Genetic Engineering. "Factor X" in human beings

On the last years, genetic technology have been improving. The research carried out in this area are focused on the early diagnosis of diseases. Moreover, manipulation of genes in the future provides a critical tool for eliminating fatal diseases to humans. Also humans will be able to manipulate genes from birth. But the real question is although can be perform it, we allow it? Everything possible is ethically permissible? Some dramatic demonstrations of genetic modification have been made with mice and other animals, however, evidence in humans are generally considered outside the ethical boundaries. Gregory Stock, director of the Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society at UCLA and author of Redesigning Humans, in his article “Choosing Our Genes” (2012) argues the use of technology to change humans genetic in order to avoid imperfections or diseases. Stock shows genetic engineering as a very useful technology and that applying it on the future to humans, positive results they will gain. Stocks article is effective, since he gives good reasons why using genetic technology would provide several benefits that people wish to have.

Although this may be the case in many areas of people’s lives today, it is not always beneficial, or necessary. People may have trouble deciding whether messing with human genes and cells is ethical. Designing the “perfect child” in many parent’s eyes becomes a harsh question of reality. The concept of a parent’s unconditional love for their child is questioned because of the desire to make their child perfect. If genetically engineering humans becomes a dominant medical option, people could have the chance to create their child however they like: from physical appearances, genetically enhanced genes, and the possibility to decide what a child thinks and acts, parents have access to designing their entire child. Naturally, people could be creating a super-human. Issues between different races, and eventually creating new prejudices against genetically engineered humans may increase. People may not realize how expensive genetic screening is at first. With only the rich being able to “enhance” their children, another social issue might occur, giving the world another type of people to outcast.

The escalating supremacy and receptiveness of genetic technology to engineer and "design babies," now gives parents the option to modify their unborn children, consecutively to prevent their offspring's from receiving genetic disorders such as: "sickle cell diseases, cystic fibrosis and down syndrome ," or conceivably, make them blue eye coloured, intelligent or else blessed with enviable qualities. Would this mean there will be an increase in the superiority among the rich, both physically and mentally, or will this modification be available for all to exploit, or would we be evidencing engineered babies facing unexpected genetic predicament? The highly contentious issue of designing unborn children to be a perfect "epitome" is thoroughly investigated and examined in the article of, lead author of

Nowadays, people will claim that the world is on the verge of scientific revolution that leads to the most controversial idea; genetic engineering of humans. When science technology grows exponentially faster than moral understanding, therein lies the argument between these two aspects. One can argue that genetic engineering is some sort of vast achievement in technology especially in this modern era whereby people live in full of access. However, if we look closely at the impact of this technology towards human beings, genetic engineering has many flaws and ramifications that can be debated thoroughly. Arguments and points of view are explained by Michael J. Sandel, the author of “The Case Against Perfection” and Nicholas Agar, the author of “Liberal Eugenics”.

Not only does the genetic engineering process provide the many identical people for the population that is specifically suited to their jobs, it also removes every sense of family. Being raised in vitro without any family helps reinforce the societal values of “Every one belongs to every one else” (Huxley 40). In a society where all personal contacts are repressed, and everyone is expected to consistently change partners, this side effect could not possibly be more beneficial.

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.

The science of eugenics was widely used during the 20th century in the United States to strategically eliminate the reproductive rights of women who were deemed inferior on the social ladder (“What is Eugenics?”). Some women of color, women with disabilities, and women from lower financial classes were sterilized for permanent birth control, and sometimes without their consent or knowledge (“What is Eugenics?”). The eugenics movement was aimed to promote selective human features in order to increase those with intelligence, good health, physical characteristics, and class. Currently, the recent controversy of human genetic engineering has scientist concerned that it will become the new eugenics. Sterilizing women as a precaution to prevent the overpopulation of unfavorable offspring would go against Jonathan Swift’s equal treatment of all humans, Benjamin Franklin’s hopes for human ethics in science, and be a direct violation to the natural born rights of all humans. Also, the controversial practice of human genetic modification to restrict reproduction rights only to people of desirable traits is unethical because it promotes racial cleansing.

