Genetic Engineering : The Field Of Biomedical Research

The second reason genetic engineering is unethical and should be stopped is due to the fact that it involves reconstructing nature, which is not the job of society. Genetic engineering could potentially breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics and other serious problems in which nature cannot conquer (Epstein 4). Many scientists argue that genetic engineering has a positive outcome, and occurrences such as diseases or other casualties in nature’s balance should be ignored (Bereano 18). Co-discoverer of the DNA code and Nobel Laureate, Dr. James D. Watson, has continuously disregarded the risks of genetic engineering (Bereano 19). In 1979, he wrote the following about possible diseases that might be inadvertently created through genetic engineering: “I would not spend a penny trying to see if they exist'; (Bereano 19). The above statement clearly shows that society cannot depend on the “high priests'; of science to make ethical decisions (Bereano 18). Too much is at stake.

“Genetic engineering and selective breeding appear to violate animal rights, because they involve manipulating animals for human ends as if the animals were nothing more than human property, rather than treating the animals as being of value in themselves” (Source A). Even though genetic engineering violates animal rights, it can be good for animals as well. Such as improving their resistance to diseases and removing characteristics that cause injury (Example: a cattle without horns). However, the cons to genetically engineering animals offsets the pros. Whenever animals are genetically engineered, it can lead to abnormalities. These abnormalities can range from heart discomfort to physical abnormalities (i.e. a body growing too fast that the growth of the legs are not able to grow at the same speed not be able to withstand the weight of the body). The abnormalities that the animals would have to live with from genetical engineering would cause the animal much pain. Therefore enforcing the fact that genetic engineering on animals is

Over the past few decades, the impact of human behavior has had a profound effect on the rest of the world. In David Suzuki’s “The Pain of Animals”, he explores how he came to understand the results of human actions on other living creatures. Reflecting on his work in genetics, as well as personal experiences, David argues that humans act as though they are born with an inherent right to “exploit other living organisms as we see fit” (Suzuki, 1989). He does this by exploring the emotional toll humans have on animals and illustrates the effects of their use in research. I believe that animals are born with an inherent right to life and should be treated with value and respect. On the other hand, without the study of genes and biomedical research, healthcare would not have the medical advancements that it has today. Previous laws on the use of animals in research were insufficient in how researchers ought to treat their test subjects; they merely forbade cruel, deliberate harm from being inflicted (Gilbert & Kaebnick & Murray, 2012). With increased ethical policies set in place, and enforced, animal testing can continue as a beneficial tool in the advancement of healthcare.

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

Cohen argues that humans may morally use animals for biomedical research, the study of biological processes and disease, because animals lack rights. He defines rights as moral claims that one human can hold against another, which are bound in both law as well as in comprehension of right and wrong. As animals lack self-conscious placement in a higher ethical order with the ability to weigh needs of self against the needs of others, they therefore lack the ability to have rights. (Cohen 1986: p. 215) To support the morality of animal research, I will show how it has led to many successful treatments of disease in humans, due to the common physiology that we share with other animals. Furthermore, I will argue that the pain caused on research

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.

Animals have successfully been used to understand biological processes, assess safety of different chemicals, develop vaccines and antibiotics, produce treatments for hepatitis C, rheumatoid arthritis, polio, diabetes and many more . However, it is impossible to know if the use of animals was required to acquire this research or if the amount of suffering and death could have been reduced or avoided in order to achieve the same results. It is well established that animals have been invaluable in the pursuit of biomedical research, and the benefits from using animals currently means that eliminating animal research is also immoral. This is because the benefits received from some research greatly outweigh the potential costs to the animals and it would be unjust not to perform such experiments. Consequently, animal research should not be fully banned due to the benefits it yields, but should be more heavily regulated to reduce the moral costs.

