The Human Genome Project introduces a significant scientific finding to the world, but raises a lot of controversies. Many controversies related to the Human Genome Project are issues concerning the application of this new scientific finding and its ethicality. Genetic information from a project that once has an aim to map the human genome in hope for curing diseases are now being used in businesses. It shouldn’t be permissible for employers to require that all employees, as well as potential employees, be screened for genetic vulnerabilities and to use the results of such screening when they make hiring, retention, and job assignment decisions. These genetic vulnerabilities may include diseases, unsuitable personality traits and other undesirable traits according to the company’s judgements. Employees shouldn’t be judged by their genes, because the results are inadequate to judge what the employees will do in life, the employee’s position in the society, and the employee’s financial standing. Genetic testing should be an option for the employees to decide on job assignment rather than hiring decisions. Genetic testing only shows potential. Conducting genetic tests on employees is infringing their privacy and will also create more social gaps with genetic classes. There are possible objections to this controversy due to the possible advantages of the genetic tests. Genetic tests may be seen as a tool that will place the people at the right occupation and enhance the best
The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be
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.
The benefits of genetic science for society is for employers who want to know if their employers are in excellent working condition and if the worker will cause them more money when obtaining health insurance. If an employer hires someone that that is healthy then the cost of health insurance does not rise and the employee will not have to downgrade their health insurance plan so that they can accommodate the employee that is not healthy. The limitations of genetic science for society are the possibility of genetic testing causing safety issues at work, the development of a genetic low class, the breach of privilege and confidentiality, and the utilization of genetic bias to excuse different methods of discrimination (Krumm, 2002).
A lot of controversial issues present themselves in psychology. Two topics that I will be discussing in this essay are the controversy over genetic testing and what things would be like without genetic testing. I will be describing what genetic testing is, and how it can affect an individual’s family life. I will be discussing the benefits of genetic counseling, as well as the positives without genetic counseling, and how this issue is debated in a psychological view.
Probably, applied genetics' most impacts on society are as a result of genetic tests. In general, genetic tests seek to detect some feature of a person's genetic constitution. This feature can be a disease causing mutation or a marker DNA sequence used to detect presence of another gene. Obviously these procedures used for testing the status of DNA, RNA or chromosomes are included in genetic tests. What is more it is possible to include some protein based tests and classical medical examinations when they aim to detect inheritance of a trait. Genetic tests have been divided into four categories in this text, and they will be examined in greater detail later. These categories are:
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.
The kindle edition of The Social Life of DNA: Race, Reparations, and Reconciliation, written by Alondra Nelson, is an engaging book that takes us through the timeline of genetic testing, and how it is being used and applied in society. Nelson rights about the importance of DNA and how genetic testing has helped us understand the simple social and political conflicts that can affect the future. The book depicts DNA as a powerful tool and I think The information it the book is crucial to understanding the different aspects of genetic testing. Although Nelson's view on genetic testing is not the science behind the topic, it is a fascinating angle on it through a world view.
The Human Genome Project introduces significant scientific findings to the world, but raises a lot of controversies. Many of these controversies concern the application of this new scientific finding and its ethicality. Genetic information from a project, once aimed towards mapping the human genome in hope for curing diseases, are now being used in businesses. It shouldn’t be permissible for employers to require that all employees, as well as potential employees, be screened for genetic vulnerabilities and to use the results of such screening when they make hiring, retention, and job assignment decisions. These genetic vulnerabilities may include diseases, unsuitable personality traits and other traits the company deems undesirable. Employees shouldn’t be judged by their genes, because the results do not adequately speak for what the employees will do in life, the employee’s position in the society, and the employee’s financial standing. Genetic testing should be an option for the employees to decide on job assignment rather than influence the hiring decisions of employers. Genetic testing only shows genetic potential, not potential growth. Conducting genetic testings on employees infringes on their privacy and encourage more social gaps with genetic classes.
The genetic technology revolution has proved to be both a blessing and a blight. The Human Genome Project is aimed at mapping and sequencing the entire human genome. DNA chips are loaded with information about human genes. The chip reveals specific information about the individuals’ health and genetic makeup (Richmond & Germov 2009).The technology has been described as a milestone by many in that it facilitates research, screening, and treatment of genetic conditions. However, there have been fears that the technology permits a reduction in privacy when the information is disclosed. Many argue that genetic information can also be used unfairly to discriminate against or stigmatize individuals (Willis 2009).
Genetic genealogy can set the stage for discrimination and inequality for those seeking minority status, for benefits and government handouts, or alternately, it can hold individuals back because of racism or bigotry; and lead to ‘genetically repackaged discrimination’. There is an uneven playing field, with some entities recognizing genetic testing results, yet others are rejecting it. While seeking personal identity is a worthwhile endeavor, another perspective brings a host of psychological, social, legal, political, and ethical worries. It is possible to uncover undesirable, or unexpected genetic ancestral ties that could lead to diverse identity issues, and other emotional, or financial consequences. Increasingly, genetic testing, or DNA, is used as a genealogical resource; it has potential to be used as a tool by narrowing down possibilities, but it can, also, be scientifically inaccurate. There are limitations in the science, both with interpretation of tests results, and with the databases. Avoiding inaccuracies requires sampling strategies and creating human population margins from genetic data. In addition, interpretation of ancestry tracing needs to be made less complicated for the consumer. While uncertainties are inherent, geneticists are optimistic about the future of genealogy using DNA.
Genetic testing, do we or don’t we? This is the question. Advances in science, as they call them, are able to screen for some types of genetic disorders. Although this type of testing has allowed the opportunity to test couples who are at risk for Tay-Sachs and others who are at risk for Cystic Fibrosis, Sickle Cell Anemia, and Huntington’s disease there are still vast limitations. There is a potential for the loss of privacy, test errors, psychological and social stress. Overall genetic testing has the potential to be wholly deterministic and results in information that is simply probabilistic. Errors could occur and result in severely misreading test results deluding individuals about their personal health. The contingency surrounding genetic
"Now we know, in large measure, our fate is in our genes." famous words that were stated by the co-founder of DNA's double helix structure, James Watson. In a large effect, in this day of modern science belief our fate is controlled by our genes. Our genes control our physical statue, our outward appearance, basically our entire bodily makeup is all determined by our genes. Mankind is at the edge of a new frontier in genetic medicine and gene therapy and how man advances into this field greatly dep ends on his ethics, morals, and the general acceptance of this new found knowledge. At the heart of the subject lies the controversy over genetic screening. Many questions arise such as; Who should be tested? Who should have access to the
genetic testing, everything has changed. She notes that clinicians now have the ability to diagnose, treat, and monitor a patient’s illnesses or disease progression in an entirely different manner. This is a far cry from the old medical model of responding to a disease (or defect) only after it appears, and then prescribing the recommended medication or intervention. These genetic medical advances sound miraculous and promising, but the ability to test, screen and provide early intervention does not come without many major ethical dilemmas.
The fear of genetic discrimination is a phobia gripping many people around the world. People find themselves asking, could my genetic information raise my health bills? Could this cause me to be rejected from a job opportunity? These anxieties are causing people to lash out at genetic research, and ultimately the human genome project. People do not want our understanding of human genomics to advance. This is because the risks of the development of the technology could inflict on them. A major risk is genetic discrimination. I believe that genetic discrimination is wrong and governments should continue to prevent it because it is an invasion of privacy, it violates equity, and it could really hurt people with genetic
The human genome project is something that I have been very interested with ever since first learning of it. I had heard bits and pieces of what it is about, but my interest was greatly stimulated by Dr. Whited in basic genetics 311 last spring. The discussion that we had regarding the project left me with several ideas and questions about not only the process and ethics involved, but the future of the study of genetics as a whole.