Following the background and history of genetic engineering and eugenics, it can definitely be seen why ethicists and scientists are concerned. The concept and idea of passing on heritable traits was introduced by English naturalist Charles Darwin in his work The Origins of Species in 1859. Soon to

Engineering, edited by David M. Haugen and Susan Musser, Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010138265/OVIC?u=j170902014&xid=541f199b. Accessed 24 Feb. 2017. Originally published as "The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering," www.hgalert.org/topics/hge/threat.htm.

Some ethical concerns held by opponents of designer babies are related to the social implications of creating children with preferred traits. The social argument against designer babies is that if this technology becomes a realistic and accessible medical practice, then it would create a division between those that can afford the service and those that cannot. Therefore, the wealthy would be able to afford the selection of desirable traits in their offspring, while those of lower socioeconomic standing would not be able to access the same options. As a result, economic divisions may grow into genetic divisions, with social distinctions delineating enhanced individuals from unenhanced individuals. For example, the science-fiction film Gattaca explores this issue by depicting a world in which only genetically-modified individuals can engage in the upper echelon of

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

The science of eugenics was widely used during the 20th century in the United States to strategically eliminate the reproductive rights of women who were deemed inferior on the social ladder (“What is Eugenics?”). Some women of color, women with disabilities, and women from lower financial classes were sterilized for permanent birth control, and sometimes without their consent or knowledge (“What is Eugenics?”). The eugenics movement was aimed to promote selective human features in order to increase those with intelligence, good health, physical characteristics, and class. Currently, the recent controversy of human genetic engineering has scientist concerned that it will become the new eugenics. Sterilizing women as a precaution to prevent the overpopulation of unfavorable offspring would go against Jonathan Swift’s equal treatment of all humans, Benjamin Franklin’s hopes for men to understand the value of humanity, and be a direct violation to the natural born rights of all humans. Therefore, the controversial practice of genetic modification to restrict reproduction rights only to people of desirable traits is unethical because it promotes racial cleansing.

Humans desire perfection in everything, even if that means crossing the boundaries of natural life. A new looming untested technology, human genetic modification, raises questions as to whether it will advance human society or cause inconsistencies in the human genome. Essentially, this controversy will effect everyone since it is still early but it is an upcoming topic. Genetic engineering specifically effecting the next generations. Commentators on this debate argue that it will promote the positives of scientific advancements, but others dispute that this raises strong ethical concerns. Genetic engineering has the possibility to cure diseases while furthering modern medicine, but humans would abuse the process by creating a competitive

Human genetic engineering is currently a hot topic of discussion in the scientific world. What is human genetic engineering? According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, “Genetic engineering is the process of using recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology to alter the genetic makeup of an organism. Traditionally, humans have manipulated genomes indirectly by controlling breeding and selecting offspring with desired traits. Genetic engineering involves the direct manipulation of one or more genes. Most often, a gene from another species is added to an organism 's genome to give it a desired phenotype.” In other words HGE, is the process of genetically improvising the genes of a human being and selecting desired traits and trying to eliminate certain diseases in utero. The goal is to develop physical characteristics known as the phenotype of the child to what the parents’ desire. This process is very expensive and still in the process of experimental research. This topic is very debatable, due to the fact that there may be a chance for the parent to enhance the child to whatever they may find desirable, and to eliminate diseases. The cons of HGE, includes taking away the autonomy of the child, their natural creation, enhancing the child, lead to eugenics, and lead to social inequality (Seck). Human genetic engineering is immoral and unethical due to the fact that it is taking away from the child’s individuality, it is unnatural, the adverse effects of trying to deplete

Genetic engineering has become increasingly normalized in today’s society, and people are exposed to this technology now more than ever before. Most people are aware that food companies practice genetic engineering on their plants in order to design the most profitable crops, but it isn’t generally known that this same technology can be applied to humans. The concept of picking certain traits and characteristics of a human may appear desirable, but many risks and potential side effects may follow considering that it is unknown what genetic engineering could affect in future generations. Francis Fukuyama, an accomplished and distinguished professor of political economy and philosopher, conveys his concern that genetic engineering is developing at a surprisingly rapid rate. Within his book, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, he claims that genetic engineering not only will potentially be detrimental for the human race, but due to the change in nature of human beings, such engineering will also result in significantly impacting government and politics. Although genetic engineering can be seen as a huge technological advancement that could potentially help millions, there are drastic negative effects and reasons for disapproving genetic engineering that are too important to be overlooked.