Gene Editing Disadvantages

Twenty five years ago Genetic Engineering was a scene from an unrealistic invention on a scene from a science fiction movie. However, recent scientific advancements, genetic engineering, is becoming more of a reality rather than a fantasy. Genetic Engineering was once an actually impractical thought, today it is a prominent issue around the world. The most controversial subject of genetic engineering deals with the impact that manipulation of humans will have on earth. Genetic engineering of humans will negatively affect the world in the following ways; social issues, violation of human rights, discrimination, religious objections and medical concerns.

Dan W. Brock makes a few interesting points in defending genetic engineering, while being observant of the possible downfalls and negative views of the science. Brock starts of his commentary by addressing how the limits to our genes can not "confidently predict the rate at which that understanding [of genetic engineering] will be achieved in the future nor the ultimate limits on it" (pg. 615). Also, the author states how genetic engineering could help parents ensure their children the abilities to live healthy lives, create new treatments for disease, and produce stronger immune systems.

The altering of human genes could save lives. You could cure cystic fibrosis or alzheimer's. This would save the lives of many (Doc. 3). This technology could also give you children with specific traits of your choice. Also, this engineering can leave people painfree. This is not good because they can’t detect danger. As a plus side, scientists will eventually take the gene that causes this and help cure those with chronic long lasting pains (Doc. 2). This would make more people happy and healthy across the nation! Eventually we could go so far as to make a genetically engineered nation. As you can see, Genetic Engineering also could have a positive effect on

If parents were allowed to modify the genes of their children, there could be a cause of genetic overclass. There would be a definite line created in between the people whose parents changed their genes to create their own definition of perfection and then there would be the people whose family either did not want to or could not afford to genetically engineer their child's phenotypic traits. Not only that, it would also lead to homogenisation in society leading to a great drop in genetic diversity and also creating a disadvantage to anyone with a disability or deficiency of any kind. If anything, the inequality of people around the world would be greater than it already is today discriminating against the people that are not classified as “perfect”. Not only will eugenics create a heightened sense of inequality, it also creates the debate of what the definition of perfection actually

Many see the issue as being whether or not the parent should be able to choose their child’s genes; they also fear that the family unit would be harmed. “A common fear is that as the exact genetics of more complex physical and intellectual characteristics are discovered, the wealthy will be able to afford to choose desirable features for their children while other will not, leading to an escalating division of social classes by genetics” (Hagler 3). They also believe that genetically engineering children will make the child self-centered, and they fear that the family will also feel superior when compared to families of the same class. “Gene editing is thought to offer a way for parents to maximize their control over the properties of their offspring, transforming a relationship that should be characterized by unconditional love and acceptance into one in which children are seen as products of their parents’ desires and wishes, to be provisionally accepted and molded in accord with parental preferences” (Foht 4). Another reason that this could be harmful to the child is that the kids with disabilities or racial groups, like it was in the 1900s with the different labels (Foht

Who would have ever thought we could live in a world that can make genetically modified humans; some think the idea of genetically modified food is absurd. According to the encyclopedia, “Eugenics is the conviction and practice of enhancing the hereditary nature of the human population”. In our modern world, eugenics has become a center of conversation because of its numerous progressive usages, but also its probable consequences. Some believe it is the future of our world, some believe it will do more harm than good. With this proclamation, there is no uncertainty that it will be tremendously helpful in the use of preventing diseases such as cancer and countless more, before we are even outside the womb. However this idea can also be mistreated

Genetic engineering has been the subject of controversy since it first started. There is a lot of fear and concern surrounding the possibilities it presents. It is difficult to make ethical decisions about genetic engineering because if offers opportunities to solve many genetic problems such as hereditary diseases. The consequences are positive and negative, but there is no way to determine which will have a greater impact. Genetic engineering could lead to new treatments for hereditary diseases, but it could also have long-term adverse effects. Although there are benefits to genetic engineering, the negative side cannot be overlooked.

