Ethical Issues Arise As Scientists Peek Into Baby Genes

In an ever evolving society, the increased use of technology has become a staple in our day to day lives. With the constant advancements of technology the ideology of cloning has now become a reality. The increasing use of science today is slowly leading to the development of cloning and genetic selection. By altering the genetic make-up of a being, scientists have brought about several questions on how the population would adjust to the “super-beings,” and what benefits and consequences both human and non-humans would gain with their creations? Authors Francis Fukuyama, who wrote “Human Dignity,” and The Dalai Lama, writer of “Ethics and the New Genetics,” has called into question the use of cloning and how it could possibly affect others. With the creation of “super-beings,” humans would ultimately suffer a bigger separation from each other and create unfairness among the human species such as a stronger and more intelligent being.

In your excerpt, “Ethics and the New Genetics,” you presented the discovery of the advancement in genetic technology. You mentioned how scientist are able to change the genetic makeup of living things. Another key point presented in your article is the idea of cloning, where one is therapeutic while the other is reproductive. The article discussed that the advancement in technology and genetics should only be used to benefit people. However, you believed that using these advancements in the wrong way can leave a long term consequence to the present and future of the human society. (The Dalai Lama).

Online technologies are beneficial to the modern world. It can improve a person’s education, business, and helps in everyday life hassles. It has become an essential part of the way that people live and it is very likely that people would be a loss without it. In “Ethics and the New Genetics,” the Dalai Lama claims that to ethically use new technological advancements we need to develop a “moral compass”. Peter Singer, in “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets,” discusses whether new technology and “openness” makes our lives better, or if the lack of privacy takes away the rights of individuals. Both authors discuss how technology is advancing very rapidly and can significantly have major pros and cons to society. The two authors, however, have different viewpoints in which how the society can determine when technology has become ethical. Dalai Lama is firm believer that technology is evolving so fast that ethics could hardly keep up with it. He addresses how people should have ethical standards when dealing with the internet. Thus, he is directly proving to us how he would want society to ethically determine when and how technology should be used. Yet, on another spectrum, Peter Singer argues that although ethically, internet is invading our privacy, this invasion of privacy is the only way that the public is safe and people should brutally discover the truth about everything but somehow it can cause harm. Peter Singer and Dalai Lama both agree how the new online

Although the intentions of genetically modifying DNA in human embryos is aimed to rid society of genetic defects, it is still essential that this scientific discovery remains ethical. In an article on NPR.org, Rob Stein describes an experiment that scientists have been conducting in which they modify human DNA in order to eliminate life threatening genetic diseases that could be passed on for generations (Stein). In Portland, at Oregon Health & Science University, Paula Amato, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, explains “that their work is aimed at preventing terrible diseases, not creating genetically enhanced people...much more research is needed to confirm the technique is safe and effective before anyone tries to make a baby this way”(Stein). Because scientists like Amato realize their research is controversial, they are taking every precaution to assure what they are doing is morally correct, they are not intending to corrupt society. Although their intentions are good, it is their job to make sure their research is being used in an ethical way. If not, millions of people, who are already obsessed with the idea of perfection, will be able to do something about

Gina Kolata’s article, Ethics Questions Arise as Genetic Testing of Embryos Increases (2014), explains that as the increase of the testing of embryos for parents to choose whether or not to have children has also brought its ethical questions in the light. Kolata uses the Kalinskys case, a family in the article, and how their neurological disease, Gerstmann-Straussler-Schinker (GSS), has raised questions for ethicists who have looked into the case. Kolata’s purpose in writing this article is to inform the audience on the growing topic of embryo testing and also the ethical question that also accompany in order to have the audience to develop a personal view on the issue. Given how the author explains the technical terms used within the article, Kolata is writing to an audience that is not fully aware of genetic testing.

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.

Embryonic Research consists of manipulating embryos and stem cell to make medical discoveries, although this may sound wonderful many people consider it unethical. Genes and Embryos have become the subject of intense public discussions, as the achievements and medical discoveries in the categories of embryology and genetics not only increase our knowledge, but open up new possibilities to influence homosapiens in a certain novel way. Embryos play a major part in the scientific world. To create a normal stem cell line as a basis to go by, scientist begin with a fertilized embryo, the embryo is usually discarded from an in vitro fertilization clinic, or they can create a germ line by the use of therapeutic

Technology is ever evolving, but developing in not always the most ethical of ways, though. Due to gene editing, many peoples’ eyes have been opened to these unethical forms of treatment with the creation of methods to select your child’s gender, the riding of offspring’s genetically linked diseases, and the manipulation of the human DNA of the unborn embryo.

