Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues in genetic research
Genetic modification of human beings
Ethical issues in genetic research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues in genetic research
For much of human history, mankind has never been able to shape and alter its genetic information. But with modern day advances in technology and scientific research, the idea is slowly becoming a reality, and a major concern for many, scientifically, practically, and morally. It is only a matter of time before augmenting genetic information begins to modify humans; doing so could bring about positive change, but more likely, terrible consequences for humanity. Although the manipulation of the human genome through introducing foreign DNA has the potential to assist in health and development of organisms, doing so unrestricted ultimately proves to be unethical and problematic once applied to humans. The genetic code of all life is the basis …show more content…
For example, considering the fact that genes control trait expression in the body, stretches of DNA found to code for lower intelligence or physical strength could be augmented using DNA from other organisms known to produce desirable physical traits. The foreign genetic code would be accepted into the genome, and expressed along with other genes - the now recombinant DNA could therefore be used to raise intelligence, strength, speed, or any other physical quality deemed desirable. (Peacock 12) Moreover, modern genetic technologies can alter an individual’s genome via DNA insertion or removal to the point where regions coding for hereditary diseases such as Huntington’s or Cystic Fibrosis can be completely removed or altered, producing a resistance or even immunity to such diseases. (Adams) This has already been accomplished in recent years; in 2008, patients suffering from the neurological condition Batten disease had the progression of the disease in their bodies slowed by inserting a corrective gene into their bodies, where it was incorporated into their DNA. It is hoped that such a technology can be improved upon and used in the future to help cure diseases such as muscular dystrophy, sickle cell anemia, and hemophilia, and beyond, producing humans who are genetically resistant to heritable diseases. (Peacock
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.
The more we know about genetics and the building blocks of life the closer we get to being capable of cloning a human. The study of chromosomes and DNA strains has been going on for years. In 1990, the Unites States Government founded the Human Genome Project (HGP). This program was to research and study the estimated 80,000 human genes and determine the sequences of 3 billion DNA molecules. Knowing and being able to examine each sequence could change how humans respond to diseases, viruses, and toxins common to everyday life. With the technology of today the HGP expects to have a blueprint of all human DNA sequences by the spring of 2000. This accomplishment, even though not cloning, presents other new issues for individuals and society. For this reason the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) was brought in to identify and address these issues. They operate to secure the individuals rights to those who contribute DNA samples for studies. The ELSI, being the biggest bioethics program, has to decide on important factors when an individual’s personal DNA is calculated. Such factors would include; who would have access to the information, who controls and protects the information and when to use it? Along with these concerns, the ESLI tries to prepare for the estimated impacts that genetic advances could be responsible for in the near future. The availability of such information is becoming to broad and one needs to be concerned where society is going with it.
Human characteristics have evolved all throughout history and have been manipulated on a global scale through the use of science and technology. Genetic modification is one such process in which contemporary biotechnology techniques are employed to develop specific human characteristics. Despite this, there are a countless number of negative issues related with genetic modification including discrimination, ethical issues and corruption. Hence, genetic modification should not be used to enhance human characteristics.
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.
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.
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.
The controversy of these issues stems from the immense potential in genetic sciences for both positive use and harmful misuse. Though the questions and fears of critics reflect the wisdom of caution, the potentially unlimited benefits mandate that we pursue these technologies.
Genetic engineering on animals is the latest experimental practice used in the world of biomedical research. It has allowed the progression of human understanding towards the study of diseases and medicine. With the emergence of this technology, comes a wide range of ethical issues that need to be addressed, such as the welfare and the uncertainty of predisposed risk towards the animal. Furthermore, the current state of this practice in the United States is still new. Therefore, there is little regulation by the government along with the scientific community in enforcing specific guidelines to consider the welfare of the animals. The implication of the scarcity of regulating genetic engineering opens the possibilities of mistreatment of animals
The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be addressed: When should genetic testing be used? And who should have access to the results of genetic tests? As I intend to show, genetic tests should only be used for treatable diseases, and individuals should have the freedom to decide who has access to their test results.
Currently, the studies of genomics and genetics have made many medical advances. Genomics is the study of genes and their function within the human body. The study of genomics has the potential to diagnose a possible health risk. With this knowledge, ethical issues have generated many questions by healthcare professionals. The issue with genomics is confidentiality and privacy surrounding genetic testing. The purpose of this paper will be to explore the ethical issues involved with the use of genetic information and patient confidentiality of two family members presented in a case study of the work of Lea (2008).
Genetic engineering gives the power to change many aspects of nature and could result in a lot of life-saving and preventative treatments. Today, scientists have a greater understanding of genetics and its role in living organisms. However, if this power is misused, the damage could be very great. Therefore, although genetic engineering is a field that should be explored, it needs to be strictly regulated and tested before being put into widespread use. Genetic engineering has also, opened the door way to biological solutions for world problems, as well as aid for body malfunctions. I think that scientists should indeed stop making genetic engineering for humans, because it will soon prove to be devastating to the human race. It would cause rivalries and tension among different kinds of genetically engineered humans for dominance and power.
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.
Genome editing is a genetic engineering where some part of DNA are inserted, replaced or edited in a genome of living organisms, and for the focus of this article by John Harris, is about genome editing of human DNA. John Harris’s arguments in this article are genetic editing should be used to protect the embryo from susceptibility to major diseases and prevent other debilitating genetic conditions from being passed on through them to future generations and that there is no need for consent for future generation as long as good decision are made. Furthermore, he argues that not only the assisted reproduction by means of technology affects reproduction, but all kinds of reproduction affects future generations, through passing on genetic material
Genes are made of DNA – the code of life (Gene Therapy- The Great Debate!). The changes in genes may cause serious problems, which we called genetic disorder. In theory, the only method to cure genetic disorders is gene therapy, which basically means the replacement of genes in order to correct the loss or change in people’s DNA. Although gene therapy gives patients with genetic disorders a permanent cure, it is controversial because it has safety and efficacy problems, and raises ethical issues.
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.