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.
Society seems to be divided between the idea if science is more harmful than helpful. We live in a world where humans depend on science and technology to improve important aspects of society, such as medical machinery, which supports the fact that science is more of a friend than a foe. Science is advancing every day. The United States has come a long way with its ongoing developments, giving individuals a chance to improve society as a whole. Not only does the United States benefit from such growth, but every modernized country does so as well. Through science and technology, individuals learn from past endeavors and apply it to present and future projects, paving the way for new discoveries and efficient enhancements
For the past few years stem cell research has been a widely debated topic; however, former President Clinton?s stance?allowing federal money to be spent on tightly controlled stem cell research?lead to intense debates over federal funding for stem cell research. There are four ways of obtaining stem cells, which are taken from embryos that are approximately one week old. They are using unwanted embryos from fertility clinics, embryos from aborted fetuses, cloned embryos, and embryos created for research purposes. Stem cells can also be taken out of adult bone marrow, but scientists do not think that adult stem cells hold as much medical potential. Conservatives are against federal funding for stem cell research because they feel that by doing such the government would be contributing to ?murder.? This idea is rooted in the religious beliefs, which include the belief that life begins at conception, held by conservatives. However, liberals support federal funding for the research of embryos because they question whether embryos are full human beings and believe the research could expedite potential medical breakthroughs.
Are embryonic stem cells the cure to many of the human body’s ailments, including defective organs and crippling diseases, or is their use a blatant disregard of human rights and the value of life? Thanks to the rapid advancements in this field, the potential benefits of stem cells are slowly becoming reality. However, embryonic stem cell research is an extremely divisive topic in the United States thanks to the ethical issues surrounding terminating embryos to harvest the stem cells. In response to this debate, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment in 1995 to prohibit federal funding of research that involved the destruction of embryos. President Bush affirmed this decision, but more recently President Obama lifted many of these restrictions. Despite the significant portion of Americans that do not support embryonic stem cell research, it should be federally funded because of the potential health benefits, the definition of human, and the opportunity to clearly define regulations for ethical research.
Furthermore, to think that science is immune to the power establishment, one must assume that it is in no way affected by government or companies with money to spend. This, like the assumption that science is neutral, is also incorrect. In order for a scientist to be funded in his research, he must submit proposals to those power establishments that have money. These powerful companies and governments will only fund those projects they deem important to their interests and goals. In this way, science is extremely political in its effort to obtain money and support because it must please those power establishments who are, by nature, political.
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.
Lately there has been many debates over foods that have been genetically modified. Imagine the heated debates if it were humans that started to get genetically modified. We would live in a world where one could pay ...
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.
Whether we like it or not genetic modified organisms (GMOs) are on our dinner table and in our air. Suddenly, activists and the media have become obsessed with avoiding GMOs and labeling them as an evil new technology. The truth is these products have been out in the public since the early 1990s. Genetic engineering (GE) is just a tool that is being used to improve our methods in agriculture, just as technology including computers or other new electronic updates that make our lives easier day by day. We use science to make improvements little by little over the years while some fail others may be successful. It is safe to say some technology that comes with life altering benefits may also come with some risks. Those who argue against GMOs choose to ignore all the benefits GE has provided us with so far and tend to focus on risks that realistically have nothing to do with the science of genetic engineering. Most anti-GMO activists are uneducated on the topic and listen to unreliable bias sources. The media has people focused on the wrong side of the debate. Banning genetic engineering, an important biotechnology, would be an impossible and foolish fight. In a world with a tremendously fast growing population, climate changes due to global warming, and economical faults, GMOs might be the best solution.
Genetically engineered goods are a huge controversy in the United States. There has been a lot of conflict between different groups about whether or not genetically engineered foods should be so widely sold or at least not labeled. There are many people on both sides of the argument that have given great insight as to what genetically engineered foods can do for/to people. Those that are in favor of genetically modified food say that it allows for farmers to have a less risky harvest and this can then lead to producing more food for a higher population.
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.
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.
But opponents for GMO continue to fight and protest the safety of any GMO’s and are we truly ready for them, currently agricultural plants are one of the most frequently used examples of genetically modified organisms, some benefits of genetic engineering in agriculture are increased crop yields, which advocates believe will reduced the costs of food and reduce the need for pesticides. They also believe that they enhance the nutrient composition of food quality and is resistance to pests and disease, many feel that using GMO’s can benefit the world 's growing
Something that may come to everyone’s mind nowadays and the number one thing that is looked at after a presidential election and every New Year is stock. Stocks determine the health of the economy, the money people are willing to invest, take risks on and win back or lose, but because of the crash, it discouraged people from investing in stocks and instead a huge amount of withdrawals happened leading to the economic collapse that occurred. The U.S. government began to worry it would run out of gold because everyone began to turn the couple dollars they still had into gold, so the Federal Reserve decided to increase the value of the dollar. Banks began to fail and lose savings; people had to withdraw the money they had left, leaving banks no other choice but to shut down. In turn, everything in the present and the future is judged through the stocks as they hold a high importance in industrialized economies showing the healthiness of said countries economy.
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.
It is wise for one to be skeptical of new technology, when this technology is untested. However, if these ideas and products are then proven to be safe and beneficial, it is important to accept them, to continue the evolution and betterment of the human race. Sometimes it is hard for a society to accept a radical technological change, as is the case with genetic engineering. Despite decades of studies and implementation of genetically modified organisms without a single case of health or safety issues, environmental groups and many governments vehemently oppose genetically modified foods (Reville). This fear is based off of inaccurate science or no science at all, and is restricting the implementation of hugely beneficial technology. Extensive research into this subject has come to one conclusion. Genetically modified foods have a positive impact on society and the environment.