The Role of Genetics in Modern Society
Genes by definition are information we inherit from our parents, they
contain chromosomal information which codes for every physical and
mental attribute a human, animal or plant has. Modern society has come
to realise by finding the gene that causes the illness they can remove
it. They then can insert the correct gene to replace it. Genes are
arranged like beads on a piece of string, they occur in a fixed order.
Modern day society has also realised that by learning about genes and
increasing their understanding many useful tasks can be carried out.
For example, solving crimes; if a suspect has been identified, a
sample of that’s persons DNA can be checked against DNA (a long
thread- like molecule found in every living cell) which may have been
found at the crime scene. This process is done use of a genetic code.
Although every human may have the same basic components in a double
helix of DNA, base, sugar, and phosphate: The type of sugar may vary,
further more the order of complimentary base pairs may occur in a
different order. Thus, meaning an almost infinite number of
combinations. As our genes allow every person to have their own DNA
code, a definite match of DNA would mean that person could without
doubt be linked to the scene. All that is needed to extract DNA is one
cell - a speck of blood, a swab of saliva or a miniscule fragment of
skin that clings to a strand of hair!
Jack Straw is said to putting plans forward to enforce any criminal to
keep their genetic material on a national database with purpose of
cross matching with unsolved crimes.
As law stands at the moment writte...
... middle of paper ...
...God, yet he entrusted it to us. Meaning
God gives his permission for this to take place. Catholics may feel
that all life is sacred and thus should not be manipulated in any way.
The role of genetics within modern day society is huge, hitting the
media’s attention often several times a week. This could be due to its
complex desire to overcome barriers of human survival. The subject of
genetics plays an already great role in modern day society. With much
debate and research to continue, its future however is unpredictable.
References
1 Genes volume 7, Benjaman Lewis Oxford University Press, Page 71
01/01/2000
2 www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1126047.stm 01/12/04
3 www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/issues/designer_babies/index.shtml
02/12/04
4 www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1362276,00.html 02/12/04
In class we watch a clip called “Journey of Man” and basically the all over view of this movie was about a man named Spencer Wells and his team of scientist researching for approximately 15 years of investigating to find out our family history. They believe that they have discover some life changing information. They had this discovery for a while now but that needed time to gather up all of the facts from their research. This information that they have could transform our view on the world. They have revealed some type of time machine that has allow them to see back in ancient history. For that past ten years this man and his team have been using this time machine to gather all types of different information about the past history. This information came for just once source, blood. Many people views it as and gift from the past, but to scientist it carries the past and has a unique story behind it. A time machine hidden within us.
In the essay "Ethics in the New Genetics" by the Dalai Lama, the author states that before biogenetics may continue human beings must hold with them a "moral compass" that will protect all human beings from their fundamental characteristics to be taken away; the Dalai Lama hopes this will create more ethical decisions in the future. Similarly, in "Human Dignity" by Francis Fukuyama, the author examines the rise of human genetics and how it is going down a path that does not consider human essence, or in his words Factor X, as a legitimate attribute to all human beings as these biogenetics continue. The rise of biogenetics will create an unfair advantage to many, including farmers who will find that they must depend entirely on biotech companies
Dena Davis in the 5th chapter of “Genetic Dilemmas: Reproductive Technology, Parental Choices, and Children’s Futures” explores the global attitudes, policies, and morality towards determination of sex. She begins with presenting empirical evidence of some preferences held in countries such as India or China where there is a clear desire for male children. This inclination is so deeply held that mothers can be socially and physically harmed when, by pure biological chance, they fail to produce a male child. Davis and others allow sex selection in these cases, purely in the interest of harm reduction of mothers and their daughters born into such a situation. This example is contrasted with so-called “western” societies, where the preference
Inheritance, by Sharon Moalem, is a nonfiction novel that elaborates on what makes us who we are and why. Moalem states that even before we are born, our genes set up determines our lives. Our genes are adaptable sequences that can be altered by instances of trauma, simple dietary change, or just a small indiscretion. Through our experiences, our genes are changing and consequently limiting us. We have an unwavering predictable matter of the genes we have inherited from previous generations. Our future children could inherit many of our specific genes, good or bad. Even if our inherited
In this paper, I will argue that genetic therapies should be allowed for diseases and disabilities that cause individuals pain, shorter life spans, and noticeable disadvantages in life. I believe this because everyone deserves to have the most even starting place in life as possible. That is no being should be limited in their life due to diseases and disabilities that can be cured with genetic therapies. I will be basing my argument off the article by “Gene Therapies and the Pursuit of a Better Human” by Sara Goering. One objection to genetic therapies is that removing disabilities and diseases might cause humans to lose sympathy towards others and their fragility (332). However, I do not believe this because there are many other events and conditions in society that spark human compassion and sympathy towards others.
