Argumentative Essay On Bioenhancement Technology

Medical advancements are very important for extending the quality and quantity of life, however a strong moral compass is needed to make sure, in the name of science, ethical and moral science are not crossed. Brave New World, written by Aldous Huxley, and the movie Gattaca propose a technologically advanced society that challenges these ethical and moral views. Although Brave New World and Gattaca relate in the aspect of genetic discrimination, they differ in the limits and powers of technology and the effects of human spirit.

DNA are like legos, they work together to build the traits of living things. They are the building blocks of the body. Many scientists today have been figuring out different ways to manipulate, change, add, and subtract genes from the DNA in living things; this is process is called genetic engineering. Some of the living things being experimented on are live people, plants, and animals. Today scientists are debating on the morals of genetic engineering due to what the community thinks of it, because of the christian 's viewpoint of genetic engineering. To some christians it may pose a threat to their, but to others it may be a blessing or a gift. Genetic Engineering is a growing breakthrough in the science community. “Over the last 30 years, the field of genetic engineering has developed rapidly due to the greater understanding of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as the chemical double helix code from which genes are made. The term genetic engineering is used to describe the process by which the genetic makeup of an organism can be altered using “recombinant DNA technology.” This involves the use of laboratory tools to insert, alter, or cut out pieces of DNA that contain one or more genes of interest.”(Pocket K No. 17) Scientist have yet to unlock the full potential of genetic engineering, but the information and the use they have found for it today has reached farther than anyone 's expectations.

Advances in technology has brought many benefits but also problems. The use of new technology creates moral and ethical problems and conflicting attitudes in society. The complexity of the issues and the pace with which technology changes mean that legislators have difficulty making laws that can keep in control of these changes.

One field of genetic science which is crucial in society today is medicine where cloning is now possible. The need for moral reasoning is essential in this field because with greater power society must “[recognize] not only the limits of our knowledge but also our vulnerability to being misguided” with an evolving world (Dalai Lama 140). Humans have kept high moral responsibilities over the century when faced with new developments in knowledge. The Dalai Lama suggests that “our technological capacity has reached a critical point” during the past decade and the gap between knowledge and human ethics when making decisions has grown farther apart as new biogenetic science has arose (133). The issue is not whether

"Human beings are not disposable biological material." (Saunders 1). You get where I’m going with this, right? William Saunders, a catholic Priest, debates his viewpoint on Stem Cell Research, calling it unethical, and those who do it, killers. Saunders argues

In Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity, author Leon Kass argues that technology, although marvelous for what it permits us to achieve, has and may continue to threaten human flourishing. He argues that, many of our technological advancements have become a substitution for the development of our human capabilities (para. 22). Kass bolsters his argument by engaging readers with a comprehensive dialogue about the issues of technology. Though Kass does cover a number of issues in this book, they all specifically focus on the issues concerning biotechnology. Kass dedicates chapter 4 of Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity to inquire about the “moral meaning of the entire enterprise of genetic technology” (Leon Kass, 121).

"Technological innovations in the reproductive area means being prepared to explicitly acknowledge that it is acceptable to destroy embryos under certain circumstances in order to encourage research on alleviating disease embryos. This in turn acknowledges the role of science in rectifying what may have gone a defective state during development.” But what is wrong with it that makes it questionable to those who follow christianity? It is the fact that many label this act as immoral and lives are being loss in the process as of which it really a flip of a coin on whether the “test tube baby”, or experiment some would call, would survive or not. We know that God is the author of life, but scientists

Scientists have made tremendous advancements in human bioengineering, and have succeeded in providing thousands of infertile women with the possibly of having children with using in vitro fertilization. Furthermore, scientists have discovered ways to cut and paste DNA using the CHRISPR technique, that allows certain inherited diseases to be cut out of an embryo egg, therefore, eliminating ailments that can be passed down through pregnancy. The process of human bioengineering is a spectacular accomplishment for scientists, however, the process should be kept illegal because it is a potentially disastrous practice that can affect the economy, foster care system, and donor’s health.

