Genetic Enhancement Should Be Allowed

Sandel does a wonderful job of refuting many of the common arguments against genetic enhancement before presenting us with his own case which revolves around three negative outcomes he thinks will come as a result of human genetic enhancement. Sandel argues that the first negative outcome, is a severe reduction in human humility, which he claims is necessary human emotion. He argues against what he calls “the drive to mastery” (27); since we would have complete control over our genetic makeup, and could manipulate it to our liking, we would no longer have to be grateful to some higher power

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.

The morality of genetic enhancement (GE) differs from person to person. The stance Michael J. Sandel’s takes is that eugenics and GE has no morality. He states in his work, “The case against Perfection”, that manipulating ones genes makes one less human; since, humans are not perfect which is what makes one human and by designing a perfect person one is taking away their humanity. He thinks eugenics are morally problematic in the cases of abortion; in which the mother would be free to determine if she would like to abort the baby by looking at its genes for illnesses, physical appearance and sex, this would test and even change ones moral values. Sandel is opposed on the quest of perfection due to the fact that one is not looking at the big picture, human life is a precious gift. He argues that one’s faults and quirks are what makes one unique from the other seven billion people on earth. And if one takes away what makes one who they are and becomes the perfect person there will be no originality since many would want to also become perfect. Imagine how many parents would want their child to become the next Einstein or Shakespeare. The freedom to become one’s own person would be taken away. For example, a boy that was GE to love soccer and no other sport and a boy that gets to pursue whatever he chooses, the other boy never had the opportunity or liberty to choose what sport he would like he was programed to love soccer for the rest of

Julian Savulescu wrote Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings and in this article he clearly states his position on the issues as well as providing supporting and opposing sides to the matter. He starts off by explaining this issue is focused on biological enhancement and more specifically genetic enhancement. Then the thesis statement is provided, “I want to argue that, far from it’s being merely permissible, we have a moral obligation or moral reason to enhance ourselves and our

Many see the issue as being whether or not the parent should be able to choose their child’s genes; they also fear that the family unit would be harmed. “A common fear is that as the exact genetics of more complex physical and intellectual characteristics are discovered, the wealthy will be able to afford to choose desirable features for their children while other will not, leading to an escalating division of social classes by genetics” (Hagler 3). They also believe that genetically engineering children will make the child self-centered, and they fear that the family will also feel superior when compared to families of the same class. “Gene editing is thought to offer a way for parents to maximize their control over the properties of their offspring, transforming a relationship that should be characterized by unconditional love and acceptance into one in which children are seen as products of their parents’ desires and wishes, to be provisionally accepted and molded in accord with parental preferences” (Foht 4). Another reason that this could be harmful to the child is that the kids with disabilities or racial groups, like it was in the 1900s with the different labels (Foht

Genetic modification would provide the wealthy with unfair advantages, because they will have the availability to give their children higher intellectual genes. Over time, will make schools grow more expensive to make sure the most intelligent students attend their school. This of course would take decades to develop, but is plausible. Poor people will not be able to enhance their genes and will be left behind intellectually and socially. Because of the school change, the education department will enhance the level of difficulty, creating a larger gap between the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy would be able to pass all of the tests to do well in school, while the poor will not. This gap may also make a master’s degree or higher level of education not as impressive. Today, a bachelor's degree seems less impressive every year that goes by. With gene enhancement, every wealthy person will have their masters and it will no longer be as impressive. This would not be an immediate change. Something so large would take decades to be prominent. Whoever could afford this modification would be benefitted. Athletes who come from wealth would have unfair advantages that athletes that come from poverty will not have. Limitations will protect this from happening. If genetic modification is prohibited from being used for personal cosmetic enhancement and only for medical need, like late term abortion laws, society will not have to suffer and genetic modification may be

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

Genetic modification is basically building an offspring based off of what you want and don’t want. Conceiving a human being is not like going to Subway and telling them what you do and don’t want on your sandwich. Each and every person was created to be perfectly imperfect. I believe genetic modification should never be permissible under any circumstances. Picking and choosing whether you want tall or short, blonde hair or brown hair, blue

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

To really understand the world in today’s debate about genetic modification, you must know the difference between genetic modification and enhancement. Modification is the ability scientists and doctors have where they can change your child’s genes to help cure diseases they may have, while enhancement is used to create a smarter, faster, and stronger human being. These two uses of engineering get people confused because they think of them as the same. That’s why you must

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

Scientists have recently brought up the idea of genetically engineering humans, as if we are machines that need to be tinkered with. Genetic engineering is the deliberate modification of the DNA of an organism. We have seen this type of modification in the food that we have consumed and in the animals that many purchase. It has never been proven to be 100% safe for humans to consume genetically modified food as it is not from nature and our bodies do not know how to react. Also there have been many cases where purebred dogs have been susceptible to numerous diseases because of the decreased gene pool they were modified from, which is the cause of inbreeding. Scientists must never engineer humans because we have seen the bad effects it has had

People have the right to genetically engineer their children so it should not be banned. Jeffrey Kahn, a bioethicist, says that parents will someday test genes to give their children preferable traits like intelligence,strong immune systems, and string muscles. These are desirable by many people, so its wrong to ban these tests. Many people want a child of a specific gender as well. In fact, gender clinics say that more than 90% of couples after gender selection already have three or more children all of the same gender and want at least one of the opposite gender. Is it wrong for couples to want a child of a specific gender? Also, children with certain blood diseases like anemia need blood transfusion extremely often. the parents can eliminate these diseases in their next child and match the tissues so they can transplant the healthy child’s stem cells

Another problem is that through genetic manipulation could limit the genetic diversity in all species. Gene therapy is available only to rich people and after a time characteristics that make people earn less money would eventually die out.

My first argument against Genetic enhancement is about the safety of the technology used. Is it safe to use? There are several safety concerns about the technology, all of which lie within the physical alteration of the gene. Genes are very specific and will only work correctly in certain ways. Although scientists may know a fair deal about genes, do they know about the consequences if their technology were to fail? One of the risks directly involved with their technology is the technique of introducing a gene at a random place in the genome. By doing this the gene could interrupt another sequence of genes that are vital for survival. It could also alter the effect that the gene has. The gene might have the effect wanted, such as an increased intellect, but it may also introduce an unwanted effect. This became apparent in 2001 when Joe Tsien genetically altered mice to have a high memory capacity. The mice were able to learn very quickly and were able to retain more information but at what cost? The mice also had an extremely high sensitivity to pain: something that a human being wouldn’t be able to live with. Do you think that’s fair? Would you be willing to sacrifice your quality of life for an enhanced learning capacity? I know I wouldn’t. But what is more unfair is that the embryos, who are the ones who are going to be enhanced, don’t have a choice in the matter. What about the children’s