Everyday, we strike to be a better person than who we are today. When we look at all the successful people in our society such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or even just people from our daily life, we often hear them saying they have more to learn. Our society values the individuals who do more and learn more. Some people want to get into the best college; some people want to be the fastest people on earth; some people want to never get sick, and some people want them all. In 1927, H.J. Muller demonstrated that genetic could be manipulated under X-ray. Fifty years later, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer proved the theory of DNA Cloning. At the end of the Twentieth century, scientists started developing genetic engineering in animals. In early …show more content…
2000s, more and more researchers began to modify human DNA on animals. Nowadays, scientists can modify fetus’s genetic during pregnancy. With the progress scientists made in the past century, humankinds imagined the perfect human would soon become reality. Nevertheless, though there were significant progress on genetic engineering development, scientists presented huge risks on using this technology. Rats received tremendous biological damages when scientists attempted to modify their DNA. Researchers proved the possibilities of receiving different diseases and deformities when the researchers ran tests in the laboratory. Will we be willing to risk the possibilities of losing our life to become the perfect individuals we envision ourselves to be? For many years, genetic engineering only applied to non-reproductive cells, also known as gene therapy, to treat diseases in the patient, rather than treating the diseases within the chromosome.
Gene Therapy carried quiet a successful result so far within the non-human species. In the past decades, scientists achieved major success on treating plants to maintain extremely high productivity. Scientists cautiously developed the technique of human genetic engineering due to the mistake occur with cloning. Scientists failed to recognize what cloning could do to humankinds, but simply sustaining reproductive system. This time, researchers approached human genetic engineering with the mindset of treating …show more content…
disease. Current, the genetic engineering has been widely used in the medical field. Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem conducted a genetic engineering implementation to two different couples. Both couples had different biological diseases and they decided to try out genetic engineering to restore their health. This implementation was being recorded as part of the evidence on using genetic engineering technique. One of the doctors from the medical center, Gheona Altarescu discussed the conclusion from this implementation. During this implementation, the doctors used chromosomal microarrays(CMA) as the main technology to diagnose the disease. CMA successfully identified the issue in the chromosome X was the main cause for the disease the child carried. For the second couple, the CMA were able to identify with the accurate result on the source of the disease. Nevertheless, CMA failed to process any further after the diagnosis. Unlike other species that scientists tested on, human carried many unique characters individually. During the process, there were too many uncertainties on every action steps. For instance, both CMA and the doctors could not guarantee the consequences of the implementation. Even if genetic engineering treated the disease successfully, the result would not promise the health of the next generation. At the same time, doctors also included the potential uncertainties on the side effect due to limited amount of experiences being conducted at the moment. One of the biggest risks in human genetic engineering included the new genetic mutation. In other words, scientist could not anticipate how would genetic engineering mutate the chromosomes. Currently, scientists limited their experiments on non-reproductive cells. In order to answer the question with absolute certainty, scientist ought to conduct experiences on reproductive cells, human. The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified (GM) were evaluated for 2 years in rats. This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of the GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as the investigation. The research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study. The researches report the major findings with 34 organs observed and 56 parameters analyzed at 11 time points for most organs. Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier. This difference was also evident in three male groups fed with GM maize. All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments. Males presented up to four times larger palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted. These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences. In many cases, genetic modified products contained uncertain reactions after their interactions with human cell. In 2008, the GreenPeace report written by Dr. Parr responded to the potential danger of consuming genetically modified crops. According to the report presented by Dr. Parr, Showa Denko’s genetically modified products produced L-tryptophan amino acid that interacted with human cells. Unfortunately, the products killed and disabled people who took the product on a regular basis. It turns out their products contained an epidemic of syndrome that caused severe muscle pain. Hundreds of people were either killed or physically disable. Scientists discovered the deadly interaction between L-tryptophan amino acid and human cells. The general public, especially the anti-genetic engineering activists strongly protested against the real life application of genetic engineering. Nowadays, more than half of foods produced in the world were genetically modified. Scientists had proven that genetic modified food might occasionally cause normal sickness, yet in other occasions, the uncertainties of genetic modified products could potentially have deadly effect on humankinds. In recent years, scientists developed clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) to strengthen the human immune system. In short, CRISPR allowed scientists to edit genomes with unprecedented precision and flexibility. The invention of CRISPR represented an huge step forward in genetic engineering as it simplified the process of alternating human DNA. Nevertheless, CRISPR suffered from off-target errors in many different examinations. According to the report by Feng, scientist conducted a project using CRISPR on monkey since both monkey and human had two pairs of chromosomes. However, during the experimentation, CRISPR off-targeted in numbers of trials. When MIT conducted this experiment, scientists just released CRISPR. Feng stated with confidence that scientists would develop CRISPR in reasonably short period of time based on the progress made in genetic engineering field. Feng also concluded that off-target errors could easier be fixed comparing to other technical difficulties during the implementation process. Besides the off-target errors, the rest of CRISPR process appeared to be quite successful. Genetic engineering began a paradigm shift in human evolution, whether it’s truly beneficial to humankinds or not.
