Essay

“I got up and pretended to study the pictures on the walls like I was a lover of religious art. When I got to the Merciful Mother right above Sinita’s head, I reached in my pocket and pulled out the bottom I’d found on the train. It was sparkly like a diamond and had a little hole in back so you could thread a ribbon through it and wear it like a romantic lady’s choker necklace. It wasn’t something I’d do, but I could see the button would make a good trade with someone inclined in that direction.

To tackle the housing affordability, first of all, it is crucial to lift the supply of housing as it will release the pressure on the housing price. Nevertheless, the supply of housing is inelastic as it requires an adequate fund, time, approval from the Government. Besides, the housing system is heavily dependent on the private sector. Thus, the Government should provide initiatives for housing providers to shift the supply of houses in the market. Australia would follow the policies from other countries to tackle the housing affordability. However, it has to fit in the Australian context. These policies might work well in other places but it does not mean that it will be applicable in Australia. The Singapore Government has a public

Imagine a world where maladaptive genetic diseases have ceased to exist, parents have the ability to alter and improve their unborn child’s attributes such as height, intelligence, and attractiveness, and each generation becomes healthier, smarter, and stronger. Sounds like an unfeasible utopia, does it not? However, due to scientific advancements in the field of embryonic gene modification, this fantasy may soon become a reality. In a nutshell, embryonic gene modification refers to scientists altering the genome of an embryo in vitro for a multitude of reasons, ranging from eliminating harmful genetic diseases to altering superficial characteristics. Although embryonic gene modification may seem like a dream come true to many, it is not without ethical concerns that require intense debate.

There have been many cases of accidental modification of healthy genes in the body, which could suggest that genetic modifications to human DNA is far from safe. “What the paper really emphasizes is that we are far away from using genomic editing because it’s not safe. The idea of using this for designer babies is very far-fetched. The technology is too far off,” said Dusko Ilic, a stem cell researcher at King’s College, London (Sample, Ian, ed).

Imagine a future where parents never had to worry about their child being sick-- a future where technology allowed parents the ability to make a flawless child. That future is near, but is halted due to people’s fear of Genetically Modified Babies, which is “a biologically radical technique referred to by terms including ‘mitochondrial replacement,’ and ‘nuclear genome transfer,’ [these techniques] would produce modifications in every cell of any resulting children” (Cussin and Darnovsky 16). This procedure takes the fetus’s cells and allows the doctors to manipulate the cells in any matter they want; then, the cells are placed in the women’s egg. Unfortunately, Genetically Modified Babies are “codified as [prohibited] in more than 40 countries and several international treaties” (Cussin and Darnovsky 16). In the United States, the FDA had a full day meeting on the subject matter. On February 2014, they discussed human modification and prohibited it (Cussin, Darnovsky 17). The idea of a “designer baby” may seem preposterous, but technology is making the concept attainable. In the United States, there are laboratories that have the technology to reach such a goal, but are unused due to the FDA’s law; however, if “nuclear genome transfer were allowed, [the laboratories] could be used for any purpose” (Cussin and Darnovsky 17). America should allow gene manipulation in babies because it is inhumane to let innocent babies suffer from diseases and disorders that can be

According to Henderson, “Historians of the new imperialism have tended to ignore the parallel histories of empire in nineteenth-century British North America”. He argues that in recent years, an increasing number of corresponding and connective histories have had the desire to locate early Canada as one site of an empire among others. He stresses how republicanism and a responsible government rely almost exclusively on published archival materials that have been used for a very long period (at least in Canada) by those who are interested in the history of the struggle for a responsible government.

I’m trying to help find Jillian as well. I just need to talk to a friend again.

