Human Genetic Engineering is Morally Justified Essay

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

On the last years, genetic technology have been improving. The research carried out in this area are focused on the early diagnosis of diseases. Moreover, manipulation of genes in the future provides a critical tool for eliminating fatal diseases to humans. Also humans will be able to manipulate genes from birth. But the real question is although can be perform it, we allow it? Everything possible is ethically permissible? Some dramatic demonstrations of genetic modification have been made with mice and other animals, however, evidence in humans are generally considered outside the ethical boundaries. Gregory Stock, director of the Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society at UCLA and author of Redesigning Humans, in his article “Choosing Our Genes” (2012) argues the use of technology to change humans genetic in order to avoid imperfections or diseases. Stock shows genetic engineering as a very useful technology and that applying it on the future to humans, positive results they will gain. Stocks article is effective, since he gives good reasons why using genetic technology would provide several benefits that people wish to have.

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

Genetic Modification is often perceived as the answer to humanity’s faults because it will enhance human abilities, prevent the survival of incapacitating disabilities, and guide the innovation of the future. Sounds pretty good, right? That is not the reality. Genetic modification is not the solution to the ubiquitous problems of the human race, but rather infringes on individual rights, decreases diversity, permits too much power to the human race, and contributes to overpopulation.

Why are humans stuck how they are? Why do some have lethal flaws? Why do theses flaws exist? The correct answer is they don’t have to: Human genetic engineering can solve some of theses lethal issues now and can solve more in the future. It can help the next generation experience what everyone strives to achieve. Human genetic engineering research should continue because it can save people's lives, improve human’s lives and improve the lives of the next generation of children.

Nowadays, people will claim that the world is on the verge of scientific revolution that leads to the most controversial idea; genetic engineering of humans. When science technology grows exponentially faster than moral understanding, therein lies the argument between these two aspects. One can argue that genetic engineering is some sort of vast achievement in technology especially in this modern era whereby people live in full of access. However, if we look closely at the impact of this technology towards human beings, genetic engineering has many flaws and ramifications that can be debated thoroughly. Arguments and points of view are explained by Michael J. Sandel, the author of “The Case Against Perfection” and Nicholas Agar, the author of “Liberal Eugenics”.

Understanding why embryonic stem cell research should be permitted imperative because it could help with the development of new drugs and treatments to treat diseases. It can help scientists replace human tissue nad save the lives of the thousands of people waiting for a transplant that may or may not come in time to save them. Finally, it shows society that we are one more step closer to finding a cure for cancer and other diseases like heart and brain disease. If embryonic stem cell treatment was an option to help a dear family member that was suffering, should they not be able to have that option of

According to author Michael J. Sandel in his piece, “The Case Against Perfection,” the main ethical problem with genetic enhancement does not have anything to do with human autonomy. Rather, Sandel believes that the “deepest moral objection to genetic enhancement lies less the perfection it seeks than in the human disposition it expresses and promotes” (Timmons, 505). In other words, genetic enhancement is morally questionable because of how it affects our attitudes toward human beings. He claims that each case began as an attempt to treat

Scientists have generally agreed that stem cells are vital to the science and medical field for they may be the solution to treat and even cure several serious medical conditions. However, not all the types of the stem cell research is widely accepted. For instance, the Embryonic Stem Cell Research, which in recent years has been largely debated in the United States. This is due to the two major arguments following this research. One, embryonic stem cell research is necessary to unravel the possibility of improving human life. Two, embryonic stem cell research involves the abortion of potential human life. It is a debate whether the life of an individual suffering from a fatal illness or injury is more priceless, or the life of a human at one

“We can change animals faster and in more profound ways than nature does on its own, but the point is that there’s inherently sacred about a species genome- it’s an amorphous, ever changing thing.”(Anthes, 48) One of the biggest controversies of biotechnology is that people are getting God-like powers seems how now scientists are able to engineer new traits into animals. Is that wrong? Morally, maybe. The fact of the matter is whether it’s immoral or not, we’ve been doing it for thousands of years, but now just faster and actually more efficiently. Scientists don’t plan on worsening animals or abusing them. “If you’re going to modify a line of animals, the resultant animals should be no worse off from a welfare point of view – and preferably better.”(Bernard Rollin) If nations eventually accept biotechnology more openly, and simply apply regulations stating that one cannot produce an organism that is not better off than it was before. That would ensure the protection of animals from unnecessary handicapped lives, and then the FDA would be more comfortable with allowing these biotechnological advances to be released to the

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

“The teaching of Bioethics often relies on difficult cases. Indeed sometimes the ethical dilemma is developed by altering the details of the case that is otherwise intuitively straightforward,

The ethical debate concerning biotechnological exploration into genetic cloning has created a monster in itself. A multitude of ethical questions arises when considering the effect of creating a genetically engineered human being. Does man or science have the right to create life through unnatural means? Should morality dictate these technological advancements and their effects on society? The questions and concerns are infinite, but so to are the curiosities, which continue to perpetuate the advancement of biotechnological science. In order to contemplate the effects that science can have on our society we can look back in history and literature to uncover the potentiality of our future

4. Genetic engineering is morally permissible when it is to prevent disease or any handicap.

The opponents of embryonic stem cells stick to the belief that destroying one human’s life to save and cure others is not worth it because it makes you wonder, where will the line be drawn? Can the killing and experimentation of homeless people, for example, be justified by the possibility of saving a few Alzheimer’s patients’ lives? Will the world allow the destruction of the elderly just to save the younger generation? The opponents of embryonic stem cells realize that if the world begins using embryonic stem cells to make everyone healthier, than there is no telling what the world is willing to sacrifice in order for them to survive and if the world does go down that path, who gets to decide who deserves to live or die? (“Using Embryos is Immoral”). The destructive view that the world has towards embryonic stem cells is made evident not only by the ongoing debate about whether or not embryonic stem cells should be used but also by the restriction placed on embryonic