Due to side affects, parents and doctors should not genetically modify babies.
First, it reduces diversity. According to the article on theguardian.com called, ‘The case for genetically engineered babies,’ it states “Parental control of the gene pool could reduce valuable forms of diversity. If every parent picks the same immunity genes for their children, it may make them collectively as vulnerable to pathogens as 19th century Irish potatoes.” Also, the article called ‘Human Genetic Diversity and the Threat to the Survivability of Human Populations,’ on ohio.edu states, “By either eliminating those genotypes that are likely to produce genetic disease or by altering the genome to actually prevent the genetic disease… have great potential to
affect the genetic diversity of a population.” Lastly, according to the article, ‘Designer Babies’ on theness.com, it states “If too many couples select the sex of their child me way end up with a surplus of one gender over the other.” This shows that parents will want the babies to be how they want them, so their will be multiple babies that are similar in eye color, etc. Through this, the diversity is being decreased, preventing the more strong and needed genes from being passed on. Second, it is not always successful. For example, in the article, ‘We Are This Close to “Designer Babies,”’ on motherjones.com, it states “There’s this thing described as a molecular scissors … take you to the exact spot on the DNA strand that you want to cut, but sometimes it’s not that precise….” This shows that genetic modification has some risks, in which can hurt the baby in the process. Also, it can damage the baby in ways you did not expect.. However, it can aid babies with their genetic maladies. For example, in the article “Designing Babies: Saving Lives,” on designer-baby.weebly.com, it states that designer babies can prolong people's lives. With this benefit, babies will be able to grow up and even grow older than our modern generation. Also, the article states that the designer babies can stop hereditary diseases from continuing. Through this, diseases will stop killing people, and more people will be able to live. This shows that it can prevent unwanted things from passing on, as a result, increasing the lifespan of people. In conclusion, designer babies have both good and bad qualities. Overall, the bad outweigh the good, due to the chances of decreasing diversity and damage to the baby.
Gene editing will also take away the uniqueness of a baby. Due to them being modified babies they will have more of an advantage over the other normal kids which will not be fair to the others. This will more than likely turn into a competition. This will cause a world class of separation causing it to be a gap in society. For example, in schools there may be certain classes in which the normal kids attend. Due to them being the normal kids they get treated as if they know little as nothing and shown very little attention. Then there will be classes in which the
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.
...e the quality of life of children. A big consequence to the use of genetic modification, shown in the movie Gattaca, is the prejudice that can be against those without genetic modifications. To create an idea of what the consequences of genetic modification will look like, a real world example would be racism and the use of eugenics to justify the prejudice against those who were not light-skinned or of caucasian descent. Neo eugenics is a very controversial topic that has a lot of possible benefits and consequences and will affect many generations to come.
One of the most necessary uses of genetic engineering is tackling diseases. As listed above, some of the deadliest diseases in the world that have yet to be conquered could ultimately be wiped out by the use of genetic engineering. Because there are a great deal of genetic mutations people suffer from it is impractical that we will ever be able to get rid of them unless we involve genetic engineering in future generations (pros and cons of genetic eng). The negative aspect to this is the possible chain reaction that can occur from gene alteration. While altering a gene to do one thing, like cure a disease, there is no way of knowing if a different reaction will occur at the cellular or genetic level because of it; causing another problem, possibly worse than the disease they started off with (5 pros and cons of gen. eng.). This technology has such a wide range of unknown, it is simply not safe for society to be condoning to. As well as safety concerns, this can also cause emotional trauma to people putting their hopes into genetic engineering curing their loved ones, when there is a possibility it could result in more damage in the
A good thing about it is that people would have a less likely chance of getting a disease cause when they are modifying the genes they can change the percentage of the child getting cancer . Scientists could increase peoples immunity to diseases Vincent is born without gene specialization after the race with his
It will make diversity and uniqueness weak, everyone will be "perfect" and no one will focus on the uniqueness of human beings. The great things we may achieve will be of less value since more people will be similar and have those same abilities. Children will be less appreciated because they will be more of a product (robot) than a unique gift. Through this practice we will face the dangers of races being eliminated and our world becoming a male dominated place. Genetic modification takes away our right to create and live our own story. If we are all genetically modified our lives will all be similar and less exciting. If creating designer babies will weaken diversity and uniqueness, why should we allow it? The world will be dull and full of clones, is it worth
If a limit is not set between using genetic engineering for treatment and using genetic engineering for enhancement, then many parents could use it purely for eugenic purposes. This could cause ethical concerns but social concerns as well. If this was allowed to occur, it would also give the rich even more advantages than they already have to begin with and drive the social classes even farther apart. The use of genetic engineering may also lead to genetic discrimination. As in the movie Gattaca, a person could easily get a print-out of his or her genotype, this information could then be used by schools, employers, companies, and others; giving rise to a new form of discrimination based on a person’s genetic profile. As the world is already full of discrimination, genetic engineering would even increase the numbers of discrimination against people.
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.
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.
Eugenics has a few positive advantages, it will in a period of about fifty years or can start to limit and reduce mental and physical disabilities and can increase a better standard of intelligence caused by the food we eat and healthcare over many and many generations one after the other. It will increase desirable traits such as us humans living longer and having better memory skills. Eugenics can help us get a very intelligent race of humans by breading the best with the best to get the best genetics. This can make us more powerful, better at sport, technology and many other things.
In 1980, the first GMO patent was given to a genetics engineer for an engineered bacteria which consumed the oil from oil spills. Scientists carried out further studies, and in 1944, a tomato with modified DNA to delay rotting, sparked a controversy over the safety of genetically modified organisms. The questions regarding safety of GMOs remains constantly debated today. DNA edited and changed by scientists has the potential to harm or help the environment, and is important to keep legal so further studies can be completed to better the world.
For example it could be used to give individuals characteristics that are considered to be desirable. This reminds some people of some of the programmes that have been used throughout modern history to eradicate less powerful ethnic groups. Also this treatment may stop genetic disorders but this could lead to everybody being cured of illness. Therefore if people don’t die of the genetic disorders the world would become over populated.
This alone can be beneficial and an advantage of eugenics. Parents can see the likelihood of their future children being born with a disorder and look into different options. They would be prepared to meet their child’s medical needs if they do want to conceive. Genetic modification can also allow parents to choose the sex of their child, this isn’t as beneficial but can be useful in countries like China where the number of offspring is limited. As well as gender, genetic modification can allow certain traits such as mental disorders to be
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.