Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings by Julian Savulescu

DNA stands for Deoxyribonucleic acid. Deoxyribonucleic corrosive is an atom that conveys a large portion of the hereditary guidelines utilized as a part of the improvement, working and propagation of all known living creatures and numerous infections. The National Institutes of Health and Welcome Trust from the London UK and Craig Vendor of Celera Genomics from Maryland USA at the same time exhibited the grouping of human DNA in June of 2000, finishing the first significant attempt of the Human Genome Project (HGP) (Ridley 2). As researchers connection human attributes to qualities fragments of DNA found on one or a greater amount of the 23 human

DNA are like legos, they work together to build the traits of living things. They are the building blocks of the body. Many scientists today have been figuring out different ways to manipulate, change, add, and subtract genes from the DNA in living things; this is process is called genetic engineering. Some of the living things being experimented on are live people, plants, and animals. Today scientists are debating on the morals of genetic engineering due to what the community thinks of it, because of the christian 's viewpoint of genetic engineering. To some christians it may pose a threat to their, but to others it may be a blessing or a gift. Genetic Engineering is a growing breakthrough in the science community. “Over the last 30 years, the field of genetic engineering has developed rapidly due to the greater understanding of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as the chemical double helix code from which genes are made. The term genetic engineering is used to describe the process by which the genetic makeup of an organism can be altered using “recombinant DNA technology.” This involves the use of laboratory tools to insert, alter, or cut out pieces of DNA that contain one or more genes of interest.”(Pocket K No. 17) Scientist have yet to unlock the full potential of genetic engineering, but the information and the use they have found for it today has reached farther than anyone 's expectations.

In an ever evolving society, the increased use of technology has become a staple in our day to day lives. With the constant advancements of technology the ideology of cloning has now become a reality. The increasing use of science today is slowly leading to the development of cloning and genetic selection. By altering the genetic make-up of a being, scientists have brought about several questions on how the population would adjust to the “super-beings,” and what benefits and consequences both human and non-humans would gain with their creations? Authors Francis Fukuyama, who wrote “Human Dignity,” and The Dalai Lama, writer of “Ethics and the New Genetics,” has called into question the use of cloning and how it could possibly affect others. With the creation of “super-beings,” humans would ultimately suffer a bigger separation from each other and create unfairness among the human species such as a stronger and more intelligent being.

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

He agrees to the idea that modern parents try their best to create a stimulating environment for their children in order to shape them into better people, and children can have maximum amount of intellectual development. However, Savulescu suggests that a modern drug named Prozac shows the same result on influencing brain development in the study of rats. In which, Savulescu raises the question that why don’t we choose to actively manipulate our biological changes for the next generation, instead of waiting for the environment to change the future generations? There are no difference between providing a child with stimulating environment and alternating the child’s gene in the very beginning of the

In your excerpt, “Ethics and the New Genetics,” you presented the discovery of the advancement in genetic technology. You mentioned how scientist are able to change the genetic makeup of living things. Another key point presented in your article is the idea of cloning, where one is therapeutic while the other is reproductive. The article discussed that the advancement in technology and genetics should only be used to benefit people. However, you believed that using these advancements in the wrong way can leave a long term consequence to the present and future of the human society. (The Dalai Lama).

I support the guidelines outlined by Kitcher for the use of genetic information because of their responsible and ethical nature. I believe that future generations will benefit as a direct consequence of these guidelines. I shall begin by defining eugenics as the study of human genetics to improve inherited characteristics of the human race by the means of controlled selective breeding.

Technology is developing every day. The automobile was revolutionary, and then they introduced the plane. Cell phones can connect us with people around the world. Self-driving cars are in development today! Revolutionary inventions are the expectation nowadays, but a new discovery is sparking controversial questions in the science world. Is it acceptable to alter a baby’s genes to make it a better human? Genes are the instruction book of the body, and they determine everyone’s attributes and how people act in their environment (Medical News Today). Some people say that everyone is different for a reason, and others think customizing the genes of children was meant to happen. Altering an infant’s genes is acceptable to prevent hereditary diseases, but the line should be drawn at making an artificially smarter, stronger, or prettier human.

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

The Goal of the Human Genome Project is to obtain genetic mapping information and to determine the complete sequence of all human DNA by the year of 2005. The project started in 1990 and 180 million dollars are being spent on it annually. This adds up to a total of over 2 billion dollars for the 15 year budget. Of this 2 billion dollars budgeted, 5% is spent annually on the ethical, legal and social issues. This report focused on some of these issues.

Parents may have to make difficult decisions like whether or not they want their children to have a specific disorder or not. In addition, not everyone finds specific traits as “undesirable”, and may proceed to make the child have that trait. What becomes tricky is the idea of giving a child a defect or condition that makes life difficult, like “should a deaf parent who embraces his or her condition be permitted to select an embryo apt to produce a child unable to hear?” (Para 6) Some parents may find giving their children a specific condition will prepare the child to handle more challenges in life.

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

Medical professionals today can screen for certain genetic traits (genetic diseases and sex) with in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to obtain a healthy child, and reproductive technology continues to improve. With this in mind, the question arises whether sex selection is ethical. Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, argues that sex selection is moral, based on his ethical principle of Procreative Beneficence: that “couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” [Savulescu 1]. Savulescu claims

With the world of technology making advances so quickly we sometimes forget our own limits as a mortal species. Genetic therapy has the potential to save millions of people from genetic mutations and protein deficiencies. This paper will go on to argue that the Utilitarianism approach in ethics shows all the right things about genetic therapy. The first-time gene therapy was used on a patient dates back in the 1990s when a four-year-old girl had adenosine deaminase deficiency. With this disease, her white blood cells were not doing their job and left her prone to infections. Through the power of genetic therapy some of her white blood cells were extracted, altered to produce adenosine deaminase, and reinjected. This treatment not only saved her life from dangerous diseases but also began a world of opportunities in the medical field. The ethical issue is, is it right or wrong to have that much power to alter genes and to what degree you should be able to modify them. Should people live out their futures the ways they are born or should they live life to the fullest and get the genetic treatments?

The second objection is that the theory is consequentialist, presupposing that the mastery of fate will inevitably lead to the deterioration of the three moral factors. While this may hold importance to individuals who care about these virtues, it does not hold significance to those who desire a competitive edge for themselves or their children. The idea here is that there is a loss of autonomy and individual rights. Through genetic enhancement, we are changing our nature to fit the world, which is not a form of freedom, but rather a form of