For many individuals in the world, human genetic engineering determined to be the path of moving humankinds forward. Experiments had shown the probabilities of treating human diseases with by alternating human DNA. Many governments allowed hospital to implement genetic engineering on patients only if there were no other alternatives. Patients understood the risks of conducting this process, yet they decided to be the “rat” in this implementation, because implementation results would be used for research purposes. Economics assumed that human made rational choices; choices that would maximize their utility. It’s safe to assume that for certain individuals, this appears to be the risk that worth taking because they would potentially lose their lives
regardless. Currently, governmental interferences appeared to be the best solution on regulating the usage of genetic engineering. More than 30 countries have formally banned genetic engineering for commercial purposes. Several European countries, including France, Germany and Switzerland, have banned the alternation of human embryos for reproductive or therapeutic purposes. England, Singapore, Sweden, China and Israel allow genetic engineering for research, but prohibit it for reproduction. With the information and research results we had, the risk of genetic engineering on human cells outweighed the benefit coming from it.
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.
Usage of genetic modification to pick and chose features and personality traits of embryos could conceivably occur in future times. Wealthy individuals could essentially purchase a baby with built-in genetic advantages (Simmons). Ethically, these seem immoral. Playing God and taking control over the natural way of life makes some understandably uneasy. Ultimately, religious and moral standpoints should play a role in the future of genetic engineering, but not control it. Genetic engineering’s advantages far outweigh the cost of a genetically formulated baby and
The age of genetic technology has arrived. Thanks to genetic technological advancements, medical practitioners, with the help of genetic profiling, will be able to better diagnose patients and design individual tailored treatments; doctors will be able to discern which medications and treatments will be most beneficial and produce the fewest adverse side effects. Rationally designed vaccines have been created to provide optimal protection against infections. Food scientists have hopes of genetically altering crops to increase food production, and therefore mitigate global hunger. Law enforcement officers find that their job is made easier through the advancement of forensics; forensics is yet another contribution of genetic technology. Doctors have the ability to identify “high-risk” babies before they are born, which enables them to be better prepared in the delivery room. Additionally, oncologists are able to improve survival rates of cancer patients by administering genetically engineered changes in malignant tumors; these changes result in an increased immune response by the individual. With more than fifty years of research, and billions of dollars, scientists have uncovered methods to improve and prolong human life and the possibilities offered by gene therapy and genetic technology are increasing daily.
The ethics behind genetic engineering have been discussed and argued for years now. Some arguing points often include competitive advantages, playing God, and the polarization of society, but Sandel takes a different approach in explaining society’s “unease” with the morality of genetic engineering. Broadcasted through several examples throughout the book, Sandel explains that genetic engineering is immoral because it takes away what makes us human and makes us something else. He states that by taking control of our genetic makeup, or the makeup of our progeny, we lose our human dignity and humility. Our hunger for control will lead to the loss of appreciation for natural gifts, whether they are certain talents, inherited from the genetic lottery, or the gift of life itself.
