Editing Human Embryos

First of all, it could be possible to change disease genes and change the risk of getting diseases for future generations (Doc. 3). It might also be possible “to install genes that offer lifelong protection against infection.” (Doc. 3). It is also voted most popular to genetically change humans for the cause of reducing the risk of serious diseases than to make the baby more intelligent (Doc. 4). Lastly, germline editing could also potentially decrease or eliminate many serious genetic diseases, which would reduce human suffering worldwide (OI).

With modern technology comes the breakthrough of the decade by altering the human genes. This altering gene invention is called CRISPR/Cas9. However, this invention in the beginning stages of altering genes, began with rats until perfection. The process began early with the embryo stages to edit the genes. With the introduction of CRISPR surrounds a lot of controversy. Some people believe editing genes is playing with the hands of God and refuse to believe in CRISPR. With the article, “Let’s Hit Pause Before Altering Humankind”, by David Baltimore believes CRISPR is a tool with no good intentions. With this information the article should not be published with being against CRISPR.

Even though gene editing has been discussed and thoroughly gone through and examined, many scientists are still very skeptical and refuse to even do it especially on embryos.

There are other types of gene editing out there but research shows us that CRISPR is fast, precise, and simple. Researchers are developing a way for CRISPR therapy to help with Alzheimer’s all the way to HIV. There are two categories the researchers and people have put CRISPR in: practical and philosophical. The researchers say that the immediate barrier is practical. During the tests, CRISPR has found targets in other parts of the DNA that need fixing other than the intended part of the DNA. Because of this, it may take at least a generation to ensure that it is safe. Some people oppose CRISPR because the oppositionists say it lets people play god but getting medicine every time you get sick with the same thing obscures the natural order of things. The opportunities are getting pushed ahead for treating cancer, childhood diseases that are genetic, and how to understand diabetes better. The one question some people have is whether it’s right to edit genes that are

There have been many test trials for taking steps to sure there are positive results, but there is a risk in trying something new. We will always have to be worried about failure just like into curing some diseases some people die when taking the cure. But with gene editing it's different they only thing the body can do, just reject or accepting the process. Proving the fewer risks than ejecting some unknown subject into your body with a 45% chance of it working or you dying instead. But gene editing opens new doorways to "eugenics, where those with access to the technology could select" future generations genetic traits like eye, skin or hair color, or height (12).

First of all, there are a lot of dangers involved when scientists tamper with the genetic make-up of a human. Probably the number one risk that is involved is the outcome of the child. Tim Johnson, a Kansas high school Biology teacher, said, “As science continues to explore the human genome, we will ultimately find creative

The genetic engineering used for genetically modifying embryos and the thought of genetically modifying embryos is a technology that has caused an unethical dilemma within today’s society. This genetic technology comes at a risk, however, the most common way to genetically modify a human embryo, let alone anything living is known as CRISPR Cas9. This tool uses the enzyme Cas9 to cleave onto DNA to cut it, however according to Alex J. Maben a journalist who wrote an article on the flaws of this technology states “’The Cas9 enzyme that CRISPR uses to cleave DNA… could also make cuts where it’s not intended to, potentially causing cancer’(Kaiser, para5). Also, once CRISPR is in the body, it stays in the body” (Maben). This is an ethical dilemma because as stated above the CRISPR tool can cause cuts to

Now there are some people that are strongly against this.There are many people that believe scientist are ‘playing God’ by changing the gene of people.But genetically engineering isn't just for modifying humans but also for curing some disease.It's called gene therapy and it had cured some disease for example Cancer, Aids and much more.It’s better for us to act than to not act at

It would equate to taking children away for money. Other major concerns are that someone may try to create human clones, human-animal hybrids, human parts to sell, or even immortality (Mehta 107). If people start to look at life as something to be manufactured, they will not value it as much. This could cause problems because people’s morals would not be as strong. People would not value the natural world and instead would treat life similar to the way we treat manufactured goods today, with lack of respect (Heavey 444). Finally, terrorist organizations could use genetic engineering to create advanced biological weapons that could cause catastrophic

Scientist used this process and created dangerous, intelligent and prominent genetically-engineered superhuman Khan Noonien Singh. Khan becomes Captain Kirk’s nemesis and Khan’s tyranny leads the Federation to ban genetic engineering for fear of creating others like him. I was interested in learning that in 2016, Britain approved a license application to perform gene editing on human embryos. The license permits scientists to “study the embryos for 14 days for research purposes only.” It does not, however permit these embryos to be implanted into women. Scientist believe editing embryos can boost the understanding of why in-vitro fertilization can be successful and how healthy human embryos develop. They can answer why some women lose their babies before term using these embryos. Additionally, this research could possibly provide better clinical treatments for

John Harris and Marcy Darnovsky’s article, Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos? (2016), explores the potential moral and future repercussions involved with CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, a rapidly growing science. Harris argues that gene editing could be the resolution to curing detrimental illnesses before the birth of a child, and the science needs more time to experiment. On the other hand, Darnovsky argues that while gene editing may be able to treat illnesses before birth, it opens the door for parents to decide what they want their children to be like and to get rid of any undesirable traits. Both authors appeal to the audience’s logos to argue for or against gene editing and its potential consequences. Harris states

Genetic alternation has been a hot topic in the scientific community and in society. The stance I would take on the ethics on embryo editing is that it is not morally wrong, depending on the person who uses it or the reasons they want to may make it seem morally wrong. Though genetically changing an embryo can allow a child who was born with diabetes or other life threatening diseases that does increase the chance of death. Something like that would make most people want to change a piece of their genetic code. Yet, there are some disabilities that some people do not want to change because they do not know how it will affect them. This can lead to a “what if” scenario where people think if they change would they become happier or sadder.

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

Gene editing has been a big technological topic that has been talked about a lot over the last few years. Is it ethical? Does it promote social justice? Is it good for the environment? I personally do not think it promotes any of these ideas. It signifies the idea that the rich get richer, and gene editing has a huge ethical complication. Not to mention that it is not the most natural thing to be able to edit genes to someone’s liking.

There are some ethical concerns with gene editing. One concern is that it can be a slippery slope into make edits to genes for “cosmetic” reasons. This would include things like parents who want a child with a particular eye color. Another concern is that the scientific community does not have a grasp on what the long-term effects are of changing gene sequencing and that there could be adverse effects that are currently not being predicted. A third ethical concern linked with unknown adverse effects is that some gene editing techniques have been found to be unsafe because they can lead to gene mutations, which can cause defects or disabilities. Safety must be ensured prior to use of the tool (Savulescsu, Pugh, Douglas, & Gyngell, 2015).