Benefits Of Genetic Modification

Genetic Modification is often perceived as the answer to humanity’s faults because it will enhance human abilities, prevent the survival of incapacitating disabilities, and guide the innovation of the future. Sounds pretty good, right? That is not the reality. Genetic modification is not the solution to the ubiquitous problems of the human race, but rather infringes on individual rights, decreases diversity, permits too much power to the human race, and contributes to overpopulation.

While the benefits of gene editing are immense, there are still multiple risk factors to be considered. Nearly every type of procedure in the medical field has at least some sort of risk element, but the fact that genetic editing alters the baseline for every single intricate part of the human body poses a far greater risk of damage to the patient. Furthermore, it would be extremely difficult to locate damages caused to the patient after the procedure has been completed because of the millions of cells that make up the body. It is of utmost certainty that genetic engineering will not be an ethical solution to genetic disorders until it has been further developed. Ethical concerns, set standards, and viability all need to be tackled first before gene editing can be a usable tool. None of the articles found for this report provided substantial evidence that gene editing or genetic engineering is ready for any type of real-world application. In fact, many of them provided evidence that it is not ready for usage. Regardless, there are certainly many roadblocks that genetic engineering has yet to overcome. Until it has been proved to be viable and safe for general usage, genetic editing does not appear to be ethically justified for usage in humans in its current

Every living thing has genes. Genes are a set of instructions for an organism that determine what characteristics that organism will have. The genes for an organism lie in strands of DNA called chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes in their body (Medical News Today/OI). Recently, scientists have found a way to modify these genes for certain reasons. These modifications are called genetic engineering. Forty percent of these modifications tend to fall in the category of cosmetic enhancements (OI). Meanwhile, other modifications are used to help a human’s experience of chronic diseases and pain. If genetic engineering is used to reduce specific, serious diseases, then I am in favor of it; however, if it is used for cosmetic enhancements, I am against it.

Imagine a newborn baby hasn´t seen the world and never will, because this baby is blind. This child’s parents worry about his/her safety. Throughout their lifetime, this child will have many obstacles. The baby could have been saved if only the family had the resources to genetically modify their baby. Retinal Information Network reports at least 242 cases of hereditary blindness. That baby is one of the 242 cases that could’ve been cured through a new technological process that changes cells in one’s body for better cells. This is genetic modification (also known as genetic engineering). Healthy lab produced cells will replace gene cells that are negative in a personś body. Many diseases can be cured with access to genetic modification. The unhealthy disease cells can be replaced or missing cells can be added to a body. By performing genetic modifications, life spans can be lengthened. Animals and humans could live longer by replacing old cells with new ones. Also, with the assistance of genetic engineering, “super humans” can be created. Heroes with “powers” on t.v. can become a reality.

In recent years genetic modification has been advancing. Genetic modification is when a living organism has been altered to a specific state of characteristics. So far scientist has made one attempt to modify genes from an embryo recently. Whether they were successful or not is question unanswered yet. Gene modification can be great and all. However, is it right to modify genes? Apparently, the population agrees to modify genes since there has been licenses of approval for gene modification. If Society cared about gene modification, then there would be signs of disapproval of gene modification. However, this is viewed morally wrong in my point of view. The pros of modifying genes are that defeating diseases, potential to live longer, genetic diseases, and able to select character traits of babies. The cons of modifying genes are failures on the way to perfecting genetic modification, genetic modification babies can have more greater problems, very expensive, and when does it stop?

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.

Should human genetic modification be allowed in today’s society? Many experiments with genetic modification on plants and animals involved trial and error. While there was success in the research, there also existed the cost of many errors. Scientists soon want to move onto the next step – genetic modification in humans. The human aesthetic could soon be in the hands of men. Recent advances in technology and research through other life forms have allowed us to consider this vast advancement in genetic modification. In studies of genetic modification, scientists rarely have 100% efficiency. We need to approach the concept of genetic modification in humans with caution. The magnitude of the advancement is immense; therefore, we need to approach this concept at a gradual pace. If we ignore these precautions, we risk human lives and deformities in the name of science. Exploring the possibilities of genetic modification is important to the future of science.

The technological and scientific advancements that have been introduced into the genetics movement have allowed scientists and researchers to obtain the opportunity to edit human genes. With high rates of efficiency, geneticists can now genetically alter the genes of animals, insects, vegetables and last but not least, humans. Genetically modified organisms or GMO for short, is a term that is used in our society to label and identify foods that have been created and genetically modified by scientists. Foods that are genetically modified are not something that surprises or astonishes the American people when discovering that GMO product. However, the idea of the presence of genetically modified human beings is something that will definitely trigger the awareness of a vast amount people everywhere the world. The access to genetically engineer and alter human genes for the purpose of improving or strengthening their genetic makeup should not be allowed to do. An international ban on human genetic engineering must be enacted.

The science of genetic engineering has brought about many outstanding achievements in that past and continues to remain on the cutting edge of research. Although public opinion has been reluctant to embrace the study of genetics, it’s already inevitably become an essential part of our lives. There is infinitely more to the science of genetic modification than the average person comprehends. This science is not only channeled in modifying food sources but in a wide range of studies, especially in the medical field. Moreover, while our perceptions of genetic experimentation have given it a bad name, this field has the potential to have an immeasurable benefit to society.

