Finding Genetic Harmony with Genetic Engineering

Picture a future where everyone is perfect, where judgment would not exist because no one is ugly, everyone is beautiful and flawless. In this “perfect” world each individual would be gifted in a specific category that they would excel in and go beyond what an average mundane could. This is a possible scenario we may encounter in the future if we allow the research of genetically- modified embryos (GM babies) to continue. Discussed by many, this topic has become increasingly popular. For some people this interests them in the sense that we can become the best versions of ourselves, simply by changing our genes. Another reason people support GM babies is that there is experiments that can prevent babies from being born with genetic health problems. Although the creation of these altered GM babies has some advantages, there are several problems that people must consider before we decide to go ahead with these plans. For example, genetic research will disrupt the natural order, which can lead to designer babies or GM babies born with side effects. The dangers of these experiments will greatly affect the world we live in. We must not rush into the practice of GM babies without letting the populations know the outcomes these GM babies can have in our society. Try to help everyone grasp the definition of GM babies and also explain how experiments on embryo can lead to designer babies.

Science and technology are always pushing forward and leading us to new discoveries, dramatically altering life as we know it. One of the newest discoveries is the genetic enhancement of infants, also known as designer babies or germline enhancement. Scientists take the human embryo and enhance its genetic makeup to ensure a particular gene is present or to remove the gene altogether. The manipulation of the unborn child’s genes will pose unknown risks and will be done without their consent. The controversy of this deception will further destabilize society and its unity. The genetic enhancement of infants should be opposed because it is unethical and dangerous to civilians and society.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnostic testing is a technique that is used to identify and prevent genetic defects in the embryos of mothers through in vitro fertilization before pregnancy. The term “designer babies” is what is used to describe the result of this procedure. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis can cause new issues to arise through society, morality and even science, thus this procedure should be prevented. As these certain issues of society, morality and science combine together, it can lead a negative ripple effect on humanity.

As reproductive technology like in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis continues to develop, the advancement of gene editing raises the possibility of designer babies in the near future. Defined as a baby whose genome has been preselected in order to ensure that certain genes are or are not present, designer babies are not yet practical with current technology, but preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) does make it possible for parents to choose the gender of their unborn child or select embryos that are least likely to develop genetic disorders. While most experts and the public are in agreement that using reproductive technology to eradicate disorders like Tay-Sachs disease and sickle cell anemia is ethical and in the best interest of the child, genetic engineering for the purpose of

Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary diseases, 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.

Continuous advancements have been made in these fields, and thus contribute to human genetic engineering. The method of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, also known as embryonic screening, allows parents at risk of transmitting a genetic disease to ensure their future children are unaffected by the disease. Some say that it would be greatly favorable for parents to have the ability to avoid passing on a genetic disease. While there is potential to eliminate many diseases, it also has an equally likely potential to be a hindrance to progression. Families are placed in a difficult predicament if the test determines the child does indeed have a disease, as they then must then consider the possibility of abortion. This brings about its own ethical

Because controlling the genetic content of the child’s DNA will prevent genetic diseases and disability, designer babies should be allowed. There are many illnesses which neither the child nor the parents could prevent the child from getting. This kind of disease is transferred from the parents to the child by genes like diabetes. Because of these genes the child will get a disability or illness, which can affect their not only physical but also mental ability. Because of that they cannot function as well as other kids, and it might lead to emotions problems and anxieties. So when this technology claims to have the ability to end most of the diseases, the community should give it the best chance. Also, Michael Bostrom, author of “The Morality of Human Genetic Engineering” argues that “the practice of genetic engineering might also lead to better treatment of disability” (1). Opponents show their disagreement by pointing out

