Effects Of Gene Therapy On Children And The Existence Of The Disease

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

As we stand in the world today, we as humans have never been more technologically advanced or scientifically intelligent. We have the ability to explore outer space and the depths of the oceans. We are even in the process of developing organs using 3D printing technology. But there is a limit to the extent of advancements that humankind can reach before some begin to pose dangers to humanity or become unethical. Currently, technology is being developed to expand the procedure of in vitro fertilization to genetically modify embryos. The products of this engineering are commonly known as “designer babies”. This technology, when fully developed, would grant parents the opportunity to select against possibly life threatening or altering conditions such as cystic fibrosis, schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s. Using this technology, parents would also be able to make extensive selections regarding their baby’s gender, physical characteristics, and possibly even personality traits and talents. While it is positive advancement to be able to select against life-threatening diseases, the creation of an a-la-carte baby is unethical and crosses the line between positive sociological developments and immoral manipulations of nature for many reasons.

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

According to Antonio Regalado, 15% of adults think it would be fine to alter a baby’s genes to make it smarter. However, 46% think it is acceptable to fix a newborn’s genes to reduce the risk of serious illnesses (Doc. 4). The unique thing about the world is that every single person is different. If genetic engineering gets out of hand, it could lead to a “dystopia of superpeople and designer babies for those who can afford it” (Doc. 3). Once altering the genes of humans is feasible, international rules should be made so that diseases from mutated genes can be fixed, but messing with the child’s attributes are illegal. That way, every country’s government can prevent a future dystopia before it

Though it is evident that the concept of “Designer Babies” would prove unpopular amongst the majority of society, there still remains to be advocates for a future compromising of GM children. It is argued that gene technology will bring about a new age of human beings who are happier, smarter and healthier. Supporters look forward to a future when parents could quite literally assemble their children from genes listed in a catalogue. A future in which the health, appearance, personality and life span of our children become mere artefacts of genetic modification.

The escalating supremacy and receptiveness of genetic technology to engineer and "design babies," now gives parents the option to modify their unborn children, consecutively to prevent their offspring's from receiving genetic disorders such as: "sickle cell diseases, cystic fibrosis and down syndrome ," or conceivably, make them blue eye coloured, intelligent or else blessed with enviable qualities. Would this mean there will be an increase in the superiority among the rich, both physically and mentally, or will this modification be available for all to exploit, or would we be evidencing engineered babies facing unexpected genetic predicament? The highly contentious issue of designing unborn children to be a perfect "epitome" is thoroughly investigated and examined in the article of, lead author of

Nowadays, people will claim that the world is on the verge of scientific revolution that leads to the most controversial idea; genetic engineering of humans. When science technology grows exponentially faster than moral understanding, therein lies the argument between these two aspects. One can argue that genetic engineering is some sort of vast achievement in technology especially in this modern era whereby people live in full of access. However, if we look closely at the impact of this technology towards human beings, genetic engineering has many flaws and ramifications that can be debated thoroughly. Arguments and points of view are explained by Michael J. Sandel, the author of “The Case Against Perfection” and Nicholas Agar, the author of “Liberal Eugenics”.

The last 150 years have seen the origin of—and rapid expansion in—human knowledge involving the nature and mechanisms of trait and disease inheritance in human beings. Advances in genetic research hold great promise for the future development of effective prevention and treatment strategies for a great many, often devastating, heritable conditions. However, these advances also raise a series of policy, legal and fundamentally ethical questions concerning what we should and should not do with the knowledge and technology we acquire. These questions are numerous and both imminently practical and speculative, ranging from the exhausted, yet still largely unresolved, question of the moral status of the human embryo to fears about slippery slopes into a Brave New World or Gattaca-style dystopic future characterized by designer children and a genetic underclass.