More than one ethical position on stem cell research could be called "religious"; and as a Christian, could ethically support stem cell research because of its potential for relieving human suffering and enhancing human health and well-being. There is more than one way to be moral, more than one way to translate one's faith commitments into public policy. (185)

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.

Can science go too far when it equips man with tools to manipulate life? Some of the underlying ethical dilemmas presented in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein are similar to ones we struggle with today, such as selective abortion. Shelley’s doomed creature mirrors the devastating result of bringing an unwanted offspring into the world, then shirking responsibility for it thereafter. The practice of playing God and choosing who does and who does not “earn” life ultimately results in profound negative moral consequences.

According to the Biomimicry Institute,”[Biomimicry] seeks sustainable solutions to human challenges by emulating nature 's time-tested patterns and strategies. The goal is to create products, processes, and policies—new ways of living—that are well-adapted to life on earth over the long haul.” To achieve this goal, industry and science have to come together to decreases toxins, decrease net greenhouse gas emissions, provide multi-use structure, find sustainable sourcing, and use returning logistics to monitor their work all while decreasing overall cost. Unfortunately this is a task even more complicated than it sounds, but with the help of The Biomimicry Institute as well as the majority of other Biomimicry organizations founded by Janine Benyus, Biomimicry is making its presence known more and more in our world today. Going beyond being the founder of multiple organizations, Janine Benyus is also an American natural sciences writer, innovation consultant, and author that recognized the forgotten genius in the natural world. To help others see what she saw, she took the concept of biomimicry and turned it into three key elements: Ethos, Reconnection, and Emulation. She then applied it to everything she could until it grew into the popular movement it is today.

Deliberating further about the distinction between enhancements and therapy, the theological ethicist Richard Niebuhr outlines categories that describe how Christians have related to the culture at various times in history with regards to his book Christ in Culture (Chesire 77). After examining each of the five categories and contrasting them with Catholic moral theology and Catholic teaching, I believe the category “Christ against enhancement” is the most accurate, which Niebuhr explains in that “the radical Christian regards culture as deeply corrupted by original sin. Within this perspective, biomedical enhancements, being part of culture, work to transmit the destructive effects of sin and have the potential to magnify human depravity” (qtd. in Chesire 77). Therefore, technology associated with bioenhancements that magnifies the corruption of human morality is part of that culture. I think the “Christ against enhancement” is accurate to what the Church would believe because it is comprehensible with Catholic moral theology. Although, the Church is accepting of therapy due to its purely medical purpose. In therapy, as Pope Benedict XVI put it in his pre-papacy Instruction on Respect for Human Life, “applied biology and medicine work together for the integral good of human life [and] come to the aid of a person stricken by illness…respect[ing] his or her dignity as a creature of God” (7). This distinction between what is

The technology of today’s world is astounding. We have learned how to battle diseases that were once thought to lead to a certain death, we have invented incredible technologies that allow us to communicate with people across the world instantly, and maybe most impressively of all, we are able to create human life. We now hold in our hands the technologies that allow those who may not have been able to conceive naturally to have children they can call their own; children who will enrich their lives in a way nothing else can, and who will continue their names and lives after they are gone. In an age where we have more power than ever to use the bodies and DNA of others for our own benefit, it becomes increasingly important that we remain

Why live a life with average abilities when we can enhance our abilities through genetic engineering on our DNA for the greater good? Genetic engineering is “the artificial manipulation, modification, and recombination of DNA or other nucleic acid molecules in order to modify an organism or population of organisms.” It is not exactly a science in a broad sense, but a branch of biotechnology, which uses methods of molecular and biology, virology, and genetics. Genetic engineering on the human genome should be approved because it has the potential to make lives and the world better. Genetic disorders could be permanently eliminated, certain genes could be reactivated for regrowth of necessary cells, eliminating many neurological disorders, and delaying ageing, which would expand scientific research in order to many world complications.