Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The controversy of gene therapy
In vivo gene therapy controversy
The controversy of gene therapy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The controversy of gene therapy
Still in its youth, genetic therapy has made progress, however it still needs much more advancements. When looking at the surface, nearly every clinical test that has been conducted has resulted in failure. There are many reasons for this, including media, investors, and rush testing. Biotechnology is a serious field of science, therefore its studying and research should not be rushed, valuable information could be surpassed. However, reality sheds another light and the testing is rushed, failure has resulted. The failure in the past tests of genetic therapy is the result of many different factors.
Prior to solving the major puzzles of gene therapy, scientists must first figure out the smaller fundamental problems, many of which have not been worked out so that the technology can be advanced. According to an article titled “Gene Therapy” by Eric B. Kmiec most of the techniques of current gene therapy consist of attempting to replace a defective gene, with one that is fully functional. One of the major problems has been getting the gene into the nucleus of the cell and fitting it in its proper place. On top of that problem, the new gene must function properly like a normal cell would. Many genetic disorders are the effect of a malfunction in a gene. Through gene therapy the malfunctioning gene can be replaced by a working version of the gene that carries out its normal cellular functions. To make things even more difficult on scientists, fixing the DNA in a few cells will not be beneficial for the patient. The scientists need to fix the DNA in a numerous amount of cells in order for the gene therapy to be beneficial. Also the fixed genes must not only be expressed by the cells but they must also become integrated into the chromosomes. If the new genes do not include a promoter, “on switch”, then they will have no effect on the cell. In contrast, if the promoter is not functioning correctly, it could cause cell division too often thus causing the same effects as cancer. There are many steps to fixing a gene, scientists cannot move on to step two until they have successfully completed step one.
Among these technical holdups, research in biotechnology has run into serious problems. In his article titled “Human Gene Therapy: Harsh Lessons, High Hopes”, Larry Thompson, tells of more setbacks the industry has come upon.
In the late twentieth century, the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering has positioned itself to become one of the great technological revolutions of human history. Yet, things changed when Herber Boyer, a biochemist at the University of California, founded the company Genentech in 1976 to exploit the commercial potential of his research. Since then the field has exploded into a global amalgam of private research firms developing frivolous, profit-hungry products, such as square trees tailor-made for lumber, without any sort of government regulation.
Gene therapy is the application of the technique where the defect-causing "bad" genes are replaced by correct "good" genes. The idea of gene therapy is to treat the disease by correcting the "bad" DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) rather than the current me thod of providing drugs, or proteins not produced by the defective gene. Gene therapy addresses the problem first hand by directly working with the genetic information causing the disease. From the book Shaping Genes, Dr. Darryl Macer says "It is like f ixing a hole in the bucket, rather than trying to mop up the leaking water." There are two kinds of gene therapy, somatic cell gene therapy and germline gene therapy.
In this paper, I will argue that genetic therapies should be allowed for diseases and disabilities that cause individuals pain, shorter life spans, and noticeable disadvantages in life. I believe this because everyone deserves to have the most even starting place in life as possible. That is no being should be limited in their life due to diseases and disabilities that can be cured with genetic therapies. I will be basing my argument off the article by “Gene Therapies and the Pursuit of a Better Human” by Sara Goering. One objection to genetic therapies is that removing disabilities and diseases might cause humans to lose sympathy towards others and their fragility (332). However, I do not believe this because there are many other events and conditions in society that spark human compassion and sympathy towards others.
Gene therapy is an experimental technique that allows doctors to insert a gene into a patient’s cell rather than using drugs or surgery. Gene therapy is a process of which defective or undesired genes in the body with “normal” genes. A vector is re-engineered to deliver the gene to a target cell. Then the gene is transferred to the cell’s nucleus and must be activated in order to function. The main focus of gene therapy is to replace a lost or improper gene with a new functional copy into a vector that is inserted into the subject’s genome by way of penetrating its DNA. Gene therapy can be done outside of the body known as ex vivo by way of taking cells form patients bone marrow or blood and then growing them in a laboratory. Thus the corrected copy of the gene is inserted into the cells before being put back into the body. Gene therapy can also be done in vivo which can be done directly to the patient’s body. The word gene therapy really defines the management of genetic information that is encased in the cells, however, in most recent procedures the available technology is closely related in adding new genetic information, and many researchers favor the term gene transfer rather than gene therapy to mirror the reason that the purpose of gene work cannot always be therapeutic.
