Jurassic Park Bioethics

Henry Wu would change the DNA for the purpose of control of the animals that he created. More specifically, he took away some of the dinosaurs’ ability to produce lysine, a crucial amino acid. “Foods rich in lysine. What happened to these animals?” (Crichton 399). This quote is from the end portion of the book when Dr. Grant is informed that new animals have arrived on Costa Rica. He was also informed that these animals were eating strictly agama beans, soy, and chickens which are lysine-rich foods. At this point in the book, it is hinted that these animals are the dinosaurs that escaped from Isla Nublar (the island that Jurassic Park was built on). Dr. Grant drew this conclusion because he had been previously told by Dr. Henry Wu that he had altered the dinosaurs’ DNA so that they could not produce lysine themselves. Dr. Henry Wu did this for two reasons. The first reason was that the animals would be dependent on their Jurassic Park caretakers for specifically lysine-rich food. The second reason was that only the creators of these dinosaurs would know what they lacked and they planned to sell branded food to people who might adopt miniaturized versions of the dinosaurs. In this way, they could maximize the profits they made off of their creation. But when the dinosaurs escaped, they needed to find a source of lysine to compensate for what they lacked. Otherwise, they would not function

One field of genetic science which is crucial in society today is medicine where cloning is now possible. The need for moral reasoning is essential in this field because with greater power society must “[recognize] not only the limits of our knowledge but also our vulnerability to being misguided” with an evolving world (Dalai Lama 140). Humans have kept high moral responsibilities over the century when faced with new developments in knowledge. The Dalai Lama suggests that “our technological capacity has reached a critical point” during the past decade and the gap between knowledge and human ethics when making decisions has grown farther apart as new biogenetic science has arose (133). The issue is not whether

Dinosaurs ruled the earth for over 65 million years and thankfully for the human race, they became extinct. Ultimately, only a major catastrophe could completely wipe out an entire species, let alone an entity of dinosaurs and the debacle on the causes of dinosaur extinction have flooded the minds of paleontologists for centuries. Geologist and zoologist Stephen Jay Gould published “Sex, Drugs, Disasters, and the Extinction of Dinosaurs,” to compare scientific and speculative causes of dinosaur decimation. Personally, I found this passage very informational and enjoyed reading it. Gould provides three theories that capture the reader’s curiosity, allowing room for pondering in one’s mind.

By definition, discovery implies uncertainty, but progress cannot exist without either. They are codependent upon each other. Whether the use of embryonic stem cells is truly the destruction of human life and whether the potential of human life is equal to the possible realization of that potential is also codependent. Neither of these questions can be answered without simultaneously answering the other. Arguments from both sides of this issue are extremely valid, which is why it has become such a difficult question for anyone with consideration of the opinions of others to answer. That being said, a rational stance on this issue must incorporate views from both sides, as well as logic to keep from becoming indifferent. A moderate policy should be adopted by the United States, one that allows the funding of research on spare embryos from IVF as opposed to their disposal, and one that allows for the use of Nuclear Transfer for the purpose of therapeutic cloning as long as the eggs are obtained from willing donors, though a policy that does not permit the production of human embryos strictly for research besides in the context of therapeutic cloning. This policy can be justified through the logic of Kantian Ethics, John Harris’s, “Stem Cells, Sex, and Procreation,” John P. Lizza’s, “Potentiality and Human Embryos,” and a public opinion expressed by Ian Wilmut.

The central ethical dilemma of many of the films and stories we looked at this semester hinged on the question of whether or not man should employ his knowledge of genetics and science to engineer or revive a species that had become extinct, usually due to natural processes. As a science major myself, it was interesting to explore these themes and the scenarios presented in each individual piece of literature. Questionable ethics run rampant in stories such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Jurassic Park. “None but those who have experienced them can conceive of the enticements of science. In other studies you go as far as others have gone before you, and there is nothing more to know; but in a scientific pursuit there

    "The world was made for man to conquer and rule, and under human rule it was meant to become a paradise" (Ishmael 82). Much like this evolutionary mythological theory, the movie Jurassic Park tells a tale of man's attempt to rule over nature. Through the movie's description and imagery, the viewer perceives the arrogance of humans to control nature, and the consequences and failures of this flawed intention. John Hammond, park creator, uses state of the art technology and ideas to recover dinosaur DNA, fill in missing gene caps, and breed the previously extinct animals to exploit his accomplishment. This process is set into motion without regard to the ethics behind the research, and