Imagine a world where wheel chairs do not exist or the illnesses that cause the mandatory use of wheel chairs are wiped out. The advancement in science that is being used to explore the possibilities to prevent or cure human disease is called gene therapy. The purpose of gene therapy is to remove or reverse the mutation of the cells in an embryo or a child, thus eliminating the disease from the child and the existence of the disease. With this advancement in science, children who are diagnosed with an inherited death sentence or an illness that will cause suffering within their life span are given a second chance. The support of gene therapy would give hope to parents who suffer from the horrifying decision of “pulling the plug” on their young children who suffer from inherited illnesses. In addition, instead of allowing ourselves to endure the guilty conscious of knowing our children have a high chance of contracting a genetic illness, it’s time for legislation around the world to fund the eradication of illnesses from embryos. Critics claim that the future of gene therapy will result in unborn children being treated as products when the parent imposes on their children’s natural life skills and physical features (“Human Enhancement: The New Eugenics.”). Also, ethicists worry that the process of successfully tinkering with an embryo opens doors to strive for perfect humans. Although there is the potential for the reemergence of eugenics and the creation of “designer

The study of the human genome began in the early 1990s and involved into a global project. The purpose was to gain more information about human genes. Which was very difficult to do, with this project in place a better understanding of the human genome was possible. Today women who are expecting go threw an array of tests and screenings to see if their child will have certain genetic diseases, cancers or any health conditions that will impair the child’s life. This is possible due to the testing of the human gene. The benefits of testing the fetus are plentiful, but others argue these tests can be a hindrance to some. The pro testing side argues it improves the lives of human population, reduces disease, creates new medications and gives a better understanding of humans. The other side argues about the ethics of practicing the testing of genes, privacy, and discrimination to the life of a person who has a high risk to certain aliments. In order to remedy this dispute between both sides there needs to be some boundaries, the testing of genes cannot simply be aborted, and also the direction

Imagine that any person can have precisely the child that they want. This child will not have any genetic diseases, guaranteed, and soon, one can include exactly the traits that they want including the sex, haircolor, and personality (“Initial Attraction,” University of Minnesota Open Library). Although these ideas may sound fascinating at first, they may generate a eugenics society, the cost makes it unfair to those who cannot afford it, and it might create a risk of extinction for the human race in the future. For these reasons, the genetic modification of human embryos should be banned.

This success is incredibly impressive considering the fact that efficient, simple methods to genetically modify DNA, such as CRISPR-Cas9, were not yet discovered and the first ever success with genetic engineering of human genes was not too long before the 1990’s.

Research in the first form of genetic engineering began in the late nineteenth century with a pea plant, by a man named Mendel. But there have been many others after him that have found better methods. In 1968, a key discovery was made by a Swiss microbiologist named Werner Arber, when he found restriction enzymes (naturally occurring enzymes that cut DNA into fragments during replication). In 1973, the” true fathers of genetic engineering were American biochemists Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer, who were the first scientists to use restriction enzymes to produce a genetically modified organism.” (Chawla 1) After all of these discoveries, the research and progress of GMO’s grew larger and populated into the new age of biotechnology.

Through natural selection and selective breeding, humans have been manipulating genes for thousands of years. It has been occurring since around 12,000 BC, when humans first began to domesticate organisms. Genetic engineering as the direct manipulation of DNA by humans though, only came about in the 1970s. In 1972, Paul Berg created the first recombinant DNA molecules by combining DNA from the monkey virus SV40 with that of the lambda virus. In 1973 Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen created the first transgenic organism by inserting antibiotic resistance genes into the plasmid of an E. coli bacterium. the term "genetic engineering" was first coined by Jack Williamson in his science fiction novel Dragon 's Island, published in 1951, before its role in heredity or the DNA. In 1976 the technology was commercialized, with the advent of genetically modified

However, that being said, it was not until 1980s court case, Diamond vs. Chakraborty, which determined that a GMO could be patented, and potentially sold (Diamond vs. Chakrabarty 1980). This patent didn’t become active until May 1981 and almost immediately a year after, in 1982, genetically engineered insulin was approved by the FDA to be used for Diabetic patients. (Goel and Parashar 2013, p.170) Insulin is a chemical produced in the livers of sheep and cattle, and genetically engineered Insulin had allowed the medical fields to harvest this source without hurting the animals that produced it naturally, thus cutting out the “middle man”. This was the first instance in which the public had experienced Genetically Modified Organisms being utilized within the public health system.