Along with life and liberty, the pursuit of happiness is among the most fundamental ideals in American society. The men who founded the United States of America in the late 18th century listed these three values as “unalienable rights” for the citizens of the new nation they created. In a recent study looking at the pursuit of happiness, Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, and Schkade stated, “If it is meaningful and important to pursue happiness, then it is crucial to find out how this can be accomplished” (2005, p. 126). In later work, Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2006) observed that little research has been done to uncover the exact methods in which happiness increases. The views offered in these prior projects are vital to the current investigation because there is evidence that even though happiness is pursued, happiness is not accomplished by the majori...
Although the highly technical aspects of human gene therapy are somewhat complex, the basic concept is very straight forward. The goal of gene therapy is to correct mistakes that have occurred within the genetic material, or DNA, of the living cell. In very simple terms, DNA is often thought of as the "language" of the biological functioning of organisms. This language is organized by letters (nucleotide pairs), words (codons), sentences (genes), and books (genomes). Before being able to repair the damaged or defective genetic material, the location of the gene or genes causing the dysfunction in the individual must be determined.
MLA: Wallis, Claudia, et al. “The New Science of Happiness.” Time. 17 Jan. 2005. Academic Search Premier. Yale University Library. 11 Jan. 2006.
Through a series of assessment tools, she reveals the types of activities that we can commit to doing on a daily basis which will improve our level of happiness. She reinforces the numerous benefits of being happier. Happier people are more sociable and energetic, more charitable and cooperative, and better liked by others. Being happy boosts their immune systems, improves productivity, and can lead to a longer life. It allows them to be more creative and...
Gene therapy is a technique used in attempts to cure or prevent genetic diseases at the molecular level (basically at the source) by correcting what is wrong with defective genes, a good version of the defective gene is introduced into the existing cells. This technique is still considered experimental, only being done through clinical trials. This idea was first suggested during the 1950’s. The basic idea was “if the basses can be arranged incorrectly then why can’t they be rearranged in the correct way?”
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...
Since its inception, gene therapy has captured the attention of the public and ethics disciplines as a therapeutic application of human genetic engineering. The latter, in particular, has lead to concerns about germline modification and questions about the distinction between therapy and enhancement. The development of the gene therapy field and its progress to the clinic has not been without controversy. Although initially considered as a promising approach for treating the genetic of disease, the field has attracted disappointment for failing to fulfil its potential. With the resolution of many of the barriers that restricted the progress of gene therapy and increasing reports of clinical success, it is now generally recognised that earlier expectations may have been premature.
In addition to anyone being happy, genuine happiness is vulnerable. “If happiness is similarly available to people of any age, sex, or race, and to those of most income levels, who is happiest?” (Myers and Diener 14), the capacity of peoples’ joy is undiminished. Self-esteem, personal control, optimism, and extraversion are four inner traits that classify happy people. People who are happy admire themselves and feel personal control, empowered rather than helpless about their lifestyle. They are also optimistic and tend to be more healthy, successful, and happier than pessimistic people. Also, people that are happy are extraverted and they are happy when they are surrounded by a lot of people and even when they are alone. They are not happy because of their status of wealth.
...chological well-being (including as identified in this report, the value of need-based goal setting), will provide, as suggested by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000, p. 5), protection against mental illness, empowering individuals, families, communities and societies to prosper. Myers and Diener (1996, p. 72) add that researching the habits of happy people may suggest how we can modify our behaviour to improve happiness. This in turn will help people to achieve the maximum satisfaction that they can from their own particular circumstances. In addition, as the body of empirical evidence grows in support of this positive psychology, the focus can once again, (as Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) intend it should), return to the two objectives previously abandoned by psychology, namely fostering excellence and making ordinary people more resilient and productive.
Freshwater in the world makes up only a small portion of water on the planet. While the percentage of water in the world is nearly 70%, only 2.5% is consumable. Even further, only <1% is easily accessible to basic human needs. According to National Geographic, “by 2025, an estimated 1.8 billion people will live in areas plagued by water scarcity, with two-thirds of the world's population living in water-stressed regions as a result of use, growth, and climate change.” With this current trend, water will become more immersed in environmental, economic, political, and social changes. Many of these in later years shall need to be addressed as tension rises:
No matter how advanced our technology is, we are still not capable of generating water. We must utilize the existing water supply more efficiently in order to be sustainable. Many states in the United States believe that they are sustainable. However, polluted water habitats, drained aquifers and rivers, floods, and the salt intrusion show the exact opposite of what we believe.