Genetic Engineering Debate

One side of the argument that promotes Genetic engineering reason that the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks,

The use of genetic engineering shouldn't give parents the choice to design their child because of the act of humans “playing” God, the ethics involved in interfering with human lives, and the dangers of changing human genes. Because of recent technological advances in "designer babies", parents

How far would you go to save human lives and to progress society for those in need? The benefits of genetic engineering have shown to outweigh the ethical and environmental consequences associated within the field. Genetic Engineering has shown to provide major benefits in the field of medicine and agriculture but is faced with extreme criticism and backlash, specifically on the basis of ethics.

Many scientists have agreed that, despite the fact that modifying humans is unethical and controversial, “research involving genetic modification of human embryos is essential to gain basic understanding of the biology of early embryos” (Dunham, 1). With the enhanced knowledge upon the embryos of humans, methods in which to naturally develop smarter and more dominant newborns and infants will be hypothesized and produced. As succeeding generations will naturally develop healthier than the prior generations, the biological systems of humans, such as the immune system and skeletal system, will become stronger, and will produce people that are naturally immune to more diseases. Also, with insight upon the early development of humans, new methods, excluding the process of genetic modification, in which to cure diseases that form during embryonic development will be formed. With the ability to naturally produce healthier and more able children, as well as the method in which to prevent diseases, future generations will be able to prosper further, and improve upon the existent method. As it provides more knowledge upon the basis of human development, as well as the methods in which to improve it, genetic modification will progressively help more people, until it benefits all of

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.

Genetic engineering is a process that has been dreamed of for generations by the most ambitious of scientists. With current science making this once far off dream a reality, two men were quick to throw their opinions into the air, making their stance clear on the subject. In “Building Baby from Genes Up” Ronald M. Green encourages people to embrace the inevitable benefits that genetic modification will shower upon the world. Contrasting this article is the more reserved Richard Hayes with “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks”, in which he warns of the harm it will undoubtedly bring to humanity.

There is no denying the argument that it would be incredibly useful to have the ability to control and manipulate embryos in order to prevent diseases. However although there would be possible benefits, it is believed by many, including myself, that this huge medical step would cause more harm than good. On top of this, the concept of screening to prevent genetic disorders also suggests that a person with a disorder is somehow inferior, less desirable or not equal. Coming from a family that has lost many to the heartbreaking disease of cancer, I would love to see humans advance to a point where things like this were no longer a part of life. However, in my opinion, genetic engineering is not the solution to this nor is it the way of the future. In the article “ Engineering the perfect baby,” Antonio Regaldo quotes Edward Lanphier who says, “There really isn’t a medical reason.

Because controlling the genetic content of the child’s DNA will prevent genetic diseases and disability, designer babies should be allowed. There are many illnesses which neither the child nor the parents could prevent the child from getting. This kind of disease is transferred from the parents to the child by genes like diabetes. Because of these genes the child will get a disability or illness, which can affect their not only physical but also mental ability. Because of that they cannot function as well as other kids, and it might lead to emotions problems and anxieties. So when this technology claims to have the ability to end most of the diseases, the community should give it the best chance. Also, Michael Bostrom, author of “The Morality of Human Genetic Engineering” argues that “the practice of genetic engineering might also lead to better treatment of disability” (1). Opponents show their disagreement by pointing out

Most recently nematode worms are being genetically engineered with different proteins to study Alzheimer 's disease. In the prelude to these events the National Human Genome Research Institute was formed in 1990 and has been guiding the activities of genetic engineers since its founding. In 1997, the National Institutes of Health had a conference to discuss the ethics and possibilities entailed with genetic engineering. One interesting topic reviewed were the mutations in the human genome and their hereditary prospects and properties. Euro Mäntyranta was one such anomaly, a Finnish champion in his own right by winning two cross country Olympic gold medals. Not only from skill or talent did his victory come, but he had assistance from a genetic mutation that increased his red blood cell count. This newly found mutation increased his aerobic prowess. This mutation is only one of many that are found around the world and to control them is a goal waiting to be achieved. (Wilgar, Scott )

In today’s society, we as 21st-century human beings have loads of technological advancements. We today have luxuries our ancestries would never have imagined. Since the 1950’s humankind was made significant strides in the endeavors of science and technology. The microwave, the World Wide Web, automobiles, and smartphones are just a few examples of the daily advances that had. However, some developments are more controversial than others. Controversial topics include vaccines, stem cell research, GMOs, and the safety of Nuclear power. A new development that is picking up a lot of attention is the ability to edit the human embryos, more commonly known as “Designer babies.” Genetic Modification can make the thought of being able to create a 'perfect' child a reality. “Designer babies” are basically babies that have been genetically modified. All though I personally am for a lot of the scientific progress over the years, this is a subject I cannot agree with. Genetically modified offspring is morally reprehensible and should not be allowed.

In the past thirty years, humans are witnessing a huge revolution in the genetic engineering industry. Having identified most of the Human Genome, gene sequencing has become programmed and extremely fast, and laboratory techniques in molecular biology allow for in-vitro fertilization and transfer of genetic material. Gene therapy and repair based on stem cells research allows for replacement of a defected allele in the DNA, and even a whole damaged tissue in the patient. In general, it is accurate to say that genetic engineering is a controversial topic about which people tend to have strong opinions. The genetic engineering issues that mainly catch the attention of the moral community involve the

Embryo gene modification is a very controversial topic. Some people believe that it could potentially provide a valuable way to decrease the chances of genetic diseases at birth, whereas others think that it could lead to unethical uses such as ‘designer babies’. In this essay, I will expand on the arguments put forward by different people concerning their views on genetic manipulation, and I will also attempt to put into brief the broad topic of gene editing and artificial fertilisation.

According to BBC News, the discussion about genetically engineering embryos should begin. With the increased technology that has been introduced in the past couple of years, changing a fetus’s genes and creating “designer babies” could become a possibility for parents (Gallagher 1). When these breakthroughs were published, there was an immediate uproar about whether changing one’s baby’s genes is ethical. The events that have led to this technology, and the technology itself, are intriguing to many genetic scientists around the world.

In this paper I will be arguing that genetic engineering of embryos, genetic therapy, and genetic enhancement should be permissible. Genetic engineering is modifying an organism’s genetic makeup. There are two different methods in genetic engineering: genetic therapy and genetic enhancement. The two differ because genetic therapy serves to treat diseases, whereas genetic enhancement “go beyond” that of therapy. For example, an enhancement would be to use genetic engineering so that one’s child could have blue eyes instead of brown. Also, an enhancement could improve upon features that are deemed “abnormal” to the standard norm, such as deafness or depression. My first argument for genetic therapy is that this technology will be able to help cure serious genetic illnesses that would otherwise cause tremendous suffering. My second argument for genetic enhancement is it would eliminate the randomization of genes, so parents could decide what features their child should have.

One of the biggest pictures that are against genetic engineering is that humans are not supposed to play the role of God. DNA is a unique thing to every person. Bioengineering itself involves the very technical aspects of modification, and the enhancement of stem cells or DNA and this process can change the human structure. “The progress of civilization has been having been largely dependent upon the out ‘interference with nature’.”(Encyclopedia of Applied Plant Sciences).