In this paper I will be arguing that genetic engineering of embryos, genetic therapy, and genetic enhancement should be permissible. Genetic engineering is modifying an organism’s genetic makeup. There are two different methods in genetic engineering: genetic therapy and genetic enhancement. The two differ because genetic therapy serves to treat diseases, whereas genetic enhancement “go beyond” that of therapy. For example, an enhancement would be to use genetic engineering so that one’s child could have blue eyes instead of brown. Also, an enhancement could improve upon features that are deemed “abnormal” to the standard norm, such as deafness or depression. My first argument for genetic therapy is that this technology will be able to help cure serious genetic illnesses that would otherwise cause tremendous suffering. My second argument for genetic enhancement is it would eliminate the randomization of genes, so parents could decide what features their child should have.

Advancements in medicine, especially with genetic modification, may potentially change the lives of people with genetic disorders and give them a second chance at life. Many individuals are affected everyday by harmful, painful, and possibly deadly diseases or mutations. As stated in, “Genetic Engineering Will Benefit Society,” “Given that there are more than 4,000 genetic diseases, and cancer lead to over 500,000 deaths in the United States each year, it is clear that new treatments are necessary” (Christopher 1). Each year, many suffer life-changing consequences due to diseases. “Supporters in the scientific community argue that genetic modification of embryos has the potential to cure inherited diseases and disorders and increase the quality of life for generations of people” (Designer Babies p. 3). Genetic modification can improve the quality of life and prevent passing on that mutation to an offspring. Craig Calhoun stated that, “ . . . there are some 10,000 potential problematic medical conditions known to be caused by specific inherited mutations” (p. 1). Because genetic modification is just beginning to be used as a medical intervention, other strategies are more commonly used to fight disease and health problems. One of these solutions is transplants. But, “. . . treatments that replace missing enzymes require repeated injections, and organ transplants may be rejected by the body’s immune system” (Christopher p. 1). Genetic modification is a more reliable and permanent solution that can drastically improve the quality of life

Freedom. Equality. Security. These are just a few words to describe what it’s like to be an American. In this day and age, people of all ethnicity are fighting and losing their lives in the hope of acquiring the American Dream. But is it really a dream or a soon to be coming nightmare? It has been three decades since the discovery of genetically modified foods (foods formed by organisms that have gone through altering DNA using the procedures of genetic engineering.) In the year 1983, the original genetically modified herb was manufactured with antibiotic-resistant tobacco. A near decade after, the FDA (food and drug administration) had finally approved to put a genetically modified tomato on the market. Countless organizations are proclaiming the benefits of GMO’s, whereas, other believe it’s a plague upon mankind. These include GMO’s assist in the feeding of seven billion people and the lowering of the price of food. While other people believe that GMO’s are detrimental to human civilization in that it could cause cancer and less effective antibiotics. Analyzing the main components of Non GMO’s vs GMO’s; it’s of ease to conclude the major differences and similarities; such as, increase in food, cheaper production, and harmful effects to the human body.

With the breakthrough of scientific discoveries in recent decades, humans have attained progressively more power over Mother Nature. Specifically, genetic engineering has allowed for the modification of the genetic makeup of humans. While the power to modify genes sounds great and many possibilities, it also burdens mankind with many ethical issues. Although genetic engineering in humans is acceptable under some circumstances it is unacceptable and unethical in others.

Large, private food companies rave about the benefits of genetically modified foods. Apparently, they will end world hunger, reduce pesticide use, and move developing countries towards sustainable development. What they do not discuss, however, is the other side of the argument. With this increased food supply comes serious health risks, biological pollution, and economic crises. What good is a storehouse full of genetically modified food if the population it was meant to feed has been killed off due to its side effects? While they may benefit large corporations or farmers, genetically modified foods are unsafe for the human population, and they should be labeled in order to raise awareness about the negative consequences for the world and its environment.

Genetically Modified foods are produced using genetically engineering techniques. These techniques are used to ‘inactivate’ or add specific DNA traits of a certain organism to the other in order to improve it. These traits consist of increasing resistance against herbicides and pest, cold, and drought tolerance. In 1946, scientist discovered that DNA of organisms could be transferred between each other. The first plant that was GM was a tobacco plant in 1983. By 1994-95, GMO food was introduced and approved for humans to consume in the USA. The first plant approved by the FDA for marketing was a tomato from Flavr Savr’s. However, humans have been manipulating different crops for thousands of years. By mating together organisms with desirable traits repeatedly, people were able to mold species to meet their dietary needs. Corn is a very good example of this. It used to be a small, inedible tropical grass called teosinte. Ancient Mexican farmers transformed it into corn. Nowadays, we know this was a manipulation of the DNA of the teosinte plant. This process is called artificial selection and it has transformed all kind of unappetizing plants edible (wheat, rice, almonds, bananas). In modern days genetically modified foods have changed. Now, the speed and precision we can make changes has increased. According to Eric R. Olson, Scientific American editor explains, instead of selectively breading food traits, we can go directly to the DNA responsible take it out, and transplant