Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Potential benefits of genetic engineering
Human genetic engineering in bioethics in bioethics
Potential benefits of genetic engineering
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Potential benefits of genetic engineering
Human genetic engineering technology is more advanced in the contemporary world, attracting numerous people support human enhancement. According to the Children's Medical Research Institute and The Children's Hospital at Westmead (2012), ‘over 1800 gene therapy clinical trials have been completed, are ongoing or have been approved worldwide’, which shown the increased significance of human engineering in the society.
In accordance with the Oxford Dictionary (2006), human genetic engineering refers to the science of changing the way of a human by altering the information in its genes. Human genetic engineering can be divided into two categories, including genetic therapy (pathological purpose) and genetic enhancement (non pathological purpose), both make oneself better by optimizing attributes or capabilities (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2006). It can also be treated as remedy a loss of normal human function that may prevent or reduce a person’s ability to function independently (Mayes, 2012).
I come to agree that seeking enhancement is not an appropriate method to improve human well-being. Sometimes, supporters seems a bit overstate the merits of human enhancement and overlook the drawbacks and side effects of it. I believe that there are real problems for seeking enhancement even though achievement is acquired for what we supposed not to be acquired.
Although the technological development of human engineering is increasingly mature, several concerns and problems are yet to be overcame. In The Case against Perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering, Sandel (2009) suggested that the desire of mastery is negative, which alter humility, responsibility and solidarity, the three key features of our moral la...
... middle of paper ...
...Welfare‐Oriented Patterns of Distribution. Bioethics, 26(6), 296-304.
Gene therapy clinical trials worldwide to 2012 - ... [J Gene Med. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23355455
Genetic Enhancement (2006). The National Human Genome Research Institute (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.genome.gov/10004767
Mayes, S. (2012). Genetic Enhancement: Definitions, Methodologies, and the Effect of Parental Attitudes. Penn Bioethics Journal, 8(2).
McKean, E. (Ed.). (2005). The new oxford American dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michael J. Sandel (2009). The Case against Perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Chapter 5 (pp. 85-100)
Turnbull, J., Bull, V., & Phillips, P. (2006). Oxford wordpower dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Simpson, J. A., and E. S. C. Weiner. The Oxford English dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1989.Print.
2 Delbridge, A., Bernard, J. R. L., Blair, D., Peters, P., Butler, S., Eds., The Macquarie Dictionary, Second Ed., Macquarie: Macquarie, 1995, p. 826.
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.
With the progression of modern biotechnology, there is much contentious debate affecting ongoing developmental affairs. Controversy aligns itself with cautious thoughts on the appropriate amount of enhancement that can be applied before it undermines the “gifted character of human power and achievement (Sandel).” Michael Sandel, author of The Case Against Perfection argues through political discourse that the passion to master all of the science dominion through the use of such technology is largely flawed by our interpretations of perfection.
In The Case Against Perfection, Sandel warns us of the dangers that genetic engineering, steroids, and hormones poses to society and the natural order. According to Sandel, this type of control, especially in non-medical settings, violates a respect for life that should be ingrained in all of us. Life is something difficult to predict, something that shouldn’t bend to our every single will and desire. Genetic engineering, and the like, presents an egregious violation of this respect. According to Sandel, this violation serves only to reverse the human march of progress. Sandel weaves a well-balanced argument in his book. The issue of eugenic technology is most definitely not black or white. According to him, the aspects of modification can be applied selectively, so long as it doesn’t violate the respect for life society should hold closely.
In September 14, 1990, an operation, which is called gene therapy, was performed successfully at the National Institutes of Health in the United States. The operation was only a temporary success because many problems have emerged since then. Gene therapy is a remedy that introduces genes to target cells and replaces defective genes in order to cure the diseases which cannot be cured by traditional medicines. Although gene therapy gives someone who is born with a genetic disease or who suffers cancer a permanent chance of being cured, it is high-risk and sometimes unethical because the failure rate is extremely high and issues like how “good” and “bad” uses of gene therapy can be distinguished still haven’t been answered satisfactorily.
Pearsall, J. (ed) 1999, The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 1209.
Berube, Margery S., et all; The American Heritage Dictionary Second Edition; Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston, Mass, 1985
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?
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
The New International Webster's Pocket Dictionary of the English Language. Naples, FL: Trident International, 2002. Print
Savulescu, Julian. “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Human Beings.” Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Ed. David Kaplan. 2nd ed. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield, 2009. 417-430.
Pearsall J (1999) The Concise Oxford Dictionary Tenth Edition page 286 by Oxford University Press in Oxford New York, America
Pray, Leslie A., Ph.D. “Embryo Screening and the Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering.” Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 2008. Web. The Web.
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.