Genetic engineering is the figurehead of the ethical concerns of scientists in the 21st century. Nothing is more engrossed with criticism and dislike than the idea of altering the baseline for living organisms. Many people are skeptical of genetic engineering due to the versatility it exhibits. A scientist could use a genetic editing tool, such as CRISPR, to remove the genes for a hereditary disease in an embryo, but they could also utilize it to alter the physical characteristics of a human baby. This thought provoked the flood gates of ethics to unleash a multitude of unanswered questions and concerns about the usage and further development of genetic engineering. The field of genetic engineering is

Scientists use animals in order to make medical advancements to help humans however, it is often difficult to get the same results in both animals and humans. The biology of humans and animals is not the same, although there are some similarities. According to Akhtar, in an article titled “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation”, “Annually, more than 115 million animals are used worldwide in experimentation or to supply the biomedical industry” (Akhtar). Millions of animals are used, against their will, to try to help humans. Although there are some instances in which the experiments have helped humans, is it really worth the pain and suffering that all of those animals have had to suffer. Akhtar also stated “Although it is widely accepted that medicine should be evidence based, animal experimentation as a means of informing human health has generally not been held, in practice, to this standard” (Akhtar). There has been some cases in which testing medicine on animals has benefitted humans, however this type of result is hard to duplicate. Often when a result is achieved in the lab, there are many influences that can cause these

The complexity of the human anatomy is what limits us from witnessing what we currently think of as impossibilities. Rather, the lines which currently bound us are genetics; the root of the problem being the human DNA. A tough code to crack, the genes which make up DNA can, in some people, restrict a positive reaction to a drug intended to cure an ailment. Providing only one type of medication to a group of people with the same disease will always result in a handful of successes and failures. If given the technology to read a patient’s genetic sequence, doctors can modify a drug specifically to the patient’s needs, equating to a 100% success rate. The study of personalized medicine can change every treatment into one which works. Thus, removing

In this paper, I will argue that genetic engineering in humans should be considered ethically permissible. Genetic engineering is already widely used in modifying foods for our everyday consumption. Genetically engineered foods has aided in the business of crops and livestock, making the plants and animals that we eat plentiful and more sustainable. Thus proving for the advancement of society as a whole making genetically engineered foods a desirable resource. Genetic engineering in humans is also proving to be an important utility for the progress of future societies.

The Human Genome Project (HGP) completely mapped human DNA for the first time in April, 2003. In addition, the HGP revealed that there are probably about 20,500 human genes, which is significantly fewer than originally predicted. This ultimate product of the HGP has given the world a resource of detailed information about the structure, organization and function of the complete set of human genes. This information can be thought of as the basic set of inheritable "instructions" for the development and function of a human being (genome.gov, 2016). T. K. Barger informs us in his article titled Ethics Key as Study of Human Production Advances, that “Now they state that it is time for the next revolution: genome synthesis, engineering, and editing…to make the human genome artificially.” Furthermore, he states that the goal of making an artificial human genome is not to manufacture complete humans, but to grow transplantable human organs, engineer immunity to viruses in cell lines via genome-wide recoding, engineer cancer resistance into new therapeutic cell lines, and accelerate high-productivity, cost-efficient vaccines and pharmaceutical development using human cells and organoids (Barger, 2016). Synthetic body parts, such as organs, could be produced and used to save and preserve life.

For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.

I decided to write my paper about Genetic engineering also known as genetic modification. In a nutshell genetic engineering is the modification of an organism 's genetic composition by artificial means, often involving the transfer of specific traits, or genes, from one organism into a plant or animal of an entirely different species. This topic has been researched for decades but still has quite some time to be fully mastered in all possible circumstances. When I think of genetic engineering I think of different types of medicines being created and even organs being modified to save lives. However genetic engineering not only deals with humans but also plants and animals. It’s a technique used to select the best traits of an organism. I think having solid background knowledge of genetic modification is important to have in today’s society because it’s the direction our future is most likely headed in. Science and technology together are moving at a fast pace these days. It’s also good to be in the light of things that are going on because they could effect you in one way or another. If you’re a farmer in today’s society genetic modification could be something you look into to growing plants that are more tolerant to drought conditions. You could also teach someone else about the topic that might be in the dark about it. Being well educated in today’s society takes you a long way. It’s very attractive to employers that may be the ones handed you a job one day. Being well

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