...ne starts life with an equal chance of health and success. Yet, gene therapy can also be thought of as a straight route towards a dark outlook, where perfection is the first priority, genes are seen as the ultimate puppeteer, and personal freedom to thrive based on one’s self isn’t believed to exist. With the emergence of each new technological discovery comes the emergence of each new ethical debate, and one day, each viewpoint on this momentous issue may be able to find a bit of truth in the other. Eventually, our society may reach a compromise on gene therapy.
One of the most controversial topics discussed in the world of medicine pertained to the topic of genetic engineering. Some doctors saw it as tool of world destruction, however many of them seeing it as a chance of potential cures and treatments. Charles Darwin first introduced this idea. In his first publication, The Origin of Species, he introduced the idea of survival of the fittest. He stated that evolutionary change was only possible due to the genetic variation between each generation, including the combination of different characteristics. In other words, he wrote that only those who had desirable characteristics, in terms of survival, would be able to pass down their genes. If two bred and possessed desirable characteristics, then the desirable characteristic would strengthen, modifying the genes. Darwin’s theories have been the base of many medical breakthroughs that contributed to genetic engineering. The idea soon influenced medicine, the idea of strengthening the healthy cells and isolating them from the unhealthy ones. The simple idea Darwin discovered had changed medicine as a whole. Today, doctors and scientists are able to manipulate genes in order to create new treatments and cures. Today, Darwin’s discovery changed and saved millions of lives around the world. Despite the fact that genetic engineering can have a negative impact on society, it was an important discovery due to the advancement in conventional medicine.
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.
Genetic engineering is now being used to create new medicines and therapies for many disorders and diseases, and also to improve agricultural plants and animals to produce bigger yields or enhanced nutrient composition and food quality. In Gene therapy, copies of healthy human genes produced in bacteria can be inserted into human cells with defective or missing genes, to fix the problem. Gene therapy is promising because it can use to treat genetic
Although humans have altered the genomes of species for thousands of years through artificial selection and other non-scientific means, the field of genetic engineering as we now know it did not begin until 1944 when DNA was first identified as the carrier of genetic information by Oswald Avery Colin McLeod and Maclyn McCarty (Stem Cell Research). In the following decades two more important discoveries occurred, first the 1953 discovery of the structure of DNA, by Watson and Crick, and next the 1973 discovery by Cohen and Boyer of a recombinant DNA technique which allowed the successful transfer of DNA into another organism. A year later Rudolf Jaenisch created the world’s first transgenic animal by introducing foreign DNA into a mouse embryo, an experiment that would set the stage for modern genetic engineering (Stem Cell Research). The commercialization of genetic engineering began largely in 1976 wh...
In today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost every day, an individual can see or hear about new discoveries and advances in these fields of study. One science that is rapidly progressing is genetic testing; a valuable science that promotes prevention efforts for genetically susceptible people and provides new strategies for disease management. Unnaturally, and morally wrong, genetic testing is a controversial science that manipulates human ethics. Although genetic testing has enormous advantages, the uncertainties of genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life, and thereby result in psychological burden, discrimination, and abortion.
Genetically modifying human beings has the possibility of greatly reducing/completely eradicating disease and could allow for longer lifespans within the near future. However, there are many issues associated with genetic engineering including being misused for ulterior motives and ethical problems. While there is good that can come from genetic engineering, the many detriments associated with it far outweigh the few positive outcomes. In his novel Brave New World, Aldous Huxley’s idea of genetic modification is far more extreme and unethical than any current real world technologies, but if the technology continues to rapidly grow, Huxley’s future may not be that far off from the truth.
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: 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.
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. The benefits of human genetic engineering outweigh the risks by providing mankind with cures to multiple deadly diseases.
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.