Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Morals of gene therapy
Genetic engineering ethics issues
Morals of gene therapy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Morals of gene therapy
What is synthetic biology?
(Caruso, 2008)In January 2008, scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute announced that they had created the first complete synthetic genome, setting the stage for the complete “reprogramming” of an organism with synthetic DNA.
Technologies that can read, map, and manipulate the genetic code of living organisms have escalated in power and capabilities over the past 30 years, yielding an unprecedented amount of data and a more sophisticated understanding of how genetic materials give form and function to living cells. This new knowledge has, in turn, given rise to a new engineering discipline for living organisms—a discipline that has become known as “synthetic biology.”
Thesis statement
The case study will provide
…show more content…
In the third and final case study bioethicist, (Wolpe, 2010)Paul Root Wolpe describes an astonishing series of recent bioengineering experiments, and asks “Isn't it time to set some ground rules”?
Wolphe begins by establishing logos with explaining the stages of evolution and going on to give examples of bioengineered animals.
By telling us about the "bugbot" DARPA has created, he shocks us a little, as these bugs can be used for surveillance or someday-delivering ordinance to warzones.
After more examples, like the monkey that can move a prosthetic arm with his brainwaves or the eel brain that can control a cart, Wolphe raises the question of whether it is morally correct. He wonders what the moral standards will be once scientists surpass animal testing and move on to human engineering. The moral standards pertaining to genetic engineering are indeed questionable and scientists should not go as far as removing autonomy, but genetic engineering could provide a new life for many
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 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.
“The problem with eugenics and genetic engineering is that they represent the one-sided triumph of willfulness over giftedness, of dominion over reverence, of molding over beholding” (Sandel, 2004, p.59).
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 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.
Recent breakthroughs in the field of genetics and biotechnology have brought attention to the ethical issues surrounding human enhancement. While these breakthroughs have many positive aspects, such as the treatment and prevention of many debilitating diseases and extending human life expectancy well beyond its current limits, there are profound moral implications associated with the ability to manipulate our own nature. Michael Sandel’s “The Case Against Perfection” examines the ethical and moral issues associated with human enhancement while Nick Bostrom’s paper, “In Defense of Posthuman Dignity” compares the positions that transhumanists and bioconservatists take on the topic of human enhancement. The author’s opinions on the issue of human genetic enhancement stand in contrast to one another even though those opinions are based on very similar topics. The author’s views on human enhancement, the effect enhancement has on human nature, and the importance of dignity are the main issues discussed by Sandel and Bostrom and are the focus of this essay.
In this paper, I will negatively expose Walter Glannon’s position on the differentially between gene therapy and gene enhancement. His argument fails because gene therapy and genetic enhancement is morally impermissible because its manipulation and destruction of embryos shows disrespect for human life and discrimination against people with disabilities.
The purpose of this case study is to investigate and bring new insight to situations and behaviors within an organization. Case studies are learning tools which utilize social science research to identify and resolve individual and organizational challenges (K. Mariama-Arthur Esq., 2015).
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 tremendously improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to make humans superior by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This ability raises the question of how ought this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of human enhancement is a very general, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am specifically referring 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 morally obligatory. In this paper I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to genetically intervene, but may be permissible under the criterion established by Savulescu. I plan to argue that the argument used by Savulescu for the obligation to genetically intervene is not the same obligation as the prevention and treatment of disease. The ability for humans to genetically intervene is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation.
Synthetic biology, “the aim is to create improved biological functions to fight current and future challenges”. Like all engineering disciples’ synthetic biology is motivated by application to solve specific problems” (3, 7). “Like chemistry biology is the study of living things. Synthetic biology is replicating and recreating nature, which allows it to sometimes control living things (6). Larger quantities of Artemisinin a drug for malaria will be due to the new E coli strain. Thoughts are that it may be able to produce food, optimize industrial processing and detect, prevent and cure cancer (1, 3). Synthetic biology will create DNA that is modified, “it will be able to tweak things”. The engineering component of synthetic biology provides new complex function in cells vastly, more efficient, reliable, predictable” (2, 4). Studies say the synthetic biology industry to grow in value to 10.5 billion dollars by 2016 from 1.6 billion in 2011. Synthetic biology has endless possibilities (7, 10).
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
The birth of genetic engineering and recombinant DNA began in Stanford University, in the year 1970 (Hein). Biochemistry and medicine researchers were pursuing separate research pathways, yet these pathways converged to form what is now known as biotechnology (Hein). The biochemistry department was, at the time, focusing on an animal virus, and found a method of slicing DNA so cleanly that it would reform and go on to infect other cells. (Hein) The medical department focused on bacteria and developed a microscopic molecular messenger, that could not only carry a foreign “blueprint”, or message, but could also get the bacteria to read and copy the information. (Hein) One concept is needed to understand what happened at Stanford: how a bacterial “factory” turns “on” or “off”. (Hein) When a cell is dividing or producing a protein, it uses promoters (“on switches”) to start the process and terminators (“off switches”) to stop the process. (Hein) To form proteins, promoters and terminators are used to tell where the protein begins and where it ends. (Hein) In 1972 Herbert Boyer, a biochemist, provided Stanford with a bacterial enzyme called Eco R1. (Hein) This enzyme is used by bacteria to defend themselves against bacteriophages, or bacterial viruses. (Hein) The biochemistry department used this enzyme as a “molecular scalpel”, to cut a monkey virus called SV40. (Hein) What the Stanford researchers observed was that, when they did this, the virus reformed at the cleaved site in a circular manner. It later went on to infect other cells as if nothing had happened. (Hein) This proved that EcoR1 could cut the bonding sites on two different DNA strands, which could be combined using the “sticky ends” at the sites. (Hein). The contribution towards genetic engineering from the biochemistry department was the observations of EcoR1’s cleavage of
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.
From this case study the analyses are made on the following questions asked. The Questions that are asked are following:
Rebecca Kish Final paper The term Genetic engineering encompasses a wide variety of topics such as selecting which two sperm and egg cells are fertilized, cloning, eliminating genetic diseases, and cosmetically designing custom children. I think it is necessary to specify and focus on one area at a time when it comes to determining what is morally permissible and what isn’t. Genetic engineering is too broad a topic to say yes, all genetic engineering is morally permissible or no, it is not. Because of this, I will focus on two types, medical genetic engineering and engineering for purely physical attributes.
Case studies are a collection of data obtained using various methods gathered on an individual or group to record areas of interest in order to assist with analysis and provide recommendations. The study should include the name of the person, although this should be protected to provide anonymity where appropriate, and a brief description of the subject. The setting where the study is to be performed should be included. The aim of the observation must be presented along with a report of the findings. The type of method used will depend upon the subject and the area of interest. Data is gathered on the subject in this case observations were used to provide the data. An interpretation of the study will be made in order to provide a conclusion and recommendations made if applicable. Freud famously used the case studies that he carried out on his patients to develop his Psychoanalytic Theory.