Ethical Issues In Human Gene Therapy

DNA stands for Deoxyribonucleic acid. Deoxyribonucleic corrosive is an atom that conveys a large portion of the hereditary guidelines utilized as a part of the improvement, working and propagation of all known living creatures and numerous infections. The National Institutes of Health and Welcome Trust from the London UK and Craig Vendor of Celera Genomics from Maryland USA at the same time exhibited the grouping of human DNA in June of 2000, finishing the first significant attempt of the Human Genome Project (HGP) (Ridley 2). As researchers connection human attributes to qualities fragments of DNA found on one or a greater amount of the 23 human

DNA are like legos, they work together to build the traits of living things. They are the building blocks of the body. Many scientists today have been figuring out different ways to manipulate, change, add, and subtract genes from the DNA in living things; this is process is called genetic engineering. Some of the living things being experimented on are live people, plants, and animals. Today scientists are debating on the morals of genetic engineering due to what the community thinks of it, because of the christian 's viewpoint of genetic engineering. To some christians it may pose a threat to their, but to others it may be a blessing or a gift. Genetic Engineering is a growing breakthrough in the science community. “Over the last 30 years, the field of genetic engineering has developed rapidly due to the greater understanding of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as the chemical double helix code from which genes are made. The term genetic engineering is used to describe the process by which the genetic makeup of an organism can be altered using “recombinant DNA technology.” This involves the use of laboratory tools to insert, alter, or cut out pieces of DNA that contain one or more genes of interest.”(Pocket K No. 17) Scientist have yet to unlock the full potential of genetic engineering, but the information and the use they have found for it today has reached farther than anyone 's expectations.

In todays society, the common consensus about human experimentation is that it is unethical, however, people in the past believed it was necessary to advance scientific discoveries. The Tuskegee syphilis study is a prime example of how scientists in the past disregarded the ethics of human experimentation to enhance scientific research. The study was an experiment where four- hundred to six-hundred uneducated African American men were tricked into being tested. Most of the patients were injected with the disease and left without treatment to discover its effects, while the others were safe being used as controls. This experiment lasted for Forty years and was probably the biggest example of unethical human experimentation in America. Fortunatley, the contrivertial actions taken in the experiment lead future generations to create the law of informed consent where the patient understands what will happen during their treatment. The inspiration for researching this topic was how in “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”, by Rebecca Skloot, Henrietta was used for a scientific study without her consent. In relation to Henrietta, the men in the syphilis study were not aware of what was happening to them and were experimented on without their consent. Overall, the human experimentation in the Tuskegee syphilis study was unethical in many ways.

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

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.

Human genetic engineering is one of the newest scientific breakthroughs allowing DNA that is considered “bad” to be replaced using CRISPR. Due to this new technology discovered, many scientists around the world have agreed on banning the practice of humans and embryos, after China first was able to partially succeed in using CRISPR on embryos. The topic of human engineering is very controversial on ethics but also the benefits of the outcome on human genetic engineering and the fast pace that it is going in. Mary Shelley explains in Frankenstein that scientific progress is advancing faster than the human knowledge of science and shows this when Victor creates the creation and how he deals with the creation afterwards. Scientists are careful about transgressing ethical boundaries in the name of progress so that humans should

The Tuskegee study is one of the most useful situations when examining ethical decisions in science. Most useful because of the unethical decisions made and the justifications for them. The study spanned several decades and many decisions throughout can be examined with an ethical approach. The Tuskegee study was focused on patients who had contracted the disease syphilis. Syphilis at the time may have been the perfect enabler of this ethical case. Syphilis has been called “the great imitator” because it can be misdiagnosed as a multitude of other diseases. Coupled with racial targeting of the trial and other factors of the

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.

