Ethical Violation In Genetic Research

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 testing is the most accurate way to identify an individual, and should therefore be used to increase the effectiveness of our justice system. This brings to light the issue of genetic privacy. Society questions the motives of government in DNA collection and floods the media, which acts as an informal actor on the court, with ideas of this invasion of privacy and encroachment of biological liberties. The 2010 article, Create a National DNA Database? stated that “such sensitive information is prone to misuse, and one should not have such blind faith in the security of government access to it.” EPIC, the electronic privacy

   The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be

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 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.

Bodily privacy is a significant issue in Genetic Profiling, as it is a human right which is in constant need of law reform. Technology is continually advancing, and genetic

A few months ago I watched a movie called Gattaca, which dealt with the issue of genetic discrimination in the near future. In the movie, people were separated into two classes, those that were genetically screened and positively altered before birth and the class that was unaltered. The separate classes had stark divisions, from what jobs that you were able to apply for to where you could eat. Security was aimed at keeping unaltered people away from the enhanced people. Knowledge about who and what you are was done by "instant" genetic genotyping that tells anyone everything that they want to know about a person’s genome from a small sample of blood or a hair

Before discussion of the ethical, legal and social issues can be successful, some background information is needed. For example, why is the goal of mapping the human genome important? Who is going to benefit or at least be affected by this new

Skloots and her representation of Dr. Jeffery Gray’s analogy might change the decision of participants. Dr. Gray demonstrated the analogy of an unlocked cell phone and leftover, non-identified biospecimens. According to him, “Cell phones are cells in your body which constitute the genetic information that can reveal your identity.”2 The author Ms. Michelle Meyer, strongly condemns it as an “inapt comparison” that can misguide the public.1 She explains it providing four justifications. First, the phone contains personal information including selfies, emails, and pictures which can easily reveal identity, unlike biospecimens which contains coding of T’s, A’s, C’s, and G’s.1 This form of coding cannot immediately identify an individual. Second, according to Dr. Gray the biospecimen is more revealing than a cell phone. The genomes are not that predictive and sensitive.1 Third, the cell phone analogy says to share information with a classmate whom you might know for few years.1 This cannot be applied to leftover specimens which are provided to the researcher whom you will rarely or never meet.1 Lastly, cell phone data sharing is for no reason whereas leftovers can be of significant

The genetic technology revolution has proved to be both a blessing and a blight. The Human Genome Project is aimed at mapping and sequencing the entire human genome. DNA chips are loaded with information about human genes. The chip reveals specific information about the individuals’ health and genetic makeup (Richmond & Germov 2009).The technology has been described as a milestone by many in that it facilitates research, screening, and treatment of genetic conditions. However, there have been fears that the technology permits a reduction in privacy when the information is disclosed. Many argue that genetic information can also be used unfairly to discriminate against or stigmatize individuals (Willis 2009).

From this new technology, people can easily know their blood style, their organs’ information and so on. During this way, people do not need to choose their ethnicities anymore when they do paperwork and race can never be a factor to identify people. This new technology is definitely good to eliminate ethnic prejudice and discrimination; however, I concern about that will gene identification leak personal privacy and might be create new discriminations. For instance, the people who have some bad recessive genes like color blindness gene, diabetes gene will stay in vulnerable groups. They might not easy to get married or get jobs. Instead of race prejudice, gene prejudice might become a new social phenomenon. This is an important problem the scientists have to be

Genetic information can be identified at any point throughout a person’s lifespan from pre-conception until after death. In addition to heritable, biological information, family history, genetic test results, and medical records are also sources of genetic information” (Jenkins & Lea, 2005). We are put in a position to gather and retain information that could be utilized for a better future, but is confidentiality involved for the sake of profiting? Ask yourself, who should have access to genetic information? Who owns and controls it? How can families resolve conflicts when some members want to be tested for a genetic disorder and others do not?

There is also the issue of information security, how will individuals store this data once it becomes their personal property, and which tools are going to be available to protect this data. Perhaps in the same manner people used secured wallets for crypto currencies, there be a market for personal genetic data electronic safes. This said there is a long way between the current states of computer literacy of the average consumer, and a point where it will be easy for anyone to have access to this genomic data, keep this data safe to prevent any potential genetic discrimination, and maximize the health and personal benefits from this information. Some companies such as nebula genetics are already trying to archive this (Mullin, 2018), but will it work? only time will

The fear of genetic discrimination is a phobia gripping many people around the world. People find themselves asking, could my genetic information raise my health bills? Could this cause me to be rejected from a job opportunity? These anxieties are causing people to lash out at genetic research, and ultimately the human genome project. People do not want our understanding of human genomics to advance. This is because the risks of the development of the technology could inflict on them. A major risk is genetic discrimination. I believe that genetic discrimination is wrong and governments should continue to prevent it because it is an invasion of privacy, it violates equity, and it could really hurt people with genetic

Whether an employer or health insurance company should have access to your genetic information can one day be the difference between having a job and health insurance to having neither. Even though it’s prohibited for an employers to ask or request for genetic information there will be people who voluntary provide that information. Those who do provide genetic information might be doing themselves more harm than good. Many are against providing their genetic information as they fear it could lead to genetic discrimination and prevent them from acquiring the proper insurance needed to cover health problems or obtain employment (National, 2002). To prevent genetic discrimination laws like “The Americans with Disabilities Act” (ADA), “The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act” (GINA), and “Affordable Care Act” (ACA) have been passed to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage or increasing rates, employers from denying work, prohibit discrimination in public services areas, and prohibits the discrimination against those who need accommodations (National, 2017). While providing genetic information is not required, some employers feel that’s its necessary to have this information. If an employer is are able to access a person genetic information they can to determine whether the person poses a risk to themselves or to those around them (Midwest, n.d).