Human Genetic Engineering – When Man IS God
Forget the snowman and build a real man, in a Petri dish, in a lab, to any specifications. This is not science fiction, this is science, made possible by research completed by The Human Genome Project that yielded the first “genetic blueprint” for building a human in April, 2003 ("All”1). The science is known as human genetic engineering; more specifically, germ-line engineering. “Germ-line engineering is genetic changes made in eggs, sperm or early embryos; [where] the modified genes would appear not only in the person who developed from that embryo; but would be passed on to all subsequent generations. This scientific advancement empowers scientists to genetically edit human DNA using a powerful
…show more content…
The American Medical Association lists cancer, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease), cardiovascular disease and arthritis, as established cures or possible cures using somatic gene therapy (“Gene” 1). The application for somatic gene therapy involves the repair or replacement of a defective gene with a corrected gene manipulated in a lab. The treatment affects only the targeted cells of the individual receiving treatment and, is isolated to the individual receiving treatment, meaning not passed on to subsequent generations. This application offers cures without impact on future generations, effectively making further germ-line engineering …show more content…
Currently, only 17 of 49 countries prohibit germ line modification (“Countries” 1). Even the United States has no law outlawing germ-line engineering, but simply refuses to provide funding; however, this does not prohibit private research. Meanwhile, news confirmed China’s scientists already modified the human gene using the CRISPR application. They buffered admonishment by explaining they used faulty human embryos, originally destined for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and obtained from local fertility clinics (Sample 1). Months earlier, rumors of this announcement, prompted 17 leading biologists to submit a letter to Science Magazine, establishing genome editing as a science that “…offers unparalleled potential for modifying human and nonhuman genomes…” (Lanphier, Edward, Fyodor Urnov, Sarah Ehlen Haecker, Michael Smolenski, and Joanna Smolenski 1). They went on to voice their fears of possible misuse of the technology’s application; citing eugenics (selective breeding) as one, and urged the entire scientific community to take a collective pause and consider the global impact of this science before proceeding further (Lanphier, Edward, Fyodor Urnov, Sarah Ehlen Haecker, Michael Smolenski, and Joanna Smolenski
Disputes over human genetic engineering concern the means for achieving assumed ends, rather than being a healthy discussion about the ends themselves. This book not only explores how decisions about the ethics of human genetic engineering are made, but also shows how the structure of the debate has led to the technological choices we now face. It is the ultimate question we will face. We have already create many things we want, and we even can rebuilt organs for the wounded. It is not even a problem of science and technology——which we can easily do nowadays.
In the modern world humans have been able to design and create nearly anything, most to aid us in our daily lives and improve our standard of living. It is only inevitable that eventually humans would take our superior knowledge and skill to manipulate life itself and change our genome to produce a healthier and even more superior human standard of life. In recent years discussion about gene therapy has changed into a promising possibility to treat many of our common human diseases and disorders. Although gene therapy might be the answer to many problems, it has been met with a number of logistical and ethical hardships. With the prospect of being a treatment for inherited genetic disorders, cancers, and viral infections, gene therapy seems like the logical fix-it-all bandage that many people would benefit from.
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.
"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.
Genetic engineering is the alteration of a living, breathing organism that changes its DNA by replacing it with new, healthy DNA segments. Catalano defines a designer baby as “a baby whose genetic make-up has been selected in order to eradicate a particular defect, or to ensure that a particular gene is present” (1). The term “designer babies” is actually coined from journalist and commentators when referring to various reproductive technologies. This term is never actually used by scientists (Baird). In his article, Catalano predicts that with technology advancing at such a rapid pace, that one day designer babies will soon be a reality. Even though genetically engineering humans is frowned upon by most of society, it has the potential to become commonplace in the near future. Similar procedures that alter the genes of a fetus exist today but are less intrusive include the preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the nuclear transfer. The Human Genome Project will help scientists learn how to genetically engineer humans
(Callaway, 2016) this added even more fuel to what was already a volatile issue. Shortly after, National Geographic released an article called Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos? containing pieces by John Harris, a professor of science ethics at the University of Manchester, and Marcy Darnovski, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, with each of the writers supporting opposing viewpoints. (2016) The contention between the two factions is ongoing, and will continue until the debate is settled one way or
Modern technology has taken amazing strides in the past few years. We have changed the way we deal with food production, agriculture, and many other aspects of life.. Scientists have begun utilizing these advances in technology and knowledge to gain insight as to how the human species functions. They are on the verge of manipulating the way humans relate to the natural world. This revolutionary breakthrough is what is known as Genetic Engineering. Genetic Engineering is the process of manually adding new DNA molecules into an already existing organism. A simplified version of the process works by physically removing a gene from one organism and placing it into another. This is being done in an effort to
Is genetic engineering right or wrong? To answer these questions we need to define genetic engineering. It is the use of biotechnology to control the genes of an organism. Genetic engineering isn’t new. It has been with us for centuries. In those days, we used it for agriculture and selective breeding of animals. Our pets, especially dogs and cats are good example of selective breeding.
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
Throughout modern day society, many people have thought about or have come in contact with the issue of genetically modified human engineering, and whether or not this topic is justifiable. There are many disadvantages to the practice of altering human genes. Genetically modifying human genes would invoke conditional love from the parents of the child and could potentially instill a mentality of unhealthy perfectionism, as well as consumerism. If the alteration of human genetic data was acceptable, then parents who would choose their children’s genes would set unrealistic expectations on their child’s performance. Genetically modifying human genes would also attribute to the erosion of social and civil
Human Genetic Engineering: Designing the Future As the rate of advancements in technology and science continue to grow, ideas that were once viewed as science fiction are now becoming reality. As we collectively advance as a society, ethical dilemmas arise pertaining to scientific advancement, specifically concerning the controversial topic of genetic engineering in humans.
Genetic engineering could be a possible solution to problems environmentalists are experiencing today with some species conservation efforts failing. Many researchers are considering resurrection of certain extinct or endangered species as the next viable option in conserving their existence. With that in mind, a few other important questions arise as well, such as whether reviving a species is a feasible idea or the question of which species would make practical candidates for “de-extinction”?
Genetic engineering seems decades away, but through modern technology, it has recently entered the human realm. Some believe genetic engineering will bring forth great advancements in the human brain and body, but instead some believe one mistake creates a world where every child will be genetically engineered just to keep up with the rest of society. Many times, the media plays a very strong role in the image of this issue, and masks the true identity of this social injustice. However, what forms of genetic engineering can be done in humans today? What is in store for the future? What are the risks and what could be the possible benefits? Currently gene therapy is one of the only ways to change the genetic makeup of an animal or human. Also,
Talking about the possible difficulties of the technology is one perspective, but it is also worth taking about the potential benefits of human genetic engineering as a cure for medical ailments, or simply to make humans more physically capable. There are an incredible variety of diseases plaguing the world, but due to the impressive ability of organisms to adapt through evolutionary forces, particular genes develop to deal with specific ailments, although these genes often have not had sufficient time to spread through the population. For example, a certain mutation referred to as a CCR5 32 deletion bestows hosts with an immunity to HIV, and there are not any negatives to the deletion, so distributing the mutation could effectively function as an HIV vaccine (Theodorou et al.). In addition, while certain
Francis Fukuyama has a one in a million thought processer that scientist call his brain. Fukuyama had a thought of genetically engineering humans, just like America did with crops to enhance their growth and features. This intelligent man influenced society, not just by changing the unborn but their whole lineage. Fukuyama did in fact admit that “there are many ethical issues involved in these technologies, but the e...