In the year of 1543, laying on his death bed, Nicholas Copernicus published the On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. The notions and ideas that were presented in Copernicus’s book have not only led us to believe that the Earth orbits around the Sun, but rather have led the general populace to have an intrinsic belief in the scientific method. Today, this very belief in the scientific method is being challenged by human morality. As biochemists continue to widen the scope of biopharming, countless individuals are beginning to wonder where to draw a line on transgenic organisms. As individuals, themselves, are beginning to take a stance on transgenics, governments and health organizations are also closely monitoring this ongoing struggle between scientific advancement and human morality. Whilst some refer to transgenic organisms as, “Frankenfoods”, the proponents see this as the second Agricultural Revolution. Biochemists cite the classical example of a transgenic banana which could produce vaccines as a means to continue their research. Undoubtedly if such a banana did exist it could potentially provide millions if not billions of people access to vaccinations. The chair of the Food and Agribusiness Institute at Santa Clara University states, “Bioengineering is just a more refined process [of selective breeding], which will probably result in more productive animals and plants at a lower cost than traditional breeding methods.” This “more refined process” has served to create corn, which is resistant to pests such as corn borers; tomatoes, which can resist cold temperatures and have increased traveling durability; and arguably the most important, cattle which is resistant to mad cow disease. Aside from the clearly visible genetic advantages provided by transgenic organisms, proponents further cite the colossal economic impact of GMOs. PG Economics issued a report which reveals the net economic benefit at the farm level in 2011 was $19.8 billion, and over a 16 year period from 1996 to 2011 the global farm income gain was $98.2 billion. This 16 year period coincides with the adoption of transgenic cropping systems. Undoubtedly, critics have raised counterarguments to most if not all the arguments presented by the proponents of GMOs. These counterarguments range from religious to empirical. However the most critical counterarguments stem from the visible negative effects of GMOs. A study published in Nature magazine concluded that the transgenic modification which resulted in corn stock being resistant to pests such as corn borers, additionally caused the pollen to harm monarch butterflies.
Barbara Kingsolver discusses genetic manipulation through generations of different species in her essay A Fist in the Eye of God. These genetic manipulations occur due to the species acclimating to their environment. Diversity in genes is nature’s survival of the fittest. Only the strongest survive and they pass on their strong traits. With today’s technology, we have the capability of altering genes within a species DNA. This paper examines the detrimental repercussions that GMO 's cause to the environment and insects necessary for the progression of crops.
In the video, “Genetically Modified Crops: Hope vs. Hype”, reveals that a Cornell study followed-up by Iowa state researchers show that “pollen from GMO corn is killing the larvae of the Monarch butterflies, which is not at all what the corn 's designers intended” (“Genetically Modified Crops: Hope vs. Hype”). GMO seeds are contaminating our environment, which were presumed safe before. Genetically-modified organisms are the unorthodox procedure of moving genes from one species to a completely different and unrelated species. These unnatural transferring of genetics are causing death among insects. Undeniably, nature 's long-lived ways are safer compared to the bio-tech 's short-lived ways. They hold many uncertainties. Such as, Niagara
The controversy surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) lies in the lack of acceptable research on the topic. While numerous studies and experiment have been conducted, unbiased results have yet to be published. On one hand, bioengineers claim their GMOs and GMO products are not harmful and may even be beneficial, while on the other hand, scientists and agriculturists claim they are terrified about the uncertainty surrounding these unnatural products. This paper will explain what GMOs are, then analyze positive and negative claims and determine if they have any validity.
If you read the paper or watch the news, you’re undoubtedly aware of the debate raging over genetically modified food. Is it bad or is it good? Between the feuding sides, you might find yourself a little lost and wondering which side is right. Answers to seemingly simple questions have been blurred or exaggerated by both sides. On one side genetically modified food is more sustainable, safe, cheaper, easier to grow and has the potential of creating disease-fighting foods. Although this is positive and good intentioned, there may be unintended consequences that we have been quick to overlook. Those opposing genetically modified food clam that it is dangerous, harms the environment, increases health risks, and causes infertility and weight gain. Even things like the declining bee population may have closer ties to modified food than previously thought. We must look to science for answers. By studying genetically modified organisms (GMOs) we can guide our decision about whether we want to be consuming them.
The advancement of progress in the fields of biology and technology and, by extension, the scion of these two fields – biotechnology – is generally being lauded by experts and laymen alike. Genetically modified foods, Dolly the sheep, stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are but some of the achievements in this field that have changed the scientific landscape, drawing attention to the past, present and also potential future exploits of men and women involved in biotechnology. Mainly because it is becoming increasingly apparent that the field may, in the near future, extend beyond therapy into human enhancement. With the possibility of such expansion looming ahead, it may be prudent to question whether or not such enhancement is morally and ethically desirable within the context of human nature and also nature itself. And although transhumanists, advocates of enhancement, themselves agree that there are concerns such as potential danger to health, technological difficulty or the impact on the environment tied to human enhancement, their opposite numbers from the bioconservative side of the divide feel that there is much more to be concerned about. Some even argue that the idea of human enhancement beyond therapy, or in other words makign ourselves “better than well”1 is inherently flawed. In any case, should human enhancement in its many forms become commonplace, it is surely going to “affect the rate of human intellectual, material and political progress”2. This essay will focus on illustrating the conviction of the bioconservatives about the detrimental nature of human enhancement in relation to two hypothetical but nonetheless very controversial forms of it – expansion of human cognitive abilities using nanotechnology and ...
