Genetic Engineering Dbq

Have you ever wondered what it would be like if everyone was smart, athletic, and beautiful? Well, recently, scientists have been experimenting with human DNA to make a “better” person. Mostly all of these embryos died off, and those who lived were the same as your average human (OI) . I do not believe it is morally right to use human DNA and genes to alter the appearance and abilities of people. Although people may argue otherwise, I know that this is not right.

When we're allowed the liberty to design our offspring, naturally we will choose to have intelligent, good-looking children. This will create a lack of genetic diversity in society. Genetic alterations don't allow individuals to express freedom in their given talents and strengths because their talents and strengths are chosen for them. Source B states "The reason we care so much about the new genetics is that we sense that this area of science will touch on the deepest matters of human life, such as how we

Have you ever wondered what determines what you look like? This job is carried by a gene, which lies in long strands of DNA called chromosomes (OI). Genes can be modified to be “better”, and change what an organism will look like or have/not have certain conditions (OI). This is called genetic engineering, or genetically modifying an organism. I believe that human embryos should not be genetically modified because it can change the wrong genes, being too expensive, and changing how God wants us to live.

According to Antonio Regalado, 15% of adults think it would be fine to alter a baby’s genes to make it smarter. However, 46% think it is acceptable to fix a newborn’s genes to reduce the risk of serious illnesses (Doc. 4). The unique thing about the world is that every single person is different. If genetic engineering gets out of hand, it could lead to a “dystopia of superpeople and designer babies for those who can afford it” (Doc. 3). Once altering the genes of humans is feasible, international rules should be made so that diseases from mutated genes can be fixed, but messing with the child’s attributes are illegal. That way, every country’s government can prevent a future dystopia before it

Imagine if one day, humans were modified to be better people. Well that day is almost here, because scientists have already attempted to genetically modifying humans in China (OI). Although humans have the chance to be modified to be better, is that really a good thing? Genetically modifying humans is not a good idea. For example one of the modifications is to help people not feel pain, but it can also keep them unaware of harm (Doc. 2). Furthermore genetic modifications on humans is not good and shouldn't be allowed.

It is incredible to see how far genetic engineering has come. Humans, plants, and any living organism can now be manipulated. Scientists have found ways to change humans before they are even born. They can remove, add, or alter genes in the human genome. Making things possible that humans (even thirty years ago) would have never imagined. Richard Hayes claims in SuperSize Your Child? that genetic engineering needs to have limitations. That genetic engineering should be used for medical purposes, but not for “genetic modification that could open the door to high-tech eugenic engineering” (188). There is no doubt that genetic engineering can amount to great things, but without limits it could lead the human race into a future that no one

If we think its okay to modify a gene that has to do with a disease, then we might think it is okay to genetically modify physical characteristics such as, eye color, height, intelligence, or athletic ability. Suddenly, we have the Burger King attitude of “Have it your way” when making our children. As a parent, I’m not sure why you would want to risk the potential side effects that could come with the process of genetic modification. In Hayes’ essay, he also says “We want all of these things, yes, and genetic technology might help us attain them, but we don’t want to run the huge risks to the human community and the human future that would come with altering the genetic basis of our common human nature” (Hayes 183). If we were all genetically modified humans, there would be a risk of all of us being similar physically and mentally.

Genetic engineering has been around for many years and is widely used all over the planet. Many people don’t realize that genetic engineering is part of their daily lives and diet. Today, almost 70 percent of processed foods from a grocery store were genetically engineered. Genetic engineering can be in plants, foods, animals, and even humans. Although debates about genetic engineering still exist, many people have accepted due to the health benefits of gene therapy. The lack of knowledge has always tricked people because they only focused on the negative perspective of genetic engineering and not the positive perspective. In this paper, I will be talking about how Genetic engineering is connected to Brave New World, how the history of

According to Heimbach (1998), “By reducing diversity in the human gene pool, cloning will weaken a natural barrier that helps protect human bodies for attack by infectious diseases (like malaria) which constantly mutate to find vulnerabilities in the host.” (p. 635). It will make the human race enable to fight off diseases since most of us will end up having the same type of genes, “...it seems likely that attempts to create human beings with more desirable traits could have harmful consequences down the road. (Less variety in the gene pool, for instance, could weaken the species)” (Anderson, p. 4-5) So using human cloning to create ideal persons is cause for concern. Not only will it weaken the human race but also the diversity will become less and less as time goes on. Especially for second and third generations. It would violate the reproductive system and the nature of the reproduction would be completely changed. It could end up putting an end to the human race as a whole. A single disease could wipe out the population. “Cloning will make the entire human race more vulnerable to mutating infectious diseases, and the size of this danger will grow exponentially in relation to the rate at which human cloning actually reduces diversity in the gene pool for the race as a whole.” (Heimbach, 1998, p. 635). Lastly being able to chose our

I think that genetically modified animal are a bad thing. Three reasons why genetical modification is bad for animals is, becuase it can cause suffering and early death of animal. It can also cause deformities, feeding and breathing difficulties, reduced swimming abilities and lower tolerance to disease for genetical modified salmon. We don’t need genetical modified animals to feed the growing world population. We already have enough food to feed 11 billion or more people. Those one some reasons why we don’t genetical modified animals.