Although Jurassic Park is one of the most iconic dinosaur movies of the twentieth century, the dinosaurs get a meager fifteen minutes of screen time. The main focus of Jurassic Park is the ethics of manipulating life and how much control humans should have over nature. Ian Malcolm remains a steadfast believer that tampering with the DNA of the dinosaurs should not be taken

Jurassic Park was created by rich men and visionary scientists. The base thought for the park itself is unbelievable and achievable all together in one crazy idea. The park itself is off the coast of Costa Rica, on an island called Isla Nublar. We are able to see that in just a few short years, with the money and drive from InGen and its founder, John Hammond, Dr. Henry Wu, chief geneticist, is able to create and oversee living, breathing dinosaurs for a zoological theme par. When John Hammond approached Dr. Wu, he wanted him to do something so cutting edge; that nothing of its kind has been done before. The author goes so far in the introduction of the novel to state that the bioengineering firms have no regulation, no one looking over their shoulder to oversee their work. There is no one to tell them that they shouldn’t be playing god and basically they were in the an environment where, when it came to what was ethical and what wasn’t, no one was there to say. No one was around to say should they create the genetically engineered dinosaurs in the first place. These dinosaurs already had their spotlight on the planet, and by bringing them into an era that no one fully understood them was an accident waiting to happen. When you introduce a new species into a new habitat, there are chances

The book tells that the storm knocks out all the power to the island and to all the electrical gates. This is a major problem for the scientists. This puts their safety in jeopardy. There is now nothing protecting the people from the dinosaurs because there is no power going through the electric fences. This is when all hell breaks loose. The dinosaurs realize that they are not being restrained any more and break loose. They are roaming about the island while the scientists scramble to get the power back on through a generator. During all the chaos the dinosaurs have already taken out five people out of the team of ten.

Have you ever wondered what the world would be like with living dinosaurs, once again, roaming the earth? The film, Jurassic Park (1993) answers this question through the fictional recreation of the mighty creatures of the Jurassic period. As science advances, new technology emerges which allows the cloning of dinosaurs through a source of DNA recovered from ancient mosquitos. This revival of life, comparable to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, brings up a magnitude of ethical issues that become increasingly evident as the plot of the film escalates. Through analyzation of ethical identity I will discuss three key issues apparent in the film: the ethics of reviving an extinct species, the ethics of Nedry stealing DNA, and the ethics of creating and monetizing Jurassic Park. Furthermore, I will assess the ethics and provide my opinion on the dilemma with consideration of the societal morals of the period. Thus, I will delve into the ethics of reviving an extinct species.

The society has evolved over the decades. Medical advances, greater technologies, better understanding of the world around us, the sky is the limit! The progression of a society is astounding from where it was just twenty years ago. One is able to do things that the forefathers would have never dreamed! Science has discovered ways to travel to the moon and back, reach some of the deepest depths of the oceans and discover new species, and drive hybrid cars. The achievements of today’s society have reached a new high; however, with great achievement comes great questions of ethics.

Embryonic stem cells research has challenged the moral ethics within human beings simply because the point at which one is considered a “human,” is still under debate and practically incapable to make a decision upon.

bad things. The creator knew that dinosaurs were dangerous but he still decided to put them in a

John Hammond developed Jurassic park to house his genetically engineered dinosaurs. The billionaire creates a paradise in Isla Nublar Island in Costa Rica. InGen engineering company successfully cloned different types of dinosaurs from simple strands of DNA. Hammond assures his team of experts that the park is safe haven and paradise, “it’s guaranteed to drive children out of

The author is Michael Crichton, and the book is The Lost World. Many people have read this book, along with its predecessor, Jurassic Park, and many people have been enthralled with the thought of living dinosaurs in the 20th century. “What if the dinosaurs did not become extinct? What if they still exist?” (The Lost World takes off a couple years after the first book. A separate island is discovered, an island where the dinosaurs were actually created. There are two different research groups sent to the island. One to observe the dinosaurs in the wild and the other to bring them back for research purposes. The fighting starts from there. What many people don’t know, is that these books, along with countless other