Science is moving forward at an increasing rate every day. Just in the past decade, there have been numerous new discoveries in astronomy, chemistry, geology, paleontology, and many more scientific fields. However, some of the fastest growing subjects are in the field of biological sciences, more specifically genetics. Over the past twenty years a new genetic science known as genetic engineering has come to prominence. Genetic engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism’s genome using biotechnology, including a human’s genome. As a result, scientists have begun to experiment with altering human traits, known as “designer babies.” In response, many issues have arisen culturally, as perspectives argue whether or not the application of this science is ethical and under what circumstances it should be used, if at all. There are three primary perspectives: One side has the view that this science is a solution to the prevention of genetic diseases and should only be used under such circumstances, the second sees it as an opportunity to pick out desirable traits in children, as well as the prevention of genetic diseases, and the last position is against all acts of genetic engineering, including both the picking of traits and the prevention of genetic diseases. The largest factor when reviewing the different perspectives is whether or not one feels fixing what is naturally occurring, is natural at all. As a result of all three positions, new questions have begun to arise, including how genetic engineering will affect the human race, how the science will be tested and implemented, how the economics of genetic engineering will affect the population, and whether or not it is something that can be controlled.
The overall concern ...
... middle of paper ...
...eb. 13 Mar. 2014. .
6. Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: Harper & Bros., 1946. Print.
7. King, David. "The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering." Human Genetics Alert. 07 Oct. 2002. Web. 17 Mar. 2014. .
8. Rosoff, Dr. Philip M., M.D., M.A. "I'll Be a Monkey's Uncle: A Moral Challenge to Human Genetic Enhancement Research." Journal of Medical Ethics 37.10 (2011): 611-15. 22 Apr. 2011. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. .
9. Scurry, Kelly. "Experts Discourage Ban on Genetic Engineering." Duke Chronicle[Durham, NC] 3 Apr. 2013: Duke Chronicle. 3 Apr. 2013. Web. 17 Mar. 2014. .
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.
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.
Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary diseases, the genetic enhancement of human embryos is unethical when used to create "designer babies" with enhanced appearance, athletic ability, and intelligence.
"When they are finally attempted…genetic manipulations will…be done to change a death sentence into a life verdict." In agreeing with this quote by James D. Watson, director of the Human Genome Project, I affirm today’s resolution, "Human genetic engineering is morally justified." I will now present a few definitions. Human genetic engineering is the altering, removal, or addition of genes through genetic processes. Moral is "pertaining to right conduct; ethical." Justified is to be "proper; well-deserved." Therefore, something that is morally justified is ethically beneficial. My value today will be cost-benefit justice. When we examine the benefits that human genetic engineering provides to society, these benefits will outweigh any costs and will thus affirming the resolution will provide for justice. I will now present one observation—the existence of human genetic engineering will not be without limits. Patrick Ferreira, the director of medical genetics at the University of Alabama Hospitals, notes that a "technological imperative [states] that the development of extraordinary powers does not automatically authorize their use." In other words, the point of technology is to be careful, and as with any technology, a society will be meticulous in its understanding of human genetic engineering. I will now present 3 contentions that uphold my value of cost benefit justice.
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.
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.
It was not that long ago that there was an age of no internet or computers. Life around the world has changed dramatically in the past thirty years. Technology has advanced at faster rate than ever before. We now know about many new things including humans including our DNA. It seems as though, the more we learn about the make up of our bodies, the more we are learning how to manipulate them. Do we want to let science take over our natural way of life? Russell Powell of the Journal of Medicine & Philosophy agrees that there is a common worry that humans could be harmed by genetic engineering of humans. The problem, Powell says, could potentially lead to the extinction of human life. By reducing human genetic diversity, we could end up with a biological monoculture that may increase our susceptibility to deadly diseases.
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?
"Eugenics, Genetic Engineering Lite." The Future of Human Evolution. Humans Future, 2010. Web. 14 Feb 2012.
Science and technology are rapidly advancing everyday; in some ways for the better, and in some, for worse. One extremely controversial advance is genetic engineering. As this technology has high potential to do great things, I believe the power genetic engineering is growing out of control. Although society wants to see this concept used to fight disease and illness, enhance people 's lives, and make agriculture more sustainable, there needs to be a point where a line is drawn.
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,
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 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.
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 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.
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.