Most people do not like the idea of cloning humans. Many also disagree with being able to use genetic engineering to prevent genetic defects or to choose certain trait for their children. Many fear that children would become objects rather than human beings. President Clinton stated, "Banning human cloning reflects our humanity. It is the right thing to do. At its worst [this new method] could lead to misguided and malevolent attempts to select certain traits, even to create certain kinds of children - to make our children objects rather than cherished individuals." Besides, who can say for sure that this technology will be used in a beneficial way? Someone, somewhere is likely going to do the unethical thing (Kevles 354). Kevin T. Fitzgerald said cloning is not needed because alternate solutions to these problems already exist, social and psychological problems cannot and should not simply be solved by genetic solutions, and cloning humans for the purpose of supplying organs would cause a great ethical uproar (Fitzgerald). Gene therapy also presents many problems. Since it is very expensive, only the wealthy could afford to have children without undesirable traits. This would further

      In the past three decades, scientists have learned how to mix and match characteristics among unrelated creatures by moving genes from one creature to another. This is called “genetic engineering.” Genetic Engineering is prematurely applied to food production. There are estimates that food output must increase by 60 percent over the next 25 years to keep up with demand. Thus, the result of scientist genetically altering plants for more consumption. The two most common methods for gene transfer are biological and electromechanical. “Early experiments all involved changing DNA using bacterial vectors”(Randerson, 2001). Through other advances scientists proclaim how they can improve the human gene pool. All humans have

There are also concern with the some of the outcomes of experimenting with genetically modified animals especially with the transplant of animal organs into humans as this may cause catastrophic results being that all human pandemics have been cause of animal viruses that adapted to replicate in humans. Also experimenting with the genes of animals raises ethical dilemmas as some animals have been genetically modified to carry mutations associated with human diseases and often suffer the same symptoms of these conditions like humans.

A large majority of Homo sapiens do not appreciate the existence of bacteria, as evinced by the myriad hand sanitizer bottles ubiquitous in daily life, boasting, “Kills 99.9% of germs.” This is a highly rational response to the group of microscopic organisms, of which it is true many are malignant to maintaining homeostasis as agents of disease. However, bacteria are essential to the world’s functioning, with important roles and many benefits. Recently, scientists studying certain bacteria have found a mechanism in their immune systems that can alter the very code of life, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). This new tool is called Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR/Cas9), and has revolutionized the world of genetic engineering. CRISPR/Cas9 is less expensive, more accurate, and more effective, making this method much more amicable and available to the common geneticist compared to former techniques such as Transcription Activator Like Effector Nucleases (TALENs) and Zinc-Fingered Nucleases (ZFNs). This availability and potential applicability to the human genome raises important questions about ethics and modification of subsequent generations of humans. CRISPR has brought bioethicists and scientists together to demarcate the limits of genetic modification. Most agree aberrations to the human race as a whole may result in unforeseeable and irrevocable effects. Although genetic engineering performed on human beings is indubitably an avenue

Human genetic engineering should be banned because it harms the human race since we would be reducing our genetic diversity through this radical process. Human genetic engineering simply eliminates the “undesirable” traits and encourages specific “desirable” traits. With the endless possibilities of choosing what to eliminate, inevitably the “desirable” traits are picked and chosen on whim decisions such as blonde hair, blue eyes, a slender figure, and tall height (Act For Libraries). According to the British Medical Journal, this idea of designing a baby based on cosmetics is called unrealistic and arbitrary standards of perfection (Caplan). Unrealistic and arbitrary standards of perfection will create identical genomes among humans. Obviously, there would be a tremendous drop in genetic diversity as a result of this. Moreover, when defective genes are replaced with functional genes inevitably, there is a reduction of genetic diversity and causes the human population, as a whole, to be more susceptible to disease and virus (Patra). As shown by this, the “undesirable’ traits are annihilated and “desirable” or functional genes in this instance are promoted. Although scientists for genetic engineering will promote the “eradication of genetic disorders and diseases,” once they are diminished to the best of their ability there would still be a yearn to “perfect” the human race. Instead of annihilating disease we would also be annihilating cosmetic traits we don’t want to see in