Is Genetic Modification Is Safe Enough?

With new technology it allows us to further research to attempt to benefit humanity and the environment people live in. As well as the genetic engineering playing a positive role in helping with “agriculture, aquaculture, bioremediation, and environmental management, both in developed and developing countries. However, deliberate or inadvertent releases of genetically engineered organisms into the environment could have negative ecological impacts under some circumstances”(Coker 24). With the engineering of plants and medicines, there seems to be no harm done if something were to go wrong and hurt the plant or the medicine just doesn’t turn out right. There comes a point when scientists cross a line and that is when they start to create designer babies. With designer babies, it gives the mother and the father the ability to change and enhance the outcome of their child. The parents are given the opportunity to improve the way their child's “eyesight could be greatly improved, perhaps even allowing [them] to see wavelengths of light that are currently ‘invisible’ to us” (Coker 26). Having a child with not only enhanced eyesight, but with them having your choice of hair color, the eye color you have chosen, or allowing them to have enhanced strength people are interrupting the natural way a child is supposed to be created. A child who has been genetically engineered to have enhanced strength is a child how going to ruin the way sports are played fairly. A child who has been born naturally and has had nothing altered about him will be no match against a genetically engineered one. Some people would take into consideration that the religious church would believe that genetically engineering anything is not moral. Inside “the moral evaluation of germ line cell therapy is different. Whatever genetic modifications are effected on the germ cells of a person will be transmitted to any potential

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.

When a child is born, the miracle of life occurs. A baby is born with the mystery of who they will be and what will they look like. Will they be the next Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg? Will they be the next celebrity or model? Will they be remembered for generations to come after them? Every parent wants to set up their child for success. It is human nature to strive to be the best or one of the bests. Science has given society a new way to achieve so called perfection, genetic engineering. Genetic engineering has negative impacts and should not be promoted. When you insert ideal genes, such as intelligence and beauty, other genes involuntarily follow. An extremely intelligent child, could have extreme anger

Ethically this could make many people happy and live better lives knowing that they won’t have to worry about as many diseases and the fact the they will live a long healthy life but this could also make make all the people that aren't modified sad because they have to live normal lives and will be seen as the superior people because the are more prone to diseases and other health issues. Just like Vincent Freeman he wasn’t allowed to go to certain schools and get his dream job just because he wasn’t genetically modified as a

However, with the statements being made in the Shorthorn article there are strong arguments. One being the designer babies instead of finding out at birth. It ruins the purpose of a surprise for the parents. Also the lack of consent to the offspring is unsettling. With the process of gene alteration there is a risk of genetic mutation but, would be solved with CRISPR. The concept of designer babies strips originality of an individual. CRISPR is still in the beginning stages as well so there will be trial and error. If the wrong gene were to be deleted would the side effects be permanent or temporary?

This topic has already caused mass debates and argument between people, whether they are scientists or just students, everyone has their own opinion. Some people are saying that we should do as much as we can with this technology as we have it, no limitations but others are saying stop wait a second, what do we even really know about this technology. Is it morally okay to genetically change and modify your future children? Should it truly be up to the parents as to what the child’s life will be like? Are there dangerous side affects that we are unaware of yet?

With the informational facts given overtime most of us can conclude that health is the major issue that we must focus on for genetic modification, not only for the embryo but for the individual carrying the embryo or even the society. Health not only includes the embryo's risk of catching a cold but also obtaining severe genes that may be life threatening such as cancer being passed down or even HIV/Aids. The society also is something to think about with the health issue, thinking about if genetic modification of embryos will affect the family's gene pool, other siblings, the embryo as he or she gets older, and even how the environment surrounding the embryo will act towards he or she in which can all affect a person's mindset and viewpoint as a whole. Genetic modification must be addressed for the interest and health of future subjects and risk takers who will actually think about “building” their babies look and

