Is Gene Therapy a Form of Eugenics Essay

2. The most effective argument in his essay is when he says “Millions are suffering. This is precisely the argument that research-cloning advocates are deploying today to allow them to break the moral barrier of creating.” In this argument he points out how the research advocates can't be trusted because a year ago, they assured they only wanted to do stem cell research on discarded embryos. He also points out that the research advocates create new excuses in order to keep breaking the moral barrier. In addition, they promised to only grow human clones only to the blastocyst stage. In other words, they would not create a human embryo in the laboratory. Today, they are campaigning hard to permit research for the creation of human embryos. This shows us that the research advocates are not keeping their promise because they are campaigning in order to create human embryos. The author's

Although the intentions of genetically modifying DNA in human embryos is aimed to rid society of genetic defects, it is still essential that this scientific discovery remains ethical. In an article on NPR.org, Rob Stein describes an experiment that scientists have been conducting in which they modify human DNA in order to eliminate life threatening genetic diseases that could be passed on for generations (Stein). In Portland, at Oregon Health & Science University, Paula Amato, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, explains “that their work is aimed at preventing terrible diseases, not creating genetically enhanced people...much more research is needed to confirm the technique is safe and effective before anyone tries to make a baby this way”(Stein). Because scientists like Amato realize their research is controversial, they are taking every precaution to assure what they are doing is morally correct, they are not intending to corrupt society. Although their intentions are good, it is their job to make sure their research is being used in an ethical way. If not, millions of people, who are already obsessed with the idea of perfection, will be able to do something about

History throughout the United States has multiple positive and negative attributions that reflect onto today’s society. One circumstance that has been partially neglected was the eugenics movement in America; the notion of eugenics occurring in the United States is infrequently brought up today. According to Dr. Laura Rivard, the average person most likely does not even know what eugenics is. An English intellectual named of Francis Galton is responsible for starting this movement. Eugenics can briefly be defined as exploiting the fundamentals of genetics and heredity for the benefit of superiorizing the human race.

“If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons” (Lewis, Page Unknown). When C.S Lewis wrote this in an essay on ethics, of which eugenics is a highly debated topic, eugenics was an uprising idea that many members of the intelligentsia agreed with. Eugenics is the idea of controlling human breeding, an idea that is highly controversial and typically looked down upon, but is rising in the modern era. Some groups are being forced to use in vitro fertilization to avoid disease; quite a contrast to the idea that science may be going pushing its limits, as presented in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. On the other hand, akin to Victor Frankenstein’s ideas, many groups may be amplifying the eugenics movement when they prescreen births.

Just think about a human race free of genetic disease where everyone is intelligent and where society and technology advance at staggering rates. This is the future that is envisioned by those who advocate eugenics. Eugenics is the study of methods to improve the human race by selection of parents based on their inherited characteristics (Hartl). The idea was first discussed by Sir Francis Galton in the 1880’s, but was widely unaccepted by people at first due to fear that it would take away their basic human rights and be misused (Hartl). In the early 20th century, eugenics was a very popular and widespread idea in the United States and there were laws created to encourage certain people to have children, while discouraging others from procreating (Morris 66). The main reason eugenics has fell into such disfavor is because the Nazis cited it as the reason for the Holocaust (Morris 66). The use of eugenics by the Nazis can be compared to the use Islam by ISIS, or the use of Christianity by the Westboro Baptist Church. It is a concept that can be misused based on interpretation and extremism. Eugenics itself is just an idea to improve the human race by selective breeding, not by killing millions. Forms of eugenics should be implemented in society because they eliminate genetic diseases and problems, spread favorable traits and attributes, create a more intelligent and less flawed society, and help advance the human race as a whole.

There is much bias and confusion surrounding the topic of eugenics. Many times the reason for this is the lack of understanding of what the term means, where it states “In 1883, Sir Francis Galton, a respected British scholar, and cousin of Charles Darwin, first used the term eugenics, meaning ‘well-born.’ (Genetics Generation, 2015).” This term has evolved to encompass more than just “well-born” as can be seen in the encyclopedia. “The eleventh edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica defines eugenics as ‘the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity.’ (Court, 2004).” The meaning of the word eugenics, due to the way it has been used, confuses many people.