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.
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.
The history of harmful eugenic practices, spurring from the Nazi implementations of discrimination towards biologically inferior people has given eugenics a negative stigma (1,Kitcher, 190). Genetic testing, as Kitcher sees it through a minimalistic perspective, should be restrained to aiding future children with extremely low qualities of life (2,Kitcher, 190). He believes that genetic engineering should only be used to avoid disease and illness serving the role of creating a healthier human race. He promotes laissez-faire eugenics, a “hands off” concept that corresponds to three components of eugenic practice, discrimination, coercion and division of traits. It holds the underlying works of genetic testing, accurate information, open access, and freedom of choice. Laissez-faire eugenics promises to enhance reproductive freedom preventing early child death due to genetic disease (3,Kitcher, 198). However there are dangers in Laissez-faire that Kitcher wants to avoid. The first is the historical tendency of population control, eugenics can go from avoiding suffering, to catering to a set of social values that will cause the practice of genetics to become prejudiced, insensitive and superficial. The second is that prenatal testing will become limited to the upper class, leaving the lower class with fewer options, creating biologically driven social barriers. Furthermore the decay of disability support systems due to prenatal testing can lead to an increased pressure to eliminate those unfit for society (4,Kitcher, 214).
In the 1920s, a company in New York started a movement known as “The Eugenics Movement.” The idea of eugenics was eventually picked up by Germany, China, Peru, India and Bangladesh. The movement is still in effect till this day; however, it is not as prevalent as it once was.
Bullying is a serious issue that can occur to various people of different age and background. It is considered a serious problem because of the long lasting health problems that comes with it. The many effects of bullying such as, depression and alcoholism can cause changes in our genes which can possibly be passed on to the future generations. In Sharon Moalem’s essay “Changing Our Genes: How Trauma, Bullying, and Royal Jelly Alter Our Genetic Destiny” he discussed about the effects of bullying on the victims and how it causes gene changes. It is important to know how to prevent bullying as the effects can influence a person mentally and genetically which can be passed on to future generations later on.
Within the past thirty years, researchers have found strong evidence linking genes and disease. The development of predictive genetic tests followed shortly after the isolation of certain candidate genes. Although predictive genetic screening is only available for a handful of diseases, its effects and ramifications have become hotly debated issues in a wide range of areas, from government to religion. The debate began in the 1993 when researchers isolated the BRCA1 gene, which is associated with increased risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. The discovery of this gene led to excitement and speculation of developing a predictive genetic test to identify those women at risk for these cancers. In this paper, I will first describe the biology of genetic testing, and then discuss the pros and cons of predictive genetic testing.
Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection is viewed by many as one of the most significant and influential ideas ever conceived. However it took Darwin 20 years to publish his book ‘the origin of species’, one of the primary reasons for this was that he feared the implications his theory would have on the world. Although the theory of evolution greatly enhanced and progressed science as well as deepen human understanding of nature, it came at a cost. The theory led to the development of Social Darwinism, which further created a variety of different sociological and political ideologies. One of the most prominent of these was the idea of eugenics, which emphasized improving the genetic quality of a race through artificial selection. The eugenics
In the motion picture Gattaca directed by Andrew Niccol questions the ability of allowing genetic potential, calculated by birth, to establish the fate of an individual. The determination of a person’s destiny proved impossible and preposterous as mankind were defined by their capability to make decisions on their own concerning their future. The film exhibits the problems in a genetically engineered society. Development of science technologies has advanced exceedingly to the extent where immediately after birth an infant’s destiny can be identified just by taking a blood sample. This gives a glimpse at the person’s future and the opportunity to discriminate: ‘…no longer determined by social status or the colour of your skin. We now have discrimination down to a science’. Society in Gattaca was divided into two classes valids and in-valids.
Human beings are born, formed and changed from one generation to the other through genetics. When a child enters the world, there is always a lot of excitement and uncertainty as which parent will the baby look like? Genes of the both parents determines the physical makeup of a child and therefore, genetics plays a very big role in human development. Genetics chromosomes are distributed equally by the parents to the child and they play a big role in the development of the child. Genes determines the development of a fetus inside its mother’s womb and outside of the mother’s womb.
Genetic testing is a type of medical test that identifies the changes in chromosomes, genes, or proteins. The results of a genetic test can confirm or rule out a genetic condition and if it can be passed on. I feel that genetic testing’s pros outweigh the cons. The physical risks of the genetic testing are very small. A positive result of genetic testing can help a person maintain prevention, and treatment options. Some test results can also help people make decisions about having children. Newborn genetic screenings can help identify genetic disorders early in life so treatment can be started as early as possible so that the unwanted gene will not pass on.