(Glenn, Linda MacDonald, Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering and Transgenics) There are many social and fundamental issues about genetically engineering organisms. The genetic modifyification of animal and human DNA results, intentionally or not, possesses degrees of intelligence or sentience never before tested. Instead of seeing the ‘subject’ of the experiment as a person or animal, they strip them of their rights and think of them as objects. Professor Nemur and Doctor Strauss did not care what happened to Charlie, as long as he provided the information and data they needed to make money and achieve fame. Social and legal controls should be placed on research like this. Who has the right to access these technologies and how will scarce resources (such as medical advances and novel treatments) be given out to experiment

In 1990, gene therapy allowed for a girl to no longer have a weakened immune system through manipulated cells. The new gene replaced the mutated gene, allowing her to produce ADA and therefore boost her immune system. In the past 25 years, over 2000 new therapies have been approved to “cure” leukemia and rare disorders. In the future, we may even be able to cure HIV. However, is this gene manipulation ethical? From a scientist’s view, genetic engineering may eliminate disorders and some diseases. It would prevent life-impairing disorders such as Trisomy 13 and Huntington’s, and it would cure certain cancers. But, from a social view, is it moral to change someone’s DNA? Will gene manipulation allow the rich to “build a child” with the ideal characteristics and widen the class gap? Other questions also arise. How are we to support the growing population with our limited food supply? Will everyone eventually become the perfect being and become identical, resulting in no variation? And with this lack of variation, could a single disease wipe out

Although the treatment is costly and only available in clinical trials, gene therapy has treated some of the most known diseases, like Parkinson’s disease. People who are for gene therapy believe that it will change our world by getting rid of sickness. They think of a world without cancer and Parkinson’s disease. However, the people against gene therapy see a world with technology overtaking civilization. In their eyes, they think that gene therapy is wrong because of the side effects and the concept behind it. In addition, when thinking about gene therapy, the opposers conjecture that changing the genetic makeup of someone affected with genetic illness is wrong. I, on the other hand, believe that changing the genetic makeup of someone that is ill and suffering is exceptional because it is to their advantage. All in all, gene therapy is a heavily debated topic, but I believe that gene therapy can change our world in a positive

Imagine the possibility of eliminating serious genetic diseases from the world. Imagine the idea of treating, preventing or even curing diseases that are yet to be cured. Imagine the feeling of being given improved health and a prolonged lifespan. This can all be accomplished with the aide of genetic engineering. Human genetic engineering refers to the process of directly manipulating human DNA to produce wanted results. DNA is a simple but very complex chemical that has the power to change the world and has begun to do so already. Many opponents to gene therapy fail to realize that genetic engineering has great potential to become very important in the biomedical industry. Though controversy exists regarding the ethics of human genetic engineering, it can produce numerous benefits, which outweigh its disadvantages and side effects; therefore, scientists should be able to manipulate the human genome for the purpose of helping people with serious medical conditions.

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?

Although the technology of heart gene therapy is at its initial stages and only medical trials have begun, some ethical questions and arguments are arising on its acceptability to be used for treating people. Heart gene therapy involves insertion of a foreign gene and this is argued to be against nature because our natural genetic makeup is altered from this treatment (Kelly, 2007). This has erupted discussions for and against this treatment. Some people argue that altering our genetic makeup, even for treatment purposes is playing God and should be completely rejected. This is based on the religious view of this technology. Other people pro heart gene therapy argues that if this gene therapy will save lives, it is a good thing and should be embraced. Looking at this issue on cultural and religious views may limit technology and its use to better our lives.

Genetic engineering has to do with manipulating organisms and DNA to create body characteristics. The practice of genetic DNA has shown an increasing amount over the past years. The process of genetic enhancement involves manipulating organisms by using biotechnologies. The technique is by removing a DNA from one life form and transferring it to another set of traits or organism. Certain barriers are conquered, and the procedure involves changing a form of cells, resulting from an improvement or developed organism. GMO which is a (Genetic Modified Organisms) is the operation done in a laboratory where DNA genetic from one particular species or animals is directly forced into another gene from an unrelated subject of plants or even animals.