The ethical arguments for the use of germ line engineering largely centre around its therapeutic possibilities, and that it is therefore ethically appropriate to prevent children suffering from genetic diseases if we have the technology to do so. John Harris, a bioethicist and Manchester University says that “It is ethically imperative to positively support this technology” because “the human genome is not perfect” (Regalado, 2016). This

There are currently no concrete, internationally-accepted rules regarding the ethics of gene editing, because it is such a new discipline, and so both the scientific community and the general public are concerned about the possibility for abuse of the technology. Dr. Gene Elliott, in the Laboratory News article “Ethics of genetics: More than just designer babies,” discusses the controversy surrounding “the ability to manipulate DNA and cells for either benefit or harm.” She also addresses the possibility for “exploitation, victimisation or discrimination” based on an adult human’s fully sequenced genome, and the psychological stress associated with the knowledge of one’s own potential death sentence written in mutations and oncogenes. Through Elliott acknowledges that gene editing provides the incredible opportunity “to fight AIDS and certain cancers” and genomic sequencing has the ability to “prevent tragedy” by helping individuals learn about their health options, she emphasizes

This will be heading into questions regarding the manipulation of the natural sequence of our DNA which, makes this a very controversial issue. Next is protecting privacy of the individual whose genes were collected as part of the research. Despite these drawbacks, it has encouraged researchers to continue because of its numerous advantages. One is creating effective drugs in the field of medicine.

I agree that although nutritional genomics seems promising and could have significant positive impact on today’s health care there are a lot of ethical, social, and legal issues that impede progress. I concur that information derived from nutritional genomics should be treated the same way as other health related information. I don’t think medical information should be disclosed to any third parties without the patient’s consent. The good thing is the government is already aware of the possible discriminatory risks resulting from these studies and they have taken action towards resolving it. According to Jones, (2013) “The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, Public Law 110-233, 122 STAT. 881, prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s genetic information in both the health coverage and employment contexts” (para. 2). This means there is legal protection against the misuse of genetic information. Although this is not a complete solution to all the issues, it is a step forward. Reilly and Debusk (2008) stated that nutritional genomics is still in its infancy state. Researchers, lawmakers, and health care professionals still have the opportunity to resolve these issues and make policies that will help in the implementation of this science.

Even when humans themselves are not being genetically modified there are still issues that arise when their genes are being taken to modify other crops and organisms. As more human genes are being used in non-human organisms to create new forms of life that are genetically partly human, new ethical questions arise. For instance, what percentage of human genes does an organism have to contain before it is considered human and how many human genes would a green pepper for example have to contain before it can be eaten without qualms. Human genes are now being inserted into tomatoes and peppers to make them grow faster. This suggests that one can now be a vegetarian and a cannibal at the same time. In addition to this people have the right to

Scientific advancements are a huge debate where individuals are questioning whether the new scientific system CRISPR is an ethical way to modify fetuses. Experts have found that this could be the future of the world; therefore, CRISPR can alter mutant genes in the fetus to make the perfect healthy baby, changing the health of society. Many people may think that is is an inhumane way to conceive a baby, because an individual should not alter the way a baby is born and should let the babies be born naturally. However, there are many reasons why this theory is proven wrong; new and improved technology has allowed scientists to create a system that will genetically alter devastating diseases curing and creating a healthier society. CRISPR is beneficial to society and can aid in improving the overall health of the future public.

Bioethics has been used in the last 21 years to describe the investigation and study of ways in which advance in medicine and science impact upon our health, lives, society and environment. Bioethics is concerned with questions about basic human values and the rightness or wrongness of certain developments in life technology and medicine. These days when technology advancement allowed scientist to conduct test which may have “uncertain” consequences like Cloning. It’s necessary that people should know the pros and cons of such scientific procedures before they support its continued use. (9)