Genetic Engineering Should Only Be Used For Genetic Imperfection

Throughout our lifetime we are in constant change, many of those changes are ones that you don’t notice. However permanent we set a change to ourselves, one thing we hardly notice change is our DNA. Just growing recently in popularity is genetic engineering , along with its immense potential which can do very much for us, in the future and today. However, with all the potential that genetic engineering carries many people have begun to resent what genetic engineering could become instead of focusing on the great capabilities, and what lies ahead of its bright future. Regardless of what others believe, Genetic engineering will renovate the way we do things today, genetic engineering is a tremendous step to accept, and without a doubt a step

Dan W. Brock makes a few interesting points in defending genetic engineering, while being observant of the possible downfalls and negative views of the science. Brock starts of his commentary by addressing how the limits to our genes can not "confidently predict the rate at which that understanding [of genetic engineering] will be achieved in the future nor the ultimate limits on it" (pg. 615). Also, the author states how genetic engineering could help parents ensure their children the abilities to live healthy lives, create new treatments for disease, and produce stronger immune systems.

When a child is born, the miracle of life occurs. A baby is born with the mystery of who they will be and what will they look like. Will they be the next Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg? Will they be the next celebrity or model? Will they be remembered for generations to come after them? Every parent wants to set up their child for success. It is human nature to strive to be the best or one of the bests. Science has given society a new way to achieve so called perfection, genetic engineering. Genetic engineering has negative impacts and should not be promoted. When you insert ideal genes, such as intelligence and beauty, other genes involuntarily follow. An extremely intelligent child, could have extreme anger

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

Genetic engineering is a very beneficial thing for every human. Some advantages involve individuals health and affect society in general. The lifespan of a human is increased, the extinction of illness in children and babies and healthier foods with a cheaper production cost are all rewarding devices of genetic

Now there are some people that are strongly against this.There are many people that believe scientist are ‘playing God’ by changing the gene of people.But genetically engineering isn't just for modifying humans but also for curing some disease.It's called gene therapy and it had cured some disease for example Cancer, Aids and much more.It’s better for us to act than to not act at

Finally, my last reason why I do not support genetic engineering is because it will make some people enter a bad emotional state. In the movie GATTACA,when a person was perfect, but then later found out he had mistakes they would enter a suicidal state of mind. This happens because the person thinks they’re perfect but when they realise they are not they think they’re a failure. If we start genetically modifying our children they could experience something similar to this. We should just let everyone be

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 could harm future generations, our society and us. Making babies and making sure their child won’t have any birth defects may lead to everyone being “perfect”, which is not the way the world is. B. Humans can be engineered to live longer, live around the age 100 to 150 years old, to live a life without disorders, which may take a little longer from them to achieve this, but this may cause over population. Main Point 2 A.

Many parents worry about protecting their children, so they would like to know if the process for genetic modification is safe enough. Genetic engineering also raises the question of compliance. “Genetically altered babies will have no say in what 's being done to their bodies before birth, and consequently will have to live with whatever happens as a result of genetic tampering” (Bird). The process may take over 40 testing on humans or more just to get it right. I believe we shouldn’t allow people to risk their healthy on a risky project. Everybody has a different immune system so how do we know it will work the same for us all. We aren’t provided with a percentage of people whom gone through the process and succeeded. Unborn babies can end up with deformation or maybe death, so we should have reassurance for a positive outcome. There can also be the possibility by removing one disease it can cause an even more powerful one. By having a small portion of a disease it can be balancing out and not cause any health problems. We wont know how the body will react to no diseases

It seems the future of this is now. “The science making human genetic engineering possible already exists and is being carried out, albeit in its nascent form, in labs and clinics around the world”(Metzl,2015). The early stages of doing this have started. For now it is just screening early stage embryos during vitro fertilization to find certain diseases that this baby may get (Metzl 2015). This is the first step in changing our genetics. This is a tricky one because it is helping someone, but what we don’t know is what damage that help maybe doing to them in other areas even though they can get rid of that particular disease. 80 percent of the medical school students were against genetic engineering that gives children enhanced athletic,

Bad traits. I think that it’s unsafe to do. I know in recent years, there have been multiple deaths due the mishaps in genetic engineering. The viral instruments that are used to have the DNA into the cell may cause some lethal immune responses or even tumors. While this argument may be valid today, it is probably a technical problem or a DNA issue that will eventually be circumvented. Another safety argument is that when transgenes are inserted into the genome, they may disrupt functional genes and cause mutations. Now we do not know yet what such genetic technology will be used for. It could be curing lethal diseases; which is a good idea, and most certainly there are very few people who would be against curing lethal genetic diseases. Genetic engineering assumes that scientists know which traits are good

The human body is imperfect. Many are created with inherited fault and others die prematurely of diseases and many genetic defects. Genetic Engineering is the process to alter the structure and nature of genes in human beings(Rinkesh). I think that editing genes should be legal and used for good. Genetic Engineering has the potential to alter how humans are made and could be the greatest breakthrough of the century.

With genetic engineering being studied more, and more, scientists could acquire the skill of developing better pharmaceuticals, could have the ability to eliminate certain diseases, expand the average lifespan, help prevent illness in unborn children, and allow for certain genes to be manually selected based off their gaining knowledge. Arnold mentions how the knowledge that is gained by working on genetic solutions could assist in designing better pharmaceutical products that are made to target specific genetic mutations within the individual (Arnold). Having pharmaceuticals that are designed to manipulate the exact genes causing complications would be considered a huge benefit for many. It will aid in the process of getting rid of diseases and illnesses as a whole. Along with the advancement of pharmaceuticals, genetic engineering would also help eliminate illness and disease in unborn children. In the source, “5 Key Pros and Cons of Human Genetic Engineering,” Crystal Lombardo describes how having a genetic screening with a fetus can allow for treatment of the unborn (Lombardo). Having the ability to cure unborn children will be helpful later on in that child's life by not having those obstacles in the way. Being able to cure children before they are even born will benefit both the family and that child. The effect genetic engineering can have on ending diseases seem endless. Lombardo

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