Genes and Their Control Over Humans Essay

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

Dawkins' gene is a personified entity, seemingly to the extent that it is an independent being to an extent. The "machines", therefore, are subjected to programming of sorts by the genes. Capable of selfish and altruistic behavior, the gene "reaches" outside of the human body to interact with its environment (3). "With only a little imagination we can see the gene as sitting at the centre of a radiating web of extended phenotypic power," stated Dawkins (3). By granting "phenotypic power", the genotype (as determined by the interaction of genes) behaves in such a manner which dictates the phenotype, or physical expression of the gene. By following this pattern—interaction between the gene and its environment, it is arguable that the environment is actually governing genotypic behavior. By this, the environment is not merely a factor manipulated by the gene, but instead can manipulate the gene itself.

The classic debated topic of Nature versus Nurture has been and will always be a quarrelsome subject in the scientific world. Meaning, the issue of the level to which environment and heredity sway behavior and development in a person. Nature can be defined as, behaviors due to heredity. This means the behaviors is based on the inherited makeup of an individual and is an influence of the growth and development of that individuals’ all through life. On the other hand nurture is causes of behaviors that are environmental. This Intel’s the influence is from the individual’s parents, siblings, family, friends and all other experiences that individual exposed to during life. However, these concept of ideas supports the inborn genetic framework,

I have a strong interest in genetics, especially, as I love the concept that something so simple can have such complex and unique effects. This interest stems from a module I did during my biology GCSE where I was first taught about alleles and their effect on phenotypes. Similarly, when I learnt about the structure of DNA, like the nucleotide bases and the sugar phosphate backbone, I was fascinated. Due to this fascination I read The Selfish Gene by Richard something at the recommendation

1. Which one, genetics (nature) or the environment (nurture), do you think plays a larger role in the development of who you are? Please provide me with what percentage you think each contributes, e.g., 50% genetics/50% environment.

The BLS states that the employment outlook for the genetics counseling field is quite promising. They project it to grow at 29 percent until the year 2024, which is much faster than average. Keep reading to learn why the employment outlook for this exciting medical field is so good.

Humans have been able to use the principles of DNA replication, gene transfer and gene expression (as observed in nature) as tools to manipulate specific genes towards preferred outcomes. An advantage of being able to manipulate genetic therapy is the ability to eliminate/cure genetic disease/disorders with otherwise no other cure. Humans are able to remove the genes causing the genetic disorder from the gene pool of populations, allowing organisms to live longer and healthier lives. Two ways of manipulating genetic transfer which will be explored further in this report are selective breeding and gene therapy.

Fifty years ago two men James Watson, and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA, the sequence that makes up everything in life from humans to eagles. DNA controls everything from hair color, athleticism, cancer, and intelligence through genes. From this discovery, a new field of science formed called genetic engineering, where they studied the DNA makeup of living things. Eventually acquiring the ability to modify the genes genetic engineers could modify genes to receive the desired outcome according to their own design. Starting small using bacteria and gradually getting larger they began to transfer genes successfully from species to species, these ideas eventually made their way toward human evolution. Everyone wants their children

The idea that our genetic code controls most aspects of our lives is arguable. Nowadays, scientists (cell biologists, neuroscientists, etc.) are uncovering concrete evidence that are genetic code is only one of the many complex system of the human body that sways our lives. According to one new study, (“Do

It has been argued that if genes influence behaviour and character, and we cannot choose our genes, then our behaviour is outside our control and we are not responsible. However, we take the view that genes are not deterministic, and that there is scope for an

The “new genetics” research in molecular biology, as this month’s invited Presidential Column by Frances Champagne illustrates, has important implications for psychological science (so important, in fact, that it will be the topic for the Presidential Symposium at our upcoming annual APS convention this May in San Francisco). Professor Champagne’s analysis shows how recent findings in epigenetics speak to basic and enduring questions not just within psychology, but in virtually all discussions about human character and individual differences, from philosophical symposia to dinner conversations. How much is nature? How much is nurture? Champagne takes us elegantly and at high speed from that old question toward a new understanding of the “gene

Genes not only depend on its ability to survive but also on other genetic units. Dawkins (2006) suggested that genes are selfish because only the “fittest” (p. 12) genes survive. Moreover, Dawkins claim that genes are selfish when better genes prevail over its predecessor genes which are not on par seems justifiable. However, Bhalla (2013) claimed that collaboration between genes is necessary. Improved genes thrive because it is able to continue surviving and value add the host cell or organism on a macro scale, contradicting Dawkins’ claim on “selfish genes” (p. 45). The selfless behaviour of genes is parallel to that in humans as people nowadays often offer help to strangers without expecting returns (Ratner & Way, 2013). Furthermore, Dawkins

Author Chuck Klosterman said, “The simple truth is that we’re all already cyborgs more or less. Our mouths are filled with silver. Our nearsighted pupils are repaired with surgical lasers. We jam diabetics full of delicious insulin. Almost 40 percent of Americans now have prosthetic limbs. We see to have no qualms about making post-birth improvements to our feeble selves. Why are we so uncomfortable with pre-birth improvement?” Despite Klosterman’s accurate observation, there are reasons people are wearisome toward pre-birth enhancement. Iniquitous practices such as genetic engineering could lead to a degraded feeling in a child and conceivably end in a dystopian society, almost like the society Adolf Hitler had in mind. In the minds of

3. Carlson, Elof Axel. Mendel's Legacy: The Origin of Classical Genetics. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 2004. Print

Every living thing is the product of the genes that were passed down from ancestors. Genes make up everything we are. One gets their traits from their parents. Most people live full lives with relatively good health. However, some people inherit mutated genes or faulty genes. This could lead to genetic disorders that could be life threatening. Even today, many genetic disorders still remain incurable, leaving many people without hope. Genetic therapy could be their answer. It is through this research that the cure for genetic disorders can be found. Though some people believe it is unethical or immoral to alter genes, current therapeutics have not been able to save the lives of the patients with these diseases. Genetic therapy