We are closer that humanity ever has been to being able to intentionally manipulate DNA and thereby being capable of creating organisms that can dramatically improve our lives and wellbeing as a species. However, genetic engineering has to be appropriately regulated, taking into consideration ethical issues such as human rights, the dignity of the individual, harmful consequences and issues of morality followed by them. This paper will try to expand upon various views on genetic engineering and will pay homage to my background writing engineering research papers to consider the ethics of genetic engineering-the designer baby, cloning, how it relates to ethics in engineering generally, and the responsibilities of engineers and the concerns of …show more content…
Some of the techniques used include using needles to insert DNA into an ovum; hybridomas and recombinant DNA, in which the DNA of a desired gene is inserted into the DNA of a bacterium.(Columbia University, 2007) Genetic Engineering can do some undeniably wonderfully sounding things like repairing a genetic defect, picking a select group of genes to achieve a specific outcome in the case of designer babies, curing diseases by altering the gene, and testing for inherited diseases. Genetic engineering has given scientists the power to alter the very basis of life on earth. While the chance at perfecting the human gene is intoxicating, it can also be alarming. For example you could determine the extent of the potential of your child's future simply by paying to specify their gender, skin, eye and hair colour as well as their level of intelligence. There are currently few laws pertaining to the collection and use of personal genetic information, so this is a modern and cutting edge idea that we get to work with. While that can be exciting in terms of academic achievements that are available and unclaimed, we also have a lot less to draw on morally from our preceding …show more content…
The act of human cloning raises important socio-ethical implications in cases where cloning might change the shape of a family's structure by mixing the role of parenting within a family of complex relations. An example of this is when a female DNA donor would be the clone's genetic twin, rather than mother, complicating the genetic and social relationships between mother and child as well as the relationships between other family members and the clone. The ethical questions we need to ask in these situations, specifically one where a child is genetically bred to be a donor is whether doctors and parents producing another child are doing so exclusively in order to act as an organ donating factory, and also the moral question of how the child would feel about the process. Designer babies produced to save the lives or health of their siblings or parents would know that they have been brought into existence solely to satisfy a need and not out of love for their own existence. If the creation of these babies is allowed, it would seem like society views these new human beings as mere instruments for the good of others. This causes serious socio-political, economic, ethical and religious upheavals in societies that have only just began to realise and embrace the
Silver’s argument illustrates to his audience that reproductive cloning deems permissible, but most people of today’s society frown upon reproductive cloning and don’t accept it. He believes that each individual has the right to whether or not they would want to participate in reproductive cloning because it is their reproductive right. However, those who participate in cloning run the risk of other’s imposing on their reproductive rights, but the risk would be worth it to have their own child.
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.
Therapeutic cloning is the process whereby parts of a human body are grown independently from a body from STEM cells collected from embryos for the purpose of using these parts to replace dysfunctional ones in living humans. Therapeutic Cloning is an important contemporary issue as the technology required to conduct Therapeutic Cloning is coming, with cloning having been successfully conducted on Dolly the sheep. This process is controversial as in the process of collecting STEM cells from an embryo, the embryo will be killed. Many groups, institutions and religions see this as completely unacceptable, as they see the embryo as a human life. Whereas other groups believe that this is acceptable as they do not believe that the embryo is a human life, as well as the fact that this process will greatly benefit a large number of people. In this essay I will compare the view of Christianity who are against Therapeutic Cloning with Utilitarianism who are in favour of Therapeutic Cloning.
The ethics behind genetic engineering have been discussed and argued for years now. Some arguing points often include competitive advantages, playing God, and the polarization of society, but Sandel takes a different approach in explaining society’s “unease” with the morality of genetic engineering. Broadcasted through several examples throughout the book, Sandel explains that genetic engineering is immoral because it takes away what makes us human and makes us something else. He states that by taking control of our genetic makeup, or the makeup of our progeny, we lose our human dignity and humility. Our hunger for control will lead to the loss of appreciation for natural gifts, whether they are certain talents, inherited from the genetic lottery, or the gift of life itself.
Imagine yourself in a society in which individuals with virtually incurable diseases could gain the essential organs and tissues that perfectly match those that are defected through the use of individual human reproductive cloning. In a perfect world, this could be seen as an ideal and effective solution to curing stifling biomedical diseases and a scarcity of available organs for donation. However, this approach in itself contains many bioethical flaws and even broader social implications of how we could potentially view human clones and integrate them into society. Throughout the focus of this paper, I will argue that the implementation of human reproductive cloning into healthcare practices would produce adverse effects upon family dynamic and society due to its negative ethical ramifications. Perhaps the most significant conception of family stems from a religious conception of assisted reproductive technologies and cloning and their impact on family dynamics with regard to its “unnatural” approach to procreation. Furthermore, the broader question of the ethical repercussions of human reproductive cloning calls to mind interesting ways in which we could potentially perceive and define individualism, what it means to be human and the right to reproduction, equality and self-creation in relation to our perception of family.
The debate over whether or not the use of genetic engineering in humans is ethical has been a highly controversial topic for the past two decades. True, scientists can genetically manipulate genes in order to help cure genetic diseases, but genetic engineering can also have some undesirable consequences. Not only could genetic engineering harm humans physically, but change the way we view other humans. While the use of genetic engineering in humans can treat and cure some medical conditions, genetic engineering is a discipline that should remain unexplored.
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
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
One of these moral dilemmas is that genetic engineering changes the traditional dynamic that occurs between the parent and the offspring. This issue arose over the possibility of having a human embryo with three genetic parents which is now possible due to genetic engineering. The procedure in question “involves transplanting the chromosomes from a single-cell embryo or from an unfertilized egg into a donor egg or embryo from which the chromosomes have been removed”(Foht). The procedure itself is very useful for women with mitochondrial disorders but the issue involved with this is that the embryo would technically have three biological parents. There needs to be a real concern about “the way genetic engineering can alter the relationship between the generations from one of parents accepting the novelty and spontaneous uniqueness of their children to one where parents use biotechnology to choose and control the biological nature of their children”(Foht). There is a special relationship between children and their parents that may be disappearing very soon due to these techniques. Children could be born never truly knowing one of their genetic parents. If these procedures continue to prosper people will have to “accept arrangements that split apart the various biological and social aspects of parenthood, and that deliberately create
Genetic engineering is the “science of altering and cloning genes” to treat diseases but it can also branch out to the creation of designer babies or human modification according to Dictionary.com. DNA faulty is said to be the “major causes of death and disability, including cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes” (Merz). People deem the practice of genetic engineering as a breakthrough for humans because of the possibility of humans cure of cancer or diseases. This is an accomplishment because of its purpose of saving lives but some argue what consequences it will bring. One of them being experimentation and the amount of time it will take scientists to produce their desire result. From the article “Designer People,” the author
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.
As human technological innovation proceeds into the twenty-first century, society is faced with many complex issues. Genetic engineering and cloning, encryption and information security, and advanced weapons technologies are all prominent examples of technological issues that have substantial moral and ethical implications. Genetic engineering in particular is currently a very volatile subject. One important aspect of this field is GMO or Genetically Modified Organisms, which has far-reaching potential to revolutionize modern agriculture. GMO crops are already being developed by many leading biotech companies, and have come under intense scrutiny by society. This is easily understood, however, because there is not much that is more important than how people get fed. Specifically, where their food comes from, and how it is produced. Thus, it is essential that we examine the ethical dilemmas as well as the practical benefits posed by such a powerful technology.
"Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
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.