Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
why should cloning be legal
why should cloning be legal
Effect of scientific development
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: why should cloning be legal
Scientific and technological advancements over the past few centuries have had mixed influence over our society. On the one hand, it has raised the standards of living, increased average life-span through superior medical facilities, connected the world together through faster means of transportation and communication. On the other hand, it has given the human kind its deadliest of weapons and arsenals which are capable of destroying the world itself and hence created a sense of insecurity and fear. Considering that a vast majority of scientific researches are carried out under the funding of the government, it becomes germane to ask whether the government should fund a research the consequences of which are unclear and may as well provide a deadlier weapon in the hands of the terrorists.
Before considering this question further, let us look back at some of the examples. The most popular example cited in this context is often nuclear fission. The important scientific discovery that nucleus of some atoms can be split under suitable conditions and huge amount of energy can be released in the process has led to development of nuclear bomb. The N-Bomb has devastation of two cities already written to its name. But the same technology has also been used to develop nuclear power plants that promise to be the next generation source of energy and hence eliminating the highly feared energy crisis of the future when all the natural oil and coal reserves are exhausted.
Another example to cite here can be the industrial revolution. During the 19th century, mechanical devices were developed which were capable of performing the work with reduced cost and increased performance and quality. It was feared that use of these machines will deprive majority of workers of their jobs resulting in unemployment and widening of the rift between the rich and the poor. But all these fears proved to be baseless. Industrial revolution created more jobs than it replaced and paved the way for a brighter future for next generations to benefit from. Had the governments banned the industrialization based on the fears of unemployment and social instability, we would probably still be using horses for commuting and pigeons for communication.
Recently there have been concerns regarding the legalization of human-cloning which promises development of artificial organs in the laboratory which can be used to save precious lives. There have also been proposals to ban genetically modified seeds even if they promise a crop immune to pests and diseases and promises better yield with superior nutritious value.
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.
You may not know it, but in the United States GM foods are quite prevalent. Approximately 65% of foods in the U.S. contain some variation of genetically altered ingredients (Ulrich 9). And of that portion, 89% of soybeans and 61% of corn is transgenic (Powell 529). This technology came to prominence in the 1990’s and since then has been a subject of much controversy. Proponents preach the undeniable health and growing benefits of this new development. Critics rail against biotech companies for the ambiguous safety status and ethical grounds of altering natural plant growth. The center stage for this conflict is Europe. While generally similar to the U.S., this region of the world is much more outwardly suspicious and hostile towards crop alterations.
would be cloning of animals or G M crops. This in a way is going
Throughout the course of human history, new technological advancements have always created opposing views, and conflict between the different groups that hold them. Today, one of the greatest technological controversies is over the morals and practicality of genetically modifying crops and animals. Reasons for doing so vary from making them more nutritious to making plants more bountiful to allowing organisms to benefit humans in ways never before possible. Genetic engineering is a process in which genes within the DNA of one organism are removed and placed into the DNA of another, a “…reshuffling of genes…from one species to another” (Steinbrecher qtd. in Epstein). However, uncertainty about the practice has resulted in several groups who argue for its future. Some believe that genetic engineering should be encouraged to its greatest potential, others argue that the cons of genetic engineering greatly outweigh any benefits and feel it should be entirely banned, while a final group feels genetic engineering should be continued but only under much more strict moderation and regulation.
There tend to be two main viewpoints when considering genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The two groups include the pro-camp, which fully supports GMOs, and the anti-camp, which is completely against GMOs. Between the two groups, there are major differences of opinion, scientific studies are interpreted with distinct disparities, and the proposed long-term benefits are argued intensely. Due to the varied sentiments regarding GMOs, governments and consumers have been unable to agree on laws to regulate the research or the implementation of GMOs.
Many people think the US should reconsider the ban placed by President Clinton, and have it modified to fit the needs of the American public. This includes the research and development of human tissues for the use of replacing organs, specialized cells, and nervous systems. Along with this, there is an implied consensus that the government should tightly regulate these experiments. Most of the people who support this position have some type of involvement with a degenerative disease or ailment that stands to be solved with the promises of genetic cloning.
Applying a patent on a genetically modified plant leads to developing an economic synergism on living organism that did not exist previously, and also may cause technical and economic issues (Schiva, 2017).
