Gene Therapy : Ethics, Progress, and Future Essay

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

One field of genetic science which is crucial in society today is medicine where cloning is now possible. The need for moral reasoning is essential in this field because with greater power society must “[recognize] not only the limits of our knowledge but also our vulnerability to being misguided” with an evolving world (Dalai Lama 140). Humans have kept high moral responsibilities over the century when faced with new developments in knowledge. The Dalai Lama suggests that “our technological capacity has reached a critical point” during the past decade and the gap between knowledge and human ethics when making decisions has grown farther apart as new biogenetic science has arose (133). The issue is not whether

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

In his article Is Gene Therapy a Form of Eugenics, John Harris discusses the concept of Eugenics when it comes to using Gene Therapy. Harris defines Eugenics as adapting to the production of “fine” offspring, or artificially producing offspring to fit certain criteria. He stresses on how this concept should be achieved. His main argument is that we should be in favor of Eugenics when it comes to potentially saving a child from living a potential disabled life. Harris believes that his view is not wrong, but believes that it is a matter of indifference whether we call it Eugenics or not. Harris argues that Gene Therapy is ethically sound, and

The Declaration of Independence describes individual rights as “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Congress). These inalienable rights are threatened by genetic modification. Specifically, Tony Wang, in his research on the ethics of genetic

The last 150 years have seen the origin of—and rapid expansion in—human knowledge involving the nature and mechanisms of trait and disease inheritance in human beings. Advances in genetic research hold great promise for the future development of effective prevention and treatment strategies for a great many, often devastating, heritable conditions. However, these advances also raise a series of policy, legal and fundamentally ethical questions concerning what we should and should not do with the knowledge and technology we acquire. These questions are numerous and both imminently practical and speculative, ranging from the exhausted, yet still largely unresolved, question of the moral status of the human embryo to fears about slippery slopes into a Brave New World or Gattaca-style dystopic future characterized by designer children and a genetic underclass.

Worryingly, there has been minimal public debate regarding this technology that could irreversibly alter the human race. Instead, ethical discourse has been largely contained to scientific and political circles. It is extremely problematic that a large majority of the general public is unaware of the research and debate regarding human gene modification. In addition, the current debate has stagnated, with researchers and politicians being unable to find any common ground. However, upon close examination of the three main ideological groups within this controversy, a key similarity becomes apparent: each group, regardless of whether they are proponents or opponents of human gene

(Glenn, Linda MacDonald, Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering and Transgenics) There are many social and fundamental issues about genetically engineering organisms. The genetic modifyification of animal and human DNA results, intentionally or not, possesses degrees of intelligence or sentience never before tested. Instead of seeing the ‘subject’ of the experiment as a person or animal, they strip them of their rights and think of them as objects. Professor Nemur and Doctor Strauss did not care what happened to Charlie, as long as he provided the information and data they needed to make money and achieve fame. Social and legal controls should be placed on research like this. Who has the right to access these technologies and how will scarce resources (such as medical advances and novel treatments) be given out to experiment

Although the treatment is costly and only available in clinical trials, gene therapy has treated some of the most known diseases, like Parkinson’s disease. People who are for gene therapy believe that it will change our world by getting rid of sickness. They think of a world without cancer and Parkinson’s disease. However, the people against gene therapy see a world with technology overtaking civilization. In their eyes, they think that gene therapy is wrong because of the side effects and the concept behind it. In addition, when thinking about gene therapy, the opposers conjecture that changing the genetic makeup of someone affected with genetic illness is wrong. I, on the other hand, believe that changing the genetic makeup of someone that is ill and suffering is exceptional because it is to their advantage. All in all, gene therapy is a heavily debated topic, but I believe that gene therapy can change our world in a positive

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.

Scientists have projected there to be many benefits to gene therapy in the near future. For starters, gene therapy could cure diseases like cancer, aids, as well as thousands of genetic disorders (Will). Sara Goering, a philosopher concerned with biomedical ethics, argues throughout “Gene Therapies and the Pursuit of a Better Human” that germline therapy could mean disorders would be eliminated for good, leading to the relief of pain for many. It poses the possibility to eliminate human suffering at the root, and in turn, better humanity. Throughout society, people already focus on ‘enhancing’ their kids through vaccines and vitamins. Kids are out through surgeries because they are believed to be what is best. Goering points out that because of people’s willingness for treatments like this, there really are not many moral concerns prevalent (Goering 403-40). For many diseases, treatments that people already feel comfortable with will not work as effectively (“List”). Currently, there are no real cures for genetic disorders besides replacing defective

In the future, gene therapy could be used to alter genes that influence behaviour. There are two types of gene therapy: somatic gene therapy which modifies the DNA in the body, usually intargeted cells, and germline gene therapy where the reproductive cells are altered and the changes are transmitted to future generations (“Genetics and Human Behaviour: The Ethical Context”).

Biotechnology interventions are used to advance human brains and our future to the extreme. The process of genetic engineering is very unpredictable and dramatic that it will have a major effect on its environment. Human genetic manipulation is considered unethical and dangerous for the most part. Human genetic alteration is illegal in many countries, but it is used in some places to cure gene diseases. The process of changing the genetic DNA of when a baby is born can be passed down the line of the persons. Swapping bad and unwanted genes for a better one is part of the process. There are many potential advantages gained from this operation as well as some dangers. Considering the ethical implications of the gene enhancement the result might cause a gene problem. The advanced technology application can make a huge different especially improving the quality of a human being by fixing an unwanted and inheritable gene defects. Many people are affected

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was discovered in 1944 by Avery and colleagues. Avery identified DNA as the primary genetic material. Watson and Crick later discovered the double helix structure of DNA. Leder and co-workers deciphered the triple nucleotide code that designated the amino acids from which proteins were built. The science of molecular biology was born (Sokol, Gewirtz, 1996). In 1990 a four year old girl who was suffering from severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) was the first to undergo gene therapy. White blood cells were removed from the girl and the cells were inserted with normal copies of the defective gene and returned into the girls circulation. Her condition improved with four treatments and

Just as there are different types of people who look at one glass of water and describe it as half full or half empty, the public has many different views on the future of our society. Gene therapy is also a glass that can be viewed in different angles – different perspectives. Some say it has great potential to shape the ideals of our future, while others believe it signifies intolerance for disabilities, imperfections that supposedly deplete from a person’s interests, opportunities and welfare (quoted by Peter Singer, xviii). This global issue has brought people with different opinions in the open, arguing their views using history,