If it is possible to cure genetic disorders in unborn children, then why does this dilemma exist? Designer babies may offer a solution for many parents faced with an uncertain future. The term “Designer Babies” refer to children who develop from embryos that are selected, or genetically modified in vitro (outside of the human body, usually in a laboratory). While emerging technology is constantly improving the daily lives of mankind, the scientists involved in this branch of science have fallen under great scrutiny despite their best effort to contribute to society. As a developing science, the exploration of genetic editing has potential to direct humanity to a radiant future. Financially funding and

In his essay, “Building Baby From the Genes Up”, Ronald M. Green highlights the significance of Britain’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority’s ruling in favor of two couples seeking to eradicate breast cancer from their lineage through preimplantation genetic diagnosis, before building a case for why reproductive genetic technology is part of our future and why he believes that is a good thing. Tackling common criticisms, such as the effects genetic manipulation will have on parenting, the potential for discrimination and oppression, and religious objection, he ultimately concludes that we can overcome the risks to enjoy a host of improvements to our quality of life. On the surface, his ideals project a healthier, stronger human race; however, they fail to account for human nature and try to package life into neat, sterilized package.

With the world of technology making advances so quickly we sometimes forget our own limits as a mortal species. Genetic therapy has the potential to save millions of people from genetic mutations and protein deficiencies. This paper will go on to argue that the Utilitarianism approach in ethics shows all the right things about genetic therapy. The first-time gene therapy was used on a patient dates back in the 1990s when a four-year-old girl had adenosine deaminase deficiency. With this disease, her white blood cells were not doing their job and left her prone to infections. Through the power of genetic therapy some of her white blood cells were extracted, altered to produce adenosine deaminase, and reinjected. This treatment not only saved her life from dangerous diseases but also began a world of opportunities in the medical field. The ethical issue is, is it right or wrong to have that much power to alter genes and to what degree you should be able to modify them. Should people live out their futures the ways they are born or should they live life to the fullest and get the genetic treatments?

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

Human beings have always been interested in success, in making sure they survive, and creating new tools and technology to enable them to reach these goals. So it should come as no surprise that eugenics follows this same guideline in human history. A term originally coined by Francis Galton, first cousin to Charles Darwin, eugenics simply means that the “best people” in society with the most “healthy” “normal” genes should continue to reproduce and pass on their “goodness” to the next generation, while the individuals with the “unhealthy” genes should be discouraged from having any children (Allen 2001:59). With movements beginning in the early 20th century, eugenicists and proponents of the eugenics movement, have taken particular interests in the heritability of social behaviors, implementing enforcement mechanisms such as military force, law, and forced medical procedures in order to maintain the well being of societies’ future generations. Although society today frowns upon many instances of eugenics in our history, it is still being practiced in the 21st century. Contemporary eugenics has become much more technologically advanced and individually focused through the means of prenatal diagnosis and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Although these two approaches (past and present) to the eugenics movement are conducted in different ways, the motivations behind them are theoretically similar. In this paper, I will be summarizing the history of different

Since scientists and doctors nearly mastered the procedure, ethicists are concerned that curiosity may result in further customizations of physical features of an embryo or, the new "liberal" eugenics. For example, some parents may be open to the option of changing their child's eye color, natural physical skills, hair color, and number of fingers. However, this is nearly impossible to do since authors of scholarly journals, articles, and periodicals that supported my claim proved otherwise since restrictions of human genome research is prominent by governments where this research is aloud. Therefore, this warrant supports my claim the eugenics won't reemerge from human genome modification since the government has existing regulations to prevent and punish any experiments leading to the horrifying acts of eugenics. As I mentioned above, since this life saving research was conducted on embryos, researchers have found new ways eliminate existing mutations and diseases. For example, if an embryo developed a blood disorder, the scientist would be able to prevent the soon-to-be infant from premature death or passing it on to its offsprings in the future. The sources that were used in my annotated bibliography are all primary examples of the unlikely emergence

In The Future of Human Nature, Jurgen Habermas is alarmed that human nature is under attack by the advancements in biotechnology. The fairly recent possibility to alter the genetic code of an embryo, puts concept of human nature under the threat of extinction, and in one way or another, fails to recognize the embryo as a moral agent in society and undermines the moral equality, which we are obliged to hold. In addition, there are exceptions in his mind that would see pre-birth genetic intervention as morally acceptable. When genetic intervention is used to prevent a serious illness or disability of a future individual, consent is assumed due to the fact that, no person could reject this prevention, however an individual can in fact deny an enhancement.