The most wonderful activity a human being can experience is new flavors and foods. For example, the first time a person tastes a delicious juicy piece of prime rib or a delightful hamburger with cheese and ham, his world is never the same. However, since the beginning of the twentieth century, the production of food has been supplemented by science. This has triggered an angry dispute between the people who support the advances of biotechnology and people who love nature. In order to understand the controversy, we have to know the meaning of genetically modified foods. With new technological advances, scientists can modify seeds from a conventional seed to a high tech seed with shorter maturation times and resistance to dryness, cold and heat. This is possible with the implementation of new genes into the DNA of the conventional seed. Once these "transgenes" are transferred, they can create plants with better characteristics (Harris 164-165). The farmers love it not only because it guarantees a good production, but the cost is also reduced. On the other hand, organizations such as Greenpeace and Friends of Earth have campaigned against GMO (“Riesgos”) because they think that they are negatively affecting the earth (Gerdes 26). Both the advocates and the opponents of genetically modified foods have excellent arguments.
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.
An example Wright gives in his book A Short History of Progress is the advancement of weaponry. He writes, “The club is better than the fist, the arrow better than the club, the bullet better than the arrow.” (2004) This example portrays that humanity has indeed made advancements in the technology of weaponry, but our instincts and how the developments come to be used creates a bigger problem than the one initially fixed. With the conclusion of the 20th century humanity saw the deadliest century with the blood soaking the hands of other humans. Advancement in weaponry has transformed humankind into a scary deadly creature. Humanity has been trapped in the idea of progress. Furthermore, it is the instincts that govern the humans the continue the course of spirally onward rather than improving and progressing.
Critics, however, still argue that transgenic crops are unnatural and unhealthy. They fail to realize that food has been cross breed for desired traits since the beginning of civilization. Humans have been using conventional breeding methods to produce desired traits for thousands of years. Genetic engineering uses the same concepts that have been used and accepted for thousands of years, but refines the process into a more precise and faster process (Key, Ma, and Drake). The process is just as healthy as conventional breeding methods and has been approved by a multitude of government and regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Academy of Sciences (Facts on GMOs). They also have the potential to end world hunger and malnourishment through the possibility of added nutrients to biotech crops (Key, Ma, and Drake). Biotechnology has an endless amount of possible benefits and the potential to develop as long as it is accepted into society for what it is; the
Throughout history many things in general have been improved upon. Four major improvement areas are: warfare, medicine, education of society, and technology. All of these improvements have brought with them positive effects. Warfare has allowed oppressed people to rule themselves; medicine has saved countless lives with vaccines and treatment programs; education of societies has allowed people to make their dreams come true; and, advancements in technology have made the previous three possible. With these positive effects also come negative effects, which are seen on a grand scale. Advancement in warfare has caused numerous deaths, medicine has advanced to the point where ethical questions arise because of cloning and stem cell research, the education of society in addition with the advancement in technology have allowed these negative advancements to be achieved.
Genetic engineering is a way in which specific genes for an animal or plant can be extracted, and reproduced to form a new animal or plant. These new organisms will express the required trait for that gene. This practice is a very controversial topic within the scientific world. It is being implemented in various areas such as agriculture even though there are many alternatives that can be found for genetic engineered crops, such as organic materials and reducing leeching of the soil. The controversy regarding this practice occurs as it is believed to contribute both negative and positive implications and dangers, not only to oneself but the environment as a whole. Genetic engineering increases the agricultural economy, the yields of agricultural produce, and also causes negative effects on the ecosystem.
In modern society, governments in both developed and developing countries contribute financial resources to various forms of research and development (R&D). This type of investment assists society to function more effectively, because of inventions and innovations in many sectors, such as health, education, technology and science. In this way, social growth is encouraged at both a national and international level, which further supports improved business and commercial expansion. Based on this, it can be understood that government funding promotes scientific exploration of new ideas and processes that can advance the standard of living around the world. Therefore, it is argued that government funding for research benefits society. This will be examined with reference to the way government funding for medical research aids society, and scientific production on technology.
If we have learned anything at all about the uses of science in the second half of this century, it is that it has had an unmistakable influence on contemporary trends and outcomes. Science has helped to make the world smaller, spatially, and larger, numerically. It has multiplied our choices and scaled up our risks. Based on science we have put humans into space and opened a new arena for warfare. Science has illuminated human beginnings and shaken age-old postulates about human worth and destiny. Science has unlocked material abundance and laid new burdens on irreplaceable resources. It has expanded human potential and dramatized human limits. It has advanced clarity and magnified uncertainty. It has penetrated the deepest reaches of knowledge and held a world hostage on the edge of crisis.