Ronald M. Green who wrote “Building Babies From the Genes Up” has a different opinion to the use of genetic modification. He is saying that “if we understand the genetic causes for diseases we could use the technology to fix the bad gene in the DNA; no one has to suffer from diseases such as dyslexia, or Huntington” (570). Hayes argues that “why should a child struggle with reading difficulties when we could alter the gene responsible for the problem” (570). He said that having more knowledge about our gene could give us more freedom in term of biological obstacles that every new generation faces. He also mentions that genetic modification has worrying social effects, but he says “it will help close the gap in social class”(571). He said that

John Harris and Marcy Darnovsky’s article, Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos? (2016), explores the potential moral and future repercussions involved with CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, a rapidly growing science. Harris argues that gene editing could be the resolution to curing detrimental illnesses before the birth of a child, and the science needs more time to experiment. On the other hand, Darnovsky argues that while gene editing may be able to treat illnesses before birth, it opens the door for parents to decide what they want their children to be like and to get rid of any undesirable traits. Both authors appeal to the audience’s logos to argue for or against gene editing and its potential consequences. Harris states

A quote from the article stated, “It is only a matter of time before it will be used to engineer our descendants -- eliminating many dangerous hereditary diseases in the process.” This quote is stating that it will only be a matter of time until this technology will be available to people. I was surprised that people were so confident in this technology, because at first I thought I was scared of what it could bring to our world. I was also shocked when the article stated, “Safety is clearly an important factor, but it is unlikely to be a decisive one.” In my opinion, safety should be the most important factor. If this technology is going to put people in danger, why would we use it? I was confused by the word eugenics, until the author provided the definition. The author used the word several times and I did not know what it meant. First reading the article I thought it would be a terrible idea to edit human’s genes, but reading on, to the end, I began to believe that the technology of gene editing is to only make sure children are as healthy as they should

Day by day year by year we are constantly increasing our advancements in the scientific field. One area of these advancements that are becoming more and more of a talking point is the genetic modification of human beings. This means in some ways modifying and changing our genetics to fit our desires. Think of it as buying a car and changing or getting new parts. Like adding a turbo or removing a fault that prevents the car from operating at full potential. As with many things this type of activity done to humans will draw a ton of different opinions and moral questions. The big question is what the future of genetic modification is and how can it help and or harm us?

This same technique would also be able to be used for the development of a technology that could trade out inferior traits and replace them with superior traits. Each individual will all possess their own ideas as to what they consider to be an inferior verses a superior trait, however this can still be harmful to society. This technology leads to a concept known as designer babies in which individuals will be able to select for the traits that they consider desirable for their child (Steinbock, 2008). Ethical concerns have been raised that there can be the risk that the connection between parents and children will disappear if the genetics in the children are altered. Children would be considered a product of scientists and not descendants of their families (Issus and Ethics of Gene Therapy, n.d.). If Restriction Nuclease Mediated Recombination is used across the globe to eliminate genetic-based diseases, it may develop other uses that can be controversial to society, such as designing your child to have superior

In the world of science we face a myriad of controversial studies that confront bad press from the public for various reasons, even if the origins reside in the aspiration of the betterment of mankind. One of these studies is the process of gene editing in an attempt to provide people with better health or longer living by moving around and replacing key strands of DNA in their system. Many people opposed to this style of treatment see it as unnatural to mess with nature, some it is perceived as unholy in the eyes of their religious beliefs, and other just care for the safety of the patients that are willing to undergo this sort of treatment. However, me and many others believe that the pros of gene editing out weight the cons. Gene editing may very well may be the secret to unlock the secret to longer and healthier living and maybe push us to something even better than that.

The process is aesthetic in nature and unnatural. This carries more weight than the fact that an individual can eradicate certain genetic diseases (Wivel&Walters, 1993).Through the process of genetic modification, doctors can even change the sex of a fetus as long as their clients pay for it. That is very unnatural. As the technology advances, it will be possible to change many features of a fetus like its eye colors and even develop certain desirable traits in them like a good personality, height, skin color, hair color, academic abilities, athletic skills, and so forth. The ethical aspect of such developments is questionable. The born child will be unnatural (Kogan, Doherty,&Gitschier, 1987). Thus, the morality of the technology is not acceptable. Moreover, since the science is imperfect, the desired traits in a child may fail, and the parents would develop resentments towards the child in future. It is also worrying how a genetically modified kid would behave once it learns that it is not natural like everyone

Many scientists and others believe that if gene therapy can be refined, it could be implemented to ultimately put an end to genetic disorders. The parents would have the children they want, and the children who had the natural disposition towards a genetic disorder could possibly become a normal child, whereas otherwise they would probably end up losing their life due to abortion. Those that support gene therapy view it as a win-win strategy: