Apocalyptic Visions of Genetic Engineering Essay

Engineering, edited by David M. Haugen and Susan Musser, Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010138265/OVIC?u=j170902014&xid=541f199b. Accessed 24 Feb. 2017. Originally published as "The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering," www.hgalert.org/topics/hge/threat.htm.

Genetically modified food’s, or GMOs, goal is to feed the world's malnourished and undernourished population. Exploring the positive side to GMOs paints a wondrous picture for our planet’s future, although careful steps must be taken to ensure that destruction of our ecosystems do not occur. When GMOs were first introduced into the consumer market they claimed that they would help eliminate the world’s food crisis by providing plants that produced more and were resistant to elemental impacts like droughts and bacterial contaminants, however, production isn’t the only cause for the world’s food crisis. Which is a cause for concern because the population on the earth is growing and our land and ways of agriculture will not be enough to feed

In 2011, more than 66 million hectares of GMO plants were grown throughout the world. These plants were “engineered to produce a bacterial toxin lethal to some insects but harmless to people,” (Carrington 1). By altering the plant’s genes, scientists were able to design the plant in a way so it could control the pest population without the need of using as many chemicals in comparison to pesticides. Therefore altering the plant’s genes proves a method for controlling pest populations because it reduces the amount of harmful chemicals that are used. Pesticide use is dangerous to the environment because of the pollution involved. Studies have found that farmers using GMO seeds use 37% less pesticides, and since “these seeds don’t need to spray as much pesticide, which means less pesticide ends up washing off the fields and into streams” (Horowitz 2). Ultimately, pesticide pollution can endanger entire ecosystems and even threaten human lives. By significantly reducing pesticide use, there would be less dangerous chemicals to threaten local environments. As well as reducing pollution, GMO replacement of pesticides helps increase populations of pest predators. Carrington states that GMOs have the “added benefit of looking after the predators that could have been killed by the pesticides” (2). By substituting GMOs for pesticides, which kill more than just the targeted pest, farmers can help

Humanity’s advancements over the course of history have been due to major technological milestones. Of these milestones, arguably the most important has been the advent of agriculture. Agriculture has allowed humans to store food in surplus which frees them from slaving in fields and allows focus on more scholarly and artistic pursuits. As time has progressed, agriculture itself reach important advances, from selective breeding to artificial fertilizer. However, one of the most recent advances in modern times has been met with suspicion and distrust. Genetically modified organisms, commonly referred to as GMOs, have begun to be used in commercial agricultural and their widespread use in food for humans and livestock is on the rise. Many

Genetic engineering is a process that has been dreamed of for generations by the most ambitious of scientists. With current science making this once far off dream a reality, two men were quick to throw their opinions into the air, making their stance clear on the subject. In “Building Baby from Genes Up” Ronald M. Green encourages people to embrace the inevitable benefits that genetic modification will shower upon the world. Contrasting this article is the more reserved Richard Hayes with “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks”, in which he warns of the harm it will undoubtedly bring to humanity.

Genetic engineering is the figurehead of the ethical concerns of scientists in the 21st century. Nothing is more engrossed with criticism and dislike than the idea of altering the baseline for living organisms. Many people are skeptical of genetic engineering due to the versatility it exhibits. A scientist could use a genetic editing tool, such as CRISPR, to remove the genes for a hereditary disease in an embryo, but they could also utilize it to alter the physical characteristics of a human baby. This thought provoked the flood gates of ethics to unleash a multitude of unanswered questions and concerns about the usage and further development of genetic engineering. The field of genetic engineering is

The three articles at the end of the chapter bring up the benefits and concerns with this ever growing scientific development. In the first article, “GMOs: Fooling – Er, ‘Feeding’ – The World for 20 Years”, the authors debunk the common myths told to the public by GMO advocating scientists. For example, many scientist claim that GMO crops are harmless to the people and the environment, but the authors of this article say otherwise by referencing a statement made by the Academy of Environmental Medicine: “these foods pose a serious health risk in areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health” (378). The second article by Richard Manning provides examples where GMOs have helped the people of India, Mexico, and countries in Africa and South America solve their major food crises. In “Eating the Genes… ”, Manning tries to ease the concern of GMOs by simply phrasing, “genetic engineering merely refines the tools” (380). The author sees

Philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues there is nothing inherently wrong about genetic engineering. He defenses his perspective by refuting other controversies against genetic engineering. At the beginning I want to define genetic engineering, meaning the direct manipulation of an organism’s genetic materials in ways that do not occur under natural condition. The exploration of genetic engineering completely exceeds the convention. However breaking edge innovation is risky to develop and the path of research

Imagine a world filled with famine, food restrictions and limited resources. Without the help of genetically altered crops and farms, the recent events of severe weather and human impacts will quickly lead us onto this dark path. The goal of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is to feed the world's malnourished population. By exploring the optimistic side to GMOs, it helps to paint an incredible picture for the Earth’s future. I have spent my time here at Missouri State, studying the environment and the ecosystems as well as how they can safely be manipulated to ensure sustainable life of these plants and animals. This being said, there are careful steps that must be taken to guarantee that the destruction of our ecosystems, does not happen.

In this paper, I will argue that genetic engineering in humans should be considered ethically permissible. Genetic engineering is already widely used in modifying foods for our everyday consumption. Genetically engineered foods has aided in the business of crops and livestock, making the plants and animals that we eat plentiful and more sustainable. Thus proving for the advancement of society as a whole making genetically engineered foods a desirable resource. Genetic engineering in humans is also proving to be an important utility for the progress of future societies.

There are many risks involved in genetic engineering. The release of genetically altered organisms in the environment can increase human suffering, decrease animal welfare, and lead to ecological disasters. The containment of biotechnological material in laboratories and industrial plants contributes to the risk of accidental release, especially if the handling and storage are inadequate. The purely political dangers include intensified economic inequality, the possibility of large-scale eugenic programs, and totalitarian control over human lives. How should the acceptability of these risks be determined? We argue that the assessment should be left to those who can be harmed by the decisions in question. Economic

Looking at our world, perpetually lit by the fires of unrest and conflict, it sure is easy to see a lot of issues. There are a lot that captivate the attentions of our world leaders and for the most part, it seems that our global paradigm of dealing with issues is to act reactively, rather than proactively. However, when it comes to a particular issue that demands our global attention, we find ourselves staring not at an issue inherently policy-oriented in nature, but rather scientific: the future of genetic modification.

Genetic Engineering has been hailed as one of the greatest scientific developments of the 21st century. The argument above is one of many, posed to ask human beings to think about whether or not genetic engineering is morally and ethically right. By modifying genes and DNA or by introducing new genes into an embryo, organisms are given new, often beneficial,

Genetic engineering has become increasingly normalized in today’s society, and people are exposed to this technology now more than ever before. Most people are aware that food companies practice genetic engineering on their plants in order to design the most profitable crops, but it isn’t generally known that this same technology can be applied to humans. The concept of picking certain traits and characteristics of a human may appear desirable, but many risks and potential side effects may follow considering that it is unknown what genetic engineering could affect in future generations. Francis Fukuyama, an accomplished and distinguished professor of political economy and philosopher, conveys his concern that genetic engineering is developing at a surprisingly rapid rate. Within his book, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, he claims that genetic engineering not only will potentially be detrimental for the human race, but due to the change in nature of human beings, such engineering will also result in significantly impacting government and politics. Although genetic engineering can be seen as a huge technological advancement that could potentially help millions, there are drastic negative effects and reasons for disapproving genetic engineering that are too important to be overlooked.

With the introduction of urbanization and improved health care, humans are able to live longer lives and produce more children. However, a population boom does not necessarily indicate a rapid increase in food production. In fact, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, “as a result of food deficits, nearly 1,000 million people do not get enough to eat” and within the next ten years the human population will increase by 56 million. With traditional farming methods, how can the agricultural industry expect to feed an additional 56 million with the next ten years? This issue has prompted scientists to opt for the genetic altering of organisms in order to produce better yields and overall a more heartier crop. Genetically modified plants can be altered to withstand fluctuating temperatures, contain essential vitamins and even taste like candy. While GMOs may provide the agricultural industry a solution to future famines, dependence on GMOs raises several ethical concerns. The effect of GMOs on health, the potential risk of facing unintended consequences and even the right to personal choice are all issues that challenge the developing field of