Islamic and Catholic Views on Genetic Engineering

DNA are like legos, they work together to build the traits of living things. They are the building blocks of the body. Many scientists today have been figuring out different ways to manipulate, change, add, and subtract genes from the DNA in living things; this is process is called genetic engineering. Some of the living things being experimented on are live people, plants, and animals. Today scientists are debating on the morals of genetic engineering due to what the community thinks of it, because of the christian 's viewpoint of genetic engineering. To some christians it may pose a threat to their, but to others it may be a blessing or a gift. Genetic Engineering is a growing breakthrough in the science community. “Over the last 30 years, the field of genetic engineering has developed rapidly due to the greater understanding of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as the chemical double helix code from which genes are made. The term genetic engineering is used to describe the process by which the genetic makeup of an organism can be altered using “recombinant DNA technology.” This involves the use of laboratory tools to insert, alter, or cut out pieces of DNA that contain one or more genes of interest.”(Pocket K No. 17) Scientist have yet to unlock the full potential of genetic engineering, but the information and the use they have found for it today has reached farther than anyone 's expectations.

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

Throughout history, cultures have cherished their beliefs, and those religions have shaped modern societies. The values of various religions coincide with atheistic morals that humans should not be omnipotent. Religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam share the belief that God maintains ultimate power; therefore, humans are subservient to him and should not attempt to usurp his power. This asserts the notion of limiting human power and relying on the natural course of life, specifically God’s power. The Quran reads, “The sun, the moon and the stars are all at His command. Be aware that creation belongs only to God; it is His penetrating command that in its exalted purity creates the world and all it contains” (Quran 7:54). Genetic modification is paralleled to creation as it is the manipulation of genetics. Non-religious ethical theories such as Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics also oppose genetic modification because they oppose omnipotence, which is a product of genetic modification. Aristotle’s theory emphasizes the importance of balance; therefore, finding the balance of humanity’s power is essential. If we were to pursue genetic modification, the balance of human power would tip as we gained too much control. Applying these ideologies to genetic modification concludes that humans do not have the to right or authority to dictate the course of other humans. Genetics should not be controlled by humans, but rather left to the authority of God, or a higher power, or natural selection, or the universe; whatever label you so choose. The underlying principle remains constant: Humans have no right to interfere with the workings of nature; thus, should not pursue human genetic

The morality of genetic enhancement (GE) differs from person to person. The stance Michael J. Sandel’s takes is that eugenics and GE has no morality. He states in his work, “The case against Perfection”, that manipulating ones genes makes one less human; since, humans are not perfect which is what makes one human and by designing a perfect person one is taking away their humanity. He thinks eugenics are morally problematic in the cases of abortion; in which the mother would be free to determine if she would like to abort the baby by looking at its genes for illnesses, physical appearance and sex, this would test and even change ones moral values. Sandel is opposed on the quest of perfection due to the fact that one is not looking at the big picture, human life is a precious gift. He argues that one’s faults and quirks are what makes one unique from the other seven billion people on earth. And if one takes away what makes one who they are and becomes the perfect person there will be no originality since many would want to also become perfect. Imagine how many parents would want their child to become the next Einstein or Shakespeare. The freedom to become one’s own person would be taken away. For example, a boy that was GE to love soccer and no other sport and a boy that gets to pursue whatever he chooses, the other boy never had the opportunity or liberty to choose what sport he would like he was programed to love soccer for the rest of

Julian Savulescu wrote Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings and in this article he clearly states his position on the issues as well as providing supporting and opposing sides to the matter. He starts off by explaining this issue is focused on biological enhancement and more specifically genetic enhancement. Then the thesis statement is provided, “I want to argue that, far from it’s being merely permissible, we have a moral obligation or moral reason to enhance ourselves and our

How far would you go to save human lives and to progress society for those in need? The benefits of genetic engineering have shown to outweigh the ethical and environmental consequences associated within the field. Genetic Engineering has shown to provide major benefits in the field of medicine and agriculture but is faced with extreme criticism and backlash, specifically on the basis of ethics.

(Glenn, Linda MacDonald, Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering and Transgenics) There are many social and fundamental issues about genetically engineering organisms. The genetic modifyification of animal and human DNA results, intentionally or not, possesses degrees of intelligence or sentience never before tested. Instead of seeing the ‘subject’ of the experiment as a person or animal, they strip them of their rights and think of them as objects. Professor Nemur and Doctor Strauss did not care what happened to Charlie, as long as he provided the information and data they needed to make money and achieve fame. Social and legal controls should be placed on research like this. Who has the right to access these technologies and how will scarce resources (such as medical advances and novel treatments) be given out to experiment

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

Imagine the possibility of eliminating serious genetic diseases from the world. Imagine the idea of treating, preventing or even curing diseases that are yet to be cured. Imagine the feeling of being given improved health and a prolonged lifespan. This can all be accomplished with the aide of genetic engineering. Human genetic engineering refers to the process of directly manipulating human DNA to produce wanted results. DNA is a simple but very complex chemical that has the power to change the world and has begun to do so already. Many opponents to gene therapy fail to realize that genetic engineering has great potential to become very important in the biomedical industry. Though controversy exists regarding the ethics of human genetic engineering, it can produce numerous benefits, which outweigh its disadvantages and side effects; therefore, scientists should be able to manipulate the human genome for the purpose of helping people with serious medical conditions.

Humans desire perfection in everything, even if that means crossing the boundaries of natural life. A new looming untested technology, human genetic modification, raises questions as to whether it will advance human society or cause inconsistencies in the human genome. Essentially, this controversy will effect everyone since it is still early but it is an upcoming topic. Genetic engineering specifically effecting the next generations. Commentators on this debate argue that it will promote the positives of scientific advancements, but others dispute that this raises strong ethical concerns. Genetic engineering has the possibility to cure diseases while furthering modern medicine, but humans would abuse the process by creating a competitive

One may object that genetic enhancement is unethical because it is not natural and we are losing something precious by

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.

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).

One of the biggest pictures that are against genetic engineering is that humans are not supposed to play the role of God. DNA is a unique thing to every person. Bioengineering itself involves the very technical aspects of modification, and the enhancement of stem cells or DNA and this process can change the human structure. “The progress of civilization has been having been largely dependent upon the out ‘interference with nature’.”(Encyclopedia of Applied Plant Sciences).

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,