Gene Editing Ethics: Fair Business Responsibility

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 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.

In your excerpt, “Ethics and the New Genetics,” you presented the discovery of the advancement in genetic technology. You mentioned how scientist are able to change the genetic makeup of living things. Another key point presented in your article is the idea of cloning, where one is therapeutic while the other is reproductive. The article discussed that the advancement in technology and genetics should only be used to benefit people. However, you believed that using these advancements in the wrong way can leave a long term consequence to the present and future of the human society. (The Dalai Lama).

Online technologies are beneficial to the modern world. It can improve a person’s education, business, and helps in everyday life hassles. It has become an essential part of the way that people live and it is very likely that people would be a loss without it. In “Ethics and the New Genetics,” the Dalai Lama claims that to ethically use new technological advancements we need to develop a “moral compass”. Peter Singer, in “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets,” discusses whether new technology and “openness” makes our lives better, or if the lack of privacy takes away the rights of individuals. Both authors discuss how technology is advancing very rapidly and can significantly have major pros and cons to society. The two authors, however, have different viewpoints in which how the society can determine when technology has become ethical. Dalai Lama is firm believer that technology is evolving so fast that ethics could hardly keep up with it. He addresses how people should have ethical standards when dealing with the internet. Thus, he is directly proving to us how he would want society to ethically determine when and how technology should be used. Yet, on another spectrum, Peter Singer argues that although ethically, internet is invading our privacy, this invasion of privacy is the only way that the public is safe and people should brutally discover the truth about everything but somehow it can cause harm. Peter Singer and Dalai Lama both agree how the new online

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

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

I believe that there is nothing wrong with the therapeutic gene modification when it involves somatic cells. I think that it is our moral responsibility to do what we can to help save the lives of people who are suffering. The doctors who would be proscribing the treatment have all made a hippocratic oath so it would be their moral duty to follow through on using this particular treatment. Therapeutic gene manipulation with somatic cells would break any moral, ethical, or legal laws. But the other forms of genetic manipulation are a little tricky. Therapeutic gene manipulation of germ cells can be a useful treatment of disease but its effect plays a role in a larger scope then just the patient alone. I think that it poses a greater risk to the whole of humanity of we allow changes to germ cells and future generations. It would open the door to all other types of genetic manipulation. So rules have to be put in place so no abuse of medical treatment occurs. Finally there should not be any type of enhancement gene modification occurring. I think that it will overall produce more harm then good. It is not a medical procedure that is used to help people who are suffering it would simply be a mechanism that would only play a negative role in human development, simultaneously breaking many ethical rules along the way. Genetic

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

Anthony Wrigley has a Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Leeds, currently is a senior lecturer in Ethics, Keele University. With 19 years’ experience in teaching ethics, and over ten years specialist focus on teaching biomedical and research ethics. Dr. Wrigley engages in the critical ethical evaluation of legislation and policy on matters of biomedical and research ethics. He focuses on questioning the ethics into anything medical relate just like gene editing, and how it affects not just the human body but also people it affects. While Ainsley Newson is an Associate Professor of Bioethics at the University of Sydney. She has a Bachelors of Science with first-class honors in human genetics, a Bachelor of Laws with honors and a Ph.D. in Bioethics. Working in the field of bioethics, she specials in ethical issues and

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.

Many people think that it is a terrible idea to mess with the way God makes children. When one tampers with genes, there is a large amount of embryos that are used to make sure that at least on will turn out the way that the parents want it, and the embryos that are not used are just thrown in the trash; scientists are throwing human life forms in the waste basket just because they didn’t have a certain trait that the parents wanted (Brownlee 31). Another ethical question is whether or not parents own their own off-springs, and if they even have a choice in the genetics of their baby. Some agree that using screenings of the embryo would help take out the chances of having a kid with Down Syndrome, but most think that discarding these embryos causes judgement towards the kids that have different conditions that are not considered normal. Another reason that this doesn’t follow ethics is that the scientists are planning on creating Savior Siblings, and the purpose of them would be to save the life of their sibling that has a lethal disease; most are concerned about the embryos that contain the disease or are not a match to the child that needs saved because they are just discarded with no hesitation. The big problem with gene editing is that it conforms to the ideas that are put upon this generation; it suggests the idea that everyone needs to

When having a baby, the physical appearance cannot be determined until birth, but what if advancements in technology could allow you to do so? Dr. James Hughes suggests the idea of allowing parents to have the option to choose their kids physical attributes. In order for this to take place, a child’s DNA would have to be mutated in the early months of conception. To many people this may seem superficial, but the roots of this idea could go much deeper. Changing a child’s DNA early in its life could allow for the possibility to prevent diseases such as cancer and Huntington’s disease. This process known as gene therapy and consists different treatments such as “replacing a mutated gene that cause disease with a healthy copy of a gene, knocking out a mutated gene that is functioning improperly, or introducing a new gene to help fight against diseases” (Gene Therapy). This discovery is not only limited to unborn babies, but would be also performed for adults too. Even though some scientist and doctors have the ability to do this the question always arises, should they do this? Changing the DNA of a child or even an adult is a huge controversial topic that several organizations fight over. So where is the fine line between altering DNA ethical and unethical?

Genetic alternation has been a hot topic in the scientific community and in society. The stance I would take on the ethics on embryo editing is that it is not morally wrong, depending on the person who uses it or the reasons they want to may make it seem morally wrong. Though genetically changing an embryo can allow a child who was born with diabetes or other life threatening diseases that does increase the chance of death. Something like that would make most people want to change a piece of their genetic code. Yet, there are some disabilities that some people do not want to change because they do not know how it will affect them. This can lead to a “what if” scenario where people think if they change would they become happier or sadder.

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.