In The Early 1900’S Russian Plant Geneticist Georgi Dmitrievich

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.

According to Antonio Regalado, 15% of adults think it would be fine to alter a baby’s genes to make it smarter. However, 46% think it is acceptable to fix a newborn’s genes to reduce the risk of serious illnesses (Doc. 4). The unique thing about the world is that every single person is different. If genetic engineering gets out of hand, it could lead to a “dystopia of superpeople and designer babies for those who can afford it” (Doc. 3). Once altering the genes of humans is feasible, international rules should be made so that diseases from mutated genes can be fixed, but messing with the child’s attributes are illegal. That way, every country’s government can prevent a future dystopia before it

The escalating supremacy and receptiveness of genetic technology to engineer and "design babies," now gives parents the option to modify their unborn children, consecutively to prevent their offspring's from receiving genetic disorders such as: "sickle cell diseases, cystic fibrosis and down syndrome ," or conceivably, make them blue eye coloured, intelligent or else blessed with enviable qualities. Would this mean there will be an increase in the superiority among the rich, both physically and mentally, or will this modification be available for all to exploit, or would we be evidencing engineered babies facing unexpected genetic predicament? The highly contentious issue of designing unborn children to be a perfect "epitome" is thoroughly investigated and examined in the article of, lead author of

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”.

Worryingly, there has been minimal public debate regarding this technology that could irreversibly alter the human race. Instead, ethical discourse has been largely contained to scientific and political circles. It is extremely problematic that a large majority of the general public is unaware of the research and debate regarding human gene modification. In addition, the current debate has stagnated, with researchers and politicians being unable to find any common ground. However, upon close examination of the three main ideological groups within this controversy, a key similarity becomes apparent: each group, regardless of whether they are proponents or opponents of human gene

He looks at the ins and outs of modifying a person’s genes and what the selection process will be like for parents. Moral, ethical, and economic boundaries of genetic modification are discussed as well. In Tenzin Gyatso’s article “ethics and the New Genetics,” he describes how scientists are beginning to perform unimaginable tasks. Such as, cloning and genetic modification to build a baby. This building of babies may lead to the development of a “super race.” A “super race,” consists of people who are genetically modified in the developmental stages of birth, so that they are born with characteristics and advantages chosen by the parents. For example, parents will choose eye color, hair color, height, weight, intelligence level, athletic ability, and anything else they want for their child. A “super race,” will have everything thing that we wish we had. Although the idea of a “super race,” sounds splendid, it is not all sunshine and rainbows. Developing a “super race,” will Further separate social classes, start a war, and destroy human

Following the background and history of genetic engineering and eugenics, it can definitely be seen why ethicists and scientists are concerned. The concept and idea of passing on heritable traits was introduced by English naturalist Charles Darwin in his work The Origins of Species in 1859. Soon to

Engineering, edited by David M. Haugen and Susan Musser, Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010138265/OVIC?u=j170902014&xid=541f199b. Accessed 24 Feb. 2017. Originally published as "The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering," www.hgalert.org/topics/hge/threat.htm.

Genetically altering genes has been around for ages by cross breeding plants. Genetic alteration has been practice to help plants grow healthier and stronger helping Indians to become nomadic. “Gatherers

Ronald M. Green who wrote “Building Babies From the Genes Up” has a different opinion to the use of genetic modification. He is saying that “if we understand the genetic causes for diseases we could use the technology to fix the bad gene in the DNA; no one has to suffer from diseases such as dyslexia, or Huntington” (570). Hayes argues that “why should a child struggle with reading difficulties when we could alter the gene responsible for the problem” (570). He said that having more knowledge about our gene could give us more freedom in term of biological obstacles that every new generation faces. He also mentions that genetic modification has worrying social effects, but he says “it will help close the gap in social class”(571). He said that

The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.

Annes says, the current state of things has opened an opportunity for humanity to “think seriously about what we would like [the future] to be.” However, when interrogated on the matter, the public opinion’s vision of the future appears to exclude human genetic engineering, at least according to the Center for Genetics and Society’s survey. In fact, 83% of Americans surveyed in May of 2013 disapproved of human cloning, with 59% standing in strong opposition to the creation of human embryos for the purpose of research ("CGS Summary of Public Opinion Polls"). These numbers may seem strange, especially when one considers all the possible benefits genetic engineering could yield, among those being fewer diseases, reduced (or even nonexistent) birth defects, and improved physical condition of offspring. The aforementioned NCBI speaks of bringing pluripotent cells to their full potential, and pushing humanity to the barrier of its capabilities. But yet, the general populace seems to be opposed to the prospect, most likely do to metathesiophobia - or the fear of change. Belgian poet Maurice Maeterlinck is quoted as saying “at every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past,” and that would appear to be the issue here. The human brain is often in pursuit of pattern and meaning and subsequently is not all too ready to adopt a new pattern and adjust its interpretations of the world around it. While there are many logical oppositions to human genetic engineering (such as the possible consequences of a miscalculation), many of those concerns can be addressed and in fact overcome; however, the fear of change cannot truly be terminated. People prefer current class structure; those who wish not to be modified fear the worlds of Gattaca; but these preferences hinder scientific progress, as human emotion tends to

Introduction: Why would anyone want to get sick? Why would anyone want to be born with a low IQ? Why would anyone want to be born with undesirable looks? Genetic modification on the surface seems to be an easy fix to those problems. Everyone can design their own babies and know exactly what they will be good at and what they will look like in 20 years. This is the world of the future. But not the future I want to live in. A future with genetic modification is quite scary due to our lack of knowledge of the long-term effects of genetic modification on humans. Additionally, as per the course of history, genetic modification will be monetized by large companies and only available for the wealthy few. Finally, modifying human genetics in order

Genetic engineering has become increasingly normalized in today’s society, and people are exposed to this technology now more than ever before. Most people are aware that food companies practice genetic engineering on their plants in order to design the most profitable crops, but it isn’t generally known that this same technology can be applied to humans. The concept of picking certain traits and characteristics of a human may appear desirable, but many risks and potential side effects may follow considering that it is unknown what genetic engineering could affect in future generations. Francis Fukuyama, an accomplished and distinguished professor of political economy and philosopher, conveys his concern that genetic engineering is developing at a surprisingly rapid rate. Within his book, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, he claims that genetic engineering not only will potentially be detrimental for the human race, but due to the change in nature of human beings, such engineering will also result in significantly impacting government and politics. Although genetic engineering can be seen as a huge technological advancement that could potentially help millions, there are drastic negative effects and reasons for disapproving genetic engineering that are too important to be overlooked.

CGE is a way to modify one’s genetic information for medical or cosmetic purposes. But in this paper I will only consider the cosmetic purposes, since CGE for medical reasons seem to be morally unproblematic. The main premise in this paper is that since CGE is safe, legal, voluntary, and widely accessible, there is nothing morally problematic for someone to choose to undergo CGE themselves or to choose it for their children. And if this premise is true, then it would also be true that there is nothing morally problematic for engineers to design, construct, or maintain products which are intended to enable people to engage in CGE in safe, legal, voluntary and widely accessible ways. Firstly, I will confirm that the premise is true and how it makes the conclusion true as well. Secondly, I will point out Sandel’s arguments against the premise, which suggest that the premise might be false. Thirdly, I would object to one of Sandel’s points using my own arguments. Then, I would point out how others, who may sympathize Sandel, may argue against my objections. Finally, I would conclude the final judgment based on all the arguments made.