However, the concept of designer babies is still relatively new; thus, it raise concerns about the safety of this technique. Also, the process of designer babies has only been experimented on rabbits and rats, so it has yet to be tested on humans. Therefore, there could be hidden risks and side effects for humans that have yet to be discovered until after the procedure is completed. The issue of competence emerges because “patients must understand the treatment involved and the potential side effects, as well as the probability of possible outcomes” (Morrison and Furlong, 2014, p. 262). The editing of the genome is still a mystery as there could be unexplored territories. There could be the possibility of cleaving the wrong genes and as a result serious side effects may occur when necessary genes are sliced. In addition, unpredictable consequences may occur in future generations, so prospective problems may not always appear until the birth of the baby (Pang and Ho, 2016). Thus, it raises the risk of the emergence of new types of diseases or disabilities if genes are edited. It will be difficult to tell when problems arise during the process and it may eventually show up only once the irreversible procedure is completed. Furthermore, “the success rate of impregnation is lower than most would like, harvesting eggs from the woman—a procedure not without burdens—may have to be done multiple times” (Suter, 2007, p. 930). Women will have to undergo the risk of implantation even though it is not guaranteed that she will become pregnant as a result. The cost of this procedure is quite significant, but there is still a chance that the process may not work or is ineffective. Therefore, it is not possible to know the potential risks until it emerges, so it questions the safety of designer babies because there is still more to learn about the technique since it is still

While saving lives is an attractive prospect, several ethical objections have been raised. Firstly, it may be wrong to make major changes to human DNA at all, as it alters the innate nature of humanity. Secondly, the technology has the potential to be used for other, controversial purposes, such as manufacturing humans or enhancing traits. These ethical concerns must be weighed against the benefits of developing this

The first reason why we should not pursue genetic engineering is that there is an inherent risk when tampering with the human genome. This worry is shared among several scientists, with Dr. David King stating that treating certain genetic diseases “Poses a relatively high risk that genes will be 'inadvertently ' altered in the reproductive cells of the foetus.” This could lead to a result similar to what a study cited by Stuart Newman states, that “Germline introduction of an improperly regulated normal gene into mice resulted in progeny with no obvious effects on development, but enhanced tumor incidence during adult life.”(10). This unpredictability is extremely hazardous and pose extreme risk to any humans involved in this process. Some avid advocates of genetic engineering say otherwise, stating that the benefits of genetic engineering far outweigh the risk. However, the majority of identified genetic disorders we are attempting to cure as of this

Medical research and discoveries have rapidly expanded in the past decade due to the advancement of technology. Genetic alterations are just one of the many discoveries made by scientists in 1973. Some people argue that genetic engineering is wrong and shouldn’t be legal, but some people think that this is a good idea and should be practiced. Genetic alterations should be accepted by society because they enhance characteristics, prevent diseases from spreading, and can give people things they never had or had the chance of getting.

Haim, ziv, lamy, and Hodes 2006) essentially aims at determining the emergence and extent at which infants develop preference for their own race, whether such preferences are as a result of same race The research by Kelly,D.J., Quinn, P.C., Slater, A. M., Lee, K., Ge, L., and Pascalis, O. (2007) and (Bar-categorization, how exposure to different faces early in life could affect their preferences. These preferences also develop and become present at age 3 months old, they prefer own race faces. (Bar-haim et., al (2006).

Many strong arguments in support of modifying humans for their benefit exist. People usually see genetic alteration as ethically permissible if it resolves genetic conditions which enables them to function to the fullest of their capabilities. Today, the most common modification occurs from our knowledge of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Firstly, PGD uses a screen test to detect chromosomal and genetic disorders in the embryo. With this technology, if a women is surgically having an embryo inserted into her womb, she has the ability to know the condition of the embryo, and if it has any abnormalities. Thus, by choosing embryo that lacks genetic issues, the mankind can help advance their offspring

Technology is ever evolving, however, the technology dealing with the gene editing on human embryos is not developing in the most ethical ways. As a result, of gene editing, many peoples’ eyes have been opened to unethical forms of treatment such as the creation of methods to select the child’s gender, the ridding of offspring’s genetically linked diseases, and the manipulation of the human DNA of the unborn embryo.

He explains the series of the process that first of all test in human cells, then animals and then small phase 1 clinical trials, and those processes must show promise before the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) approval larger trials and ultimately general use (Church 545). In opposition to Church, I believe that there is no guarantee about the safety because genetic manipulation of human embryos is new technology, so this technology should approve by expertise agency. The series of the process is quite in the natural order of things because this technology not only affects individual, but also would be passed offspring. It is fact that prominent U.S. scientists ask the worldwide scientific community to agree to ban or a moratorium on genetic manipulation in human germline cell because no one knows the full consequences of such alteration (Adams 534). As using the new medical technologies, it is clear that the series of the process is necessary for the