I consider Harris has a point when he defend the use of eugenics. He uses the definition given by the Oxford English Dictionary: “pertaining.. to the production of fine offspring.”1 I agree that the expression is a bit ambiguous. It is not so simply to define what its means with “fine”. I understand the word “fine” in this context as good enough. More specifically if we have to choose between two alternatives parents should take the alternative that, given the relevant information provided, minimize healthy risks and maximize positive traits. Accepting that disabilities are a kind of physical or mental harm, the responsible parent should do all possible to avoid possible impairments in the life of the future child. Not doing so it would render

A quote from the article stated, “It is only a matter of time before it will be used to engineer our descendants -- eliminating many dangerous hereditary diseases in the process.” This quote is stating that it will only be a matter of time until this technology will be available to people. I was surprised that people were so confident in this technology, because at first I thought I was scared of what it could bring to our world. I was also shocked when the article stated, “Safety is clearly an important factor, but it is unlikely to be a decisive one.” In my opinion, safety should be the most important factor. If this technology is going to put people in danger, why would we use it? I was confused by the word eugenics, until the author provided the definition. The author used the word several times and I did not know what it meant. First reading the article I thought it would be a terrible idea to edit human’s genes, but reading on, to the end, I began to believe that the technology of gene editing is to only make sure children are as healthy as they should

Many wonder if it is ethical to use genetic information to alter natural processes of procreation to give people the best genes they can get. There are already ways to predict the presence of a genetic disease in a child based on the parents and in vivo testing. Eugenics is “increasing the number of genes in the human population responsible for improving intelligence, beauty, musical ability and other traits we value” (Munson, 2012 272-273) Eugenics is often confused to just be for consideration of the parents and the child. However, the definition of eugenics is reliant on the outcome for the entire human population. The two types of eugenics include positive and negative; positive eugenics is “The aim of increasing the number of

The idea of eugenics as a means of improving human conditions through embryo manipulation, has been debated in many scientific and cultural communities for various reasons. One of them being its effect on society, specifically the societal views of genetically improved individuals. From a social and cultural perspective, the concept of eugenics varies between people of different cultures. With the results of different human eugenic trials and the increase of gene editing technologies such as CRISPR, there have been many contrasting reactions to the information. Recently, the topic of debate has been whether there should be limits on the development of gene-modifying technologies, specifically in embryo modification. This report examines the

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.

Gene therapy is not socially right because by performing this treatment, you are going against the charter of rights and freedom. In the constitution Act, one of the rules listed is “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability” (Constitution, 1982). Those who want to prevent any disorders that could lessen their child’s intellectual or physical ability are being discriminatory towards those who have the same disorder but were not treated prior to their birth. This method of treatment is also morally wrong because scientists would be changing the code of life. Scientists are disrupting the human systems by inserting genes and changing what the future would be like. Those who are religious argue that scientists are going against God’s will and the life He gave to the children. If this treatment persists, it would strain the economy because the process is extremely expensive. It would also cost a lot of money for the parents who want their children to be treated. Since this treatment is so expensive, those who are not doing well financially would not be able to get the treatment. If this treatment becomes official, many of those who work in the medical field or

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was discovered in 1944 by Avery and colleagues. Avery identified DNA as the primary genetic material. Watson and Crick later discovered the double helix structure of DNA. Leder and co-workers deciphered the triple nucleotide code that designated the amino acids from which proteins were built. The science of molecular biology was born (Sokol, Gewirtz, 1996). In 1990 a four year old girl who was suffering from severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) was the first to undergo gene therapy. White blood cells were removed from the girl and the cells were inserted with normal copies of the defective gene and returned into the girls circulation. Her condition improved with four treatments and

Just as there are different types of people who look at one glass of water and describe it as half full or half empty, the public has many different views on the future of our society. Gene therapy is also a glass that can be viewed in different angles – different perspectives. Some say it has great potential to shape the ideals of our future, while others believe it signifies intolerance for disabilities, imperfections that supposedly deplete from a person’s interests, opportunities and welfare (quoted by Peter Singer, xviii). This global issue has brought people with different opinions in the open, arguing their views using history,

Almost three decades ago, on July 25, 1978, Louise Brown, the first “test tube baby” was born (Baird 1). With this birth another controversy broke out, do humans have the right to make life? Most of the concern comes from the fear of control over the production and development of human beings. But, those who are against cloning would most likely look the other way if they needed gene therapy after receiving a grim diagnosis. There are many aspects of genetic engineering and to thoroughly understand it looking into each is absolutely necessary. In order to understand genetic engineering, the key terms in this controversy that must be defined are the following: recombinant DNA technology, cloning, gene therapy, and the humane genome