To begin with, there is too much Gmo in our food. We should make less foods with GMO and grow more foods on farms. Also a lot of people prefer non GMO foods over GMO foods. If we also make more of our food on farms we can get more people to get jobs. “ GM critics also worry that transgenic crops could harm wildlife and cause lasting damage to fragile food chains. GM crops harm wildlife. Since some birds and small mammals feed on these crops they will soon disappear. They will disappear because they are making the crops
In a feeble attempt to cure world hunger scientists developed GMOs, or 'genetically-modified organisms', which are genetically enhanced crop plants created for human consumption, and although GMOs were initially designed to benefit the world, it appears as though they are doing as much harm as they are good. Originally, GMOs were designed to c...
In the years between 1997 and 2010 the area of land cultivated with GMOs had a huge increase, we have moved 4.2 million to 365 million hectares. In fact, 10% of the planet’s arable land is used for genetically modified crops. Most of these crops are located in North America, but it should be registered, in recent years, a rapid increase in acreage in so-called developing countries. In the USA in the years 2009/2010, the vast majority of soy (93%), cotton (93%), corn (86&) and sugar beet (95%) have been grown with genetically modified varieties. Data for 2012 published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) show that in Europe there has been a 13% increase of cultivated area (globally, the increase was 6%).
GMOs have their pros and cons, but in terms of their effects on biodiversity, the technology is almost solely negative in how it affects the environment. Genetically modified food can damage agriculture as it allows for less restraint on chemical usage which leads to stronger weeds and weaker soil. The crops can easily spread their genetically modified genome through the wind. GMOs damage living organisms by making nasty insects stronger and vital insects weaker. GM foods are correlated with the decline in mammal and bird health and the introduction of GM animals like salmon poses a threat to the ecosystem of wild fish. GMOs can also bear consequences in terms of genetic pollution and alteration through contamination and mutation to adaptation to evolution to species extinction. Indeed, some claims are not well supported and may require testing, like genetic alteration through consumption or the validity of correlating animal health deficits with GM feeds. However, overall, GM foods clearly affect the world negatively in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem impacts.
This has created a large amount of debate on local, national, and international levels about the safety of genetically modified foods to human health. There are many angles that have been taken from different groups on this issue. Some believe it is harmful to our health, with one source stating that, “mice eating GMO corn had fewer and smaller babies (Jagelio 2013).” Without testing on humans how are we to know these harmful effects aren’t impacting our health and reproduction. Other groups see GMOs as being both beneficial and having no impact on human health.
Throughout history, human beings have struggled to achieve control over nature. Now, in the twentieth century, with all of the scientific advances in computers and medicine, humans have come closer than ever to reaching this ultimate goal. However, along with the benefits of these new and rapidly increasing scientific advancements come moral, ethical and social issues that need to be given consideration. The Computer Revolution has not only vastly improved communication and produced amazing amounts of information, but has raised questions of human rights, privacy and social implications. While medical research has achieved medical benefits not even conceivable in the past, it has also raised major ethical and moral issues. Humans must consider all of these things when making decisions or judgments about human control over nature.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a cause of continuous debate. What would be the purpose of producing genetically altered food? Many argue that GMOs could prove to be very beneficial, the use of GMOs could lead to advances in medicine, and agriculture, and they could also prevent famine in poor underdeveloped countries. Genetic modification offers many benefits: pest control, disease resistant crops, drought resistant crops, no use of insecticides, nutritional beneficial foods, and less contamination. This is only a short list of the many benefits offered by the used of GMOs. With so many benefits why are we opposed to such a miracle? (NERC 2005)
Scientists have been changing genomes of plants and animals by integrating new genes from a different species through genetic engineering, creating a genetically modified organism (GMO). Consumers in America have been eating GMOs since 1996, when they went on the market. There are benefits to genetically modifying crop plants, as it improves the crop quality and increases yield, affecting the economy and developing countries. But there are also negative effects from GMOs. Consumption of GMOs has various health effects on both body systems of animals and humans. GMOs also affect the environment, ecosystems and other animal species. The cons outweigh the pros in the case of GMOs.
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.
The natural sciences aim to propel our world into the future with new technology and ideas while going back to the beginning to begin to understand our world. How can we progress if we do not understand where we came from? This is why scientists want to perform various experiments on animals and humans alike. Experiments of this kind have been altered, slowed down, or completely brought to a halt as a result of morality's involvement. Scientists are able to place tracking agents in developing human embryos i...