Now there are some people that are strongly against this.There are many people that believe scientist are ‘playing God’ by changing the gene of people.But genetically engineering isn't just for modifying humans but also for curing some disease.It's called gene therapy and it had cured some disease for example Cancer, Aids and much more.It’s better for us to act than to not act at

The genetic engineering may not correctly which can seriously affect how the baby turns out. An unborn baby is very delicate and when changing its DNA, if not done correctly there is a large chance the embryo will be destroyed which will completely backfire the whole experiment to create a better future for the baby; If the baby's life ends, there’s no future for it. Also using genetic engineering by modifying certain genes to be enhanced can create negative effects on other genes. Creating a baby with no autism could infact lead to a greater number of problems such as reproductive disorders or anger management. Doctors have also seen worse outcomes such as cancer, organ damage, premature aging and immune imbalance. The process also involves altering chromosomes which effectively causes a good percentage of health issues. This technology is easily being overlooked and should definitely be rethinked in a safer manner. Even if the quality of life were to be upgraded by not having independance from certain things, it’s always just too dangerous to attempt with the life of a loved one on the line. A parent should love their child no matter what they look

To really understand the world in today’s debate about genetic modification, you must know the difference between genetic modification and enhancement. Modification is the ability scientists and doctors have where they can change your child’s genes to help cure diseases they may have, while enhancement is used to create a smarter, faster, and stronger human being. These two uses of engineering get people confused because they think of them as the same. That’s why you must

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

People argue that genetic engineering is unnatural, but scientists show that it may be the answer to our problems. People say that genetic modifying foods is wrong, unnatural, and unhealthy; but genetically modified food may be the answer to our problems by producing foods that resist pests, grow better and take fewer resources. Although genetically modifying organisms has its potential and possibilities, there are many things that make genetic modifying bad.

In this article it explains if genetically modified foods are safe or not for consumers to purchase. It is important to realize and understand this situation because it is a substantial debate and dilemma if foods that contain growth hormone should be allowed out there in the market places. In the article the author gives examples and points of each argument so that people can decide if genetically modified foods are ethical or inaccurate in general. The article explains the positive and negative effects of each argument about having generically modified foods. Some negative examples in the article is that engineered foods could possibly affect the overall health of humans because of technical modifications of GMs somehow becoming toxic to humans because of different genes put in different kinds of foods and people are simply becoming super afraid of the fact that they are consuming GMOs every time they eat it. The positive examples that the article gives is that one or two genes that are in different foods want effect or harm people and that the government has full control over these situation and people should stop becoming afraid. From what the authors says it is agreeable and it can help the economy more and the benefits are more important then the risks overall. There are some legitimate concerns around the business/legal real of GM crops, but in the terms of human safety and nutrition, the census is in and GM crops are safe (Quinn

On the most surface level, human genetic engineering and human genetic modification are a new and rapidly developing field of science that deals with directly altering the DNA (genetic makeup) of a living human cell. From early science fiction to the present day, taking control of humans’ gen es and directing the flow of evolution has been a subject of debate for many people. Human genetic engineering or HGE tends to bring up thoughts of dystopian futures where altering DNA has unexpectedly resulted in horrible mutant humans that can’t survive and thus the human race perishes, but this is not necessarily the outcome. Since genetic engineering is an emerging field of science, there are still many moral and ethical issues that need to be addressed before continuing research. Atheists and theists both have valid reasons to support / resist the continuation of this field of science. For the purpose of this paper, it will be assumed the reader has a reasonable understanding of the terms atheism, theism, DNA, genes, genome, and how a persons DNA (their genotype) essentially dictates the physical appearance and abilities that person portrays (their phenotype).

Genetic engineering is currently a growing field in which people are obsessing over. This is new and upcoming technology that combines genetic and Nanotechnological enhancements, which completes the direct manipulation of DNA to alter an organism’s characteristics in a particular way. In my opinion, it may very well be a great improvement, but it should only be used when necessary. If I were a parent of a child under 12 years of age, I would not sign up for the enhancement.