Is Human Gene Editing Be Highly Sensitive And Controversial Practice?

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

Human genetic engineering and eugenics have been a largely controversial topic over the past decades. Eugenics can be popularly defined as the science of improving and enhancing a human population or person through manipulating the human genes, selective breeding, and sterilization. The end goal and desired result of eugenics is to basically create a human race or people with more desirable biological, physical, or psychological traits. Eugenics and genetic modification is a current, pressing subject; in April 2015, a group of Chinese researchers, used a new gene-editing technology, called CRISPR to “[tinker] with the genomes of human embryos” (Adams). Presently, according to CQ Researcher, “New genetic technologies allow scientists to delete a mutant gene and insert a healthy one, which…has the potential to eliminate inherited diseases, such as cystic fibrosis.” However, these techniques have only been used on embryos belonging to laboratory animals. The big question here is whether or not science and technology are crossing an ethical boundary by using these techniques and performing genetic modification on human embryos. Do humans have the right to “play God” and alter nature?

Anthony Wrigley has a Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Leeds, currently is a senior lecturer in Ethics, Keele University. With 19 years’ experience in teaching ethics, and over ten years specialist focus on teaching biomedical and research ethics. Dr. Wrigley engages in the critical ethical evaluation of legislation and policy on matters of biomedical and research ethics. He focuses on questioning the ethics into anything medical relate just like gene editing, and how it affects not just the human body but also people it affects. While Ainsley Newson is an Associate Professor of Bioethics at the University of Sydney. She has a Bachelors of Science with first-class honors in human genetics, a Bachelor of Laws with honors and a Ph.D. in Bioethics. Working in the field of bioethics, she specials in ethical issues and

Human gene editing has long been controversial topic; however, precise techniques that accomplish this feat have only recently been discovered. According to the Welcome Genome Campus in the UK, the most versatile and simplest technique, called CRISPR-Cas9, allows scientists to cut, alter, or add to sections of the DNA sequence of living organisms (“What Is CRISPR-Cas9?”). This astonishing technology has nearly endless applications, including the potential to eradicate genetic diseases in humans that currently have no cure. This could have vast implications for people who suffer with disease and the economy of the region in which they live, but the technology has yet to be commercialized. The

Fast forwards two hundred years and the science (or lack thereof) depicted is almost indistinguishable, a revolutionary new process called CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) is allowing science to edit the human genome almost at will. With the announcement of US scientists creating the first genetically modified embryo, an outburst of ethical debate has arisen. While they are certainly not the first (a Chinese division won the achievement in 2015), this achievement was created through the CRISPR process.

John Harris and Marcy Darnovsky’s article, Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos? (2016), explores the potential moral and future repercussions involved with CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, a rapidly growing science. Harris argues that gene editing could be the resolution to curing detrimental illnesses before the birth of a child, and the science needs more time to experiment. On the other hand, Darnovsky argues that while gene editing may be able to treat illnesses before birth, it opens the door for parents to decide what they want their children to be like and to get rid of any undesirable traits. Both authors appeal to the audience’s logos to argue for or against gene editing and its potential consequences. Harris states

Genetic modification, especially the production of “designer babies,” has been acclaimed as the next great medical beneficiary to humanity, and also regarded with disdain and fear as a product of man playing god, neo-eugenics, and perpetuating inequality. The benefits to society, such as alleviating medical anomalies and bettering both length and quality of life, outweigh the moral panic and outcry that is a response to scenarios that are unlikely to ever even develop. Society should embrace genetic engineering and modification to improve humanity as a whole.

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

Gene editing has been a big technological topic that has been talked about a lot over the last few years. Is it ethical? Does it promote social justice? Is it good for the environment? I personally do not think it promotes any of these ideas. It signifies the idea that the rich get richer, and gene editing has a huge ethical complication. Not to mention that it is not the most natural thing to be able to edit genes to someone’s liking.

The research surround genome editing is fairly recent but has been of great scientific discovery by correcting faulty genetic diseases. With the contemporary research regarding genome editing or genetically altering the genes of an embryo, the types of sources that embodied this research was minimal yet paramount. The amount of information gathered from online libraries and texts attained from the library the technology used for genome editing CRISPR/Cas9, it is clear that there are many innovations that come along with this scientific advancement. Though modernizations are high, there are many factors that play into the success of this genome editing regarding the ethics, costs, and many social principles due to this technology. American life science company Sigma-Aldrich which biochemical kits are used in biotechnology, disease diagnosis, and technological manufacturing are one of very few establishments that currently offer genome-editing tools called Sigma CRISPRs to bind or break RNA’s to a “localized genomic region” (Sigma-Aldrich 3). This technology is a lot more modern than many may think because of the amount of genetic research that has already been subsidized with. Genome editing is a technology that has the potential to eradicate deficient DNAs that lead to diseases and dysfunctions such as cancers as well as certain structural immobility.

The alteration of human DNA or human genome is now a practical matter of science and inevitable, but is a question of ethical issues. Changing a human’s genome can change how they look, act, and can even minimize genetic problems. A genome can determine many things such as how someone may age, how well they adapts to the environment, and even their personality and mental health. Scientists have found ways to alter these sequences of DNA to make plants, animals, and even babies with those genetic traits seen as more desirable. For example, In the late 1980’s a scientist at the University of Japan found a repeated DNA gene sequence which later another scientist found that this sequences is part of a sophisticated immune system that bacteria use to fight viruses. (A Powerful New Way to Edit DNA). This sequence could be modified to help humans fight

Human genome editing has the impact to be life altering. Human Genome editing impacts social, political, as well as ethnical issues (Kane). It can cure diseases such as cancer and save lives by allowing humans to alter genetic defects. Humans will be able to create the “perfect person.” However, human genome editing also has the impact to create fear. Adolf Hitler attempted to create the “perfect person” and all of History knows how that ended.

Technology is ever evolving, however, the technology dealing with the gene editing on human embryos is not developing in the most ethical ways. As a result, of gene editing, many peoples’ eyes have been opened to unethical forms of treatment such as the creation of methods to select the child’s gender, the ridding of offspring’s genetically linked diseases, and the manipulation of the human DNA of the unborn embryo.

“This year about 564,800 Americans are expected to die of cancer—more than 1,500 people a day” (“Helping Families Face the Challenges”). Imagine if this detrimental disease, and innumerable life-altering others, were removed from the human biological code (Palus 20)? This may become reality, and human genome editing is responsible. However, due to ethical concerns this practice is prohibited in 15 of the 22 European nations (“Don't Edit the Human Germline”). Animals are currently used for this type of research where humans are taboo, though it is no longer practical. Their DNA, despite showing similarities, is neither identical to a humans nor accurately translatable to human embryonic research (“Failure of the Animal Model”). If an effective

During this fall semester, I think I learned a lot about biology. Among them, I was interested in gene and I think I studied more of it. The three major elements of the gene we know basically, the function of the gene, the mutation of the gene, the component of the gene, etc. I have superficially learned basic information and basic knowledge about genes. Form a different perspective, I may say I learned a lot. Meanwhile, I received this extra credit assignment and found an interesting article about genes. I found this news article on BBC News. I found an interesting title and read it. The article is a “New developments in human gene editing face an ethical and regulatory quagmire in the US”. This