more popular. Even the National Institute of Health is beginning to invest in technology that can be used to genetically modify human genes. He then explains how genetically modifying human genes can be beneficial,
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 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.
Every parent's dream of having the perfect baby with pretty eyes, hair, skin, and gifted abilities. Some parents have even taken drastic measures to ensure their babies are born with these gorgeous features and talents. Some parents are willing to genetically manipulate their embryos to create their perfect baby. Bio technology has allowed parents to piece together their ideal human being from their eye color to their mental and physical abilities. Genetic Manipulation in some eyes can be seen as wrong and right in the other if used for the right reasons. I believe that scientists should use this new technology for preventing birth defects and help cure serve illness among babies. I believe genetic manipulation of human offspring is wrong because it’s unethical and causes social issues.
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.
“What Is Genetic Engineering?” Union of Concerned Scientist. N.p., 18 July 2003. Web. 3 May 2014. <“What Is Genetic Engineering? | UCSUSA.” Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 May 2014. .>.
This encyclopedia was extremely helpful. In not knowing all of the exact terms and basic knowledge of genetic engineering, it helped inform any reader of all this and more. The pages that had information on genetics and genetic engineering, had detailed definitions and descriptions for all the terms and ideas. Instead of focusing more towards the future of genetic engineering, it gave numerous facts about the technology and accomplishments of today. In addition to basic knowledge information, history, diagrams, and background information was provided. Including genetic testing, genes and their formation, and genetic background. The encyclopedia gave easy, organized, and accessible information to use.
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.
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.
"Eugenics, Genetic Engineering Lite." The Future of Human Evolution. Humans Future, 2010. Web. 14 Feb 2012.
Coker, Jeffrey Scott. "Genetic Engineering Is Natural and Should Be Pursued." Genetic Engineering, edited by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
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 increasingly causes dissonance between various groups of scientific and religious groups of people in regards to if we should or should not ‘play god’ and attempt to modify humans for the better of the race. First, let’s take a look at what exactly genetic engineering is; according to, yourgenome.org, “Genetic engineering refers to the direct manipulation of DNA to alter an organism’s
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.
Though we do not believe genetic editing gives rise to any exclusively new ethical concerns, there is more to gene editing than just modifying the genetic code. First, there is no pure agreement as to whether germline editing is just an incremental step in the right direction, or whether it signifies an unruly technique capable of overthrowing the existing orthodoxy. At this point then we will need to cautiously contemplate gene editing’s ethical insinuations, including whether present regulations are satisfactory. Second, is the issue concerning the use of human embryos for scientific research, and related concerns over producing designer babies (Andrew). Third, is that the gene editing process is still not perfected and has gone wrong in so many embryos. Without full control of the DNA editing procedure, the result for a baby born from a technology like this one is entirely unknown. The unpredictability and uncertainty means the potential of abolishing certain diseases by editing the DNA of embryos is likely to be a very long way off. There is also the matter of examining whether the technology is secure. “The notion of testing the technology on a live human baby is problematic indeed.” (Andrew). Consequently the scientific world is divided as to the probabilities for this technology in embryos, including the certainty of stopping or curing disease; there is consent that this study must precede with tremendous