Ethics Of Embryos

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.

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

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

Gardiner (2011) does not consider it a wise decision to separate the process of attitude and just focus solely on reason since humans usually make decisions that are somewhat affected by the emotions. And virtue ethics realizes that and incorporates that emotional component into its ethical theory. Beauchamp and Childress addresses five important virtues that are most likely pertinent to the medical practitioner which is conscientiousness, trustworthiness, discernment, compassion and integrity. If these five values are taken into account when making decisions about prenatal gene manipulation the questions may seem less complicated to answer. A trustworthy medical practitioner with integrity and compassion would want his patient to have the best chance at survival – almost like a parent would. The decision made then probably would be to employ the technology only if it reliable enough to produce a result beneficial to the patient, in this case the embryo. If the technology is not developed enough, or is too risky a “virtuous” medical practitioner would not take the risk of harming the patient. It would probably be more virtuous to not use the technology that cannot be trusted and has too many variables associated with it. A virtuous decision would be to continue development of the technique using non-viable embryos which has been done before. And only when the technology has reached a certain threshold of accuracy and precision in being able to deliver what is intended can it be used to treat real embryos. To answer the final question, if non-viable embryos are being used to develop a system that might help viable embryos then the value of life is still kept “intact” and in fact is raised since a successful application of this advanced technology would actually enhance the quality of life of a person who otherwise would have gone through a lot of pain and

Genetic engineering is the figurehead of the ethical concerns of scientists in the 21st century. Nothing is more engrossed with criticism and dislike than the idea of altering the baseline for living organisms. Many people are skeptical of genetic engineering due to the versatility it exhibits. A scientist could use a genetic editing tool, such as CRISPR, to remove the genes for a hereditary disease in an embryo, but they could also utilize it to alter the physical characteristics of a human baby. This thought provoked the flood gates of ethics to unleash a multitude of unanswered questions and concerns about the usage and further development of genetic engineering. The field of genetic engineering is

I would like to strictly state that first off, this report strongly discourages any attempts at human germline genome modification for clinical application. This does still leave open a question about ex vivo human embryos. Some people consider them human beings. I believe as long as the embryo is not transferred to a human recipient to develop to a baby, it is still feasible in terms of morality.

The idea of eugenics as a means of improving human conditions through embryo manipulation, has been debated in many scientific and cultural communities for various reasons. One of them being its effect on society, specifically the societal views of genetically improved individuals. From a social and cultural perspective, the concept of eugenics varies between people of different cultures. With the results of different human eugenic trials and the increase of gene editing technologies such as CRISPR, there have been many contrasting reactions to the information. Recently, the topic of debate has been whether there should be limits on the development of gene-modifying technologies, specifically in embryo modification. This report examines the

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

Ackerman, she also shared her concerns for making this process available for everyone. She believes if designer babies are to be normalized, some institute would need to regulate the process, otherwise it could pose to be a very big issue (D. Ackerman, phone interview, April 13, 2017). Another highly controversial problem is the embryo (baby) does not have a choice in the matter of what is happening. (The main question to ask anyone here is, is it right to manipulate and change an embryo, and their DNA when they can not even give consent to the operation (Loria, 2015, para.11)? So, instead of letting nature run its course of what the gender is suppose is to be compared to manipulating the genes. Furthermore, another ethical dilemma that could potentially arise from manipulating genes is the loss of individuality of the eventual baby. Since a parent is changing their child, one could think “what could my baby have been like” (Hanson, n.d., para.6).

These modifications are used to treat genetic diseases, but are unethical in the aspects of religion. In the process of stem cell research and genetic engineering, the donor is giving up her potential baby to a couple or potential mother to “replace” the potential diseased baby. With most God-fearing religions, giving away or having your oocyte destroyed and replaced is simply unacceptable. Such practice can be viewed unethical because the receiver has the opportunity to terminate the “God-given” genetic factors. Whether it the genetic factors are diseased or not, many believe that replacing one’s oocyte is still morally wrong. According to Pang and Ho (2016), genetic engineering can potentially be used for genetic enhancement along with treatment of genetic diseases (pg. 60). If research continues successfully, the potential outcomes could possibly result in the reality of enhancement genetic factors. The modifications of stem cell research have similar views as to why abortions are morally wrong. Reasoning for abortions can weigh in on the medical circumstances as to the fatal outcome of caring the fetus full term or it can weigh on the choice of the mother simply not wanting to have a

Recently, in the month of April, researchers in China performed a genetic procedure where a human embryo was successfully modified. What followed, was a great surge of media attention due to the fact that a major ethical boundary was crossed. People are concerned that these

This is the first time their request has been sanctioned by a national regulatory authority. At the Francis Institution, the scientists hope to cast light on early embryo development, which may eventually lead to safer and more successful fertility. The cons are that it's unnatural or better said as we are trying to play God. The pros are that if it is successful, we could erase diseases like cancer, HIV, and others. We must talk about the outcomes before we jump right into the research. This article discusses the outcomes and explains gene editing in a different way. In my research paper I will be using this article to argue the pros and cons of human gene editing. Also this article gives me a good understanding on how this situation will be handled and carefully taken care

Consider living in a world where a sizeable majority of our population has been genetically altered in some fashion or another in the future. Then consider whether the practice is ethical or could be perceived as researchers playing God through their technological advancements. For decades, there have been countless progressions in the scientific field regarding genetic enhancements performed on an embryo. In the beginning, there were restrictions in place to disallow altering an embryo’s genetic profile for any reason other than to avoid a hereditary disease that would manipulate the child’s development. As time has progressed, scientists are now utilizing the procedures to tailor a child’s characteristics to the detailed specifications asserted

According to BBC News, the discussion about genetically engineering embryos should begin. With the increased technology that has been introduced in the past couple of years, changing a fetus’s genes and creating “designer babies” could become a possibility for parents (Gallagher 1). When these breakthroughs were published, there was an immediate uproar about whether changing one’s baby’s genes is ethical. The events that have led to this technology, and the technology itself, are intriguing to many genetic scientists around the world.

The rapid evolution of genome editing have causing legal and ethical concerns. The US National Institute of Health (NIH) addressing the need for regulation of human embryonic gene editing and released a statement emphasizing the bureau’s policy against funding research involving genome editing of human embryos and the ethical concerns regarding this technology. Safety regarding genetic engineering is a major