Making Supermouse Research Paper

The essay, “Slouching Toward Chimeras,” by Jeremy Rifkin addresses the moral dilemma of biological engineering between different species; including, the constant genome in these experiments- Homo sapiens (humans). Chimerism is the genetic engineering of two different species to create a hybrid offspring that contains the genetic code from both parents. This is an idea that has been around since the Ancient greek, however, it has not become reality until recently. One of the large controversies surrounding chimerism is the re-combination of the human gene with a different species, giving that hybrid human characteristics- depending on the gene inserted, the traits can be expressed physically of mentally. The main reason for chimeras with part

My reply to that would be that it is not because curing someone is far more different that creating a new life and tampering with the way god created life. We should try to stick with God?s rules and his natural order instead of trying to make God?s rules. If we do interfere with this, we?ll interfere with natural evolution. (http://elibrary.bigchalk.com) If we interfere with natural evolution than who knows what other problems might occur? Cloning is a big step for the future, and everyone who defends cloning is too caught up with this new process of making new life, and not thinking about the consequences. Some of you don?t know that killer bees were created by scientists. These scientists were too caught up with the bees, trying to make them better. But the bees escaped and turned out to be very dangerous. Killer bees have killed more than a 1000 people. (http://www.columba.edu) This is an example of the consequences of playing god.

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

people believe that it is too risky and unethical. Reproductive cloning has shown advantages and

The ethical issues with this procedure are not rooted in the utilization of non-human elements to aid the procreative process. So why the moral fuss over the McNamara's method of growing embryos? The heart of the issue was the potential risk to the child. Animal diseases, either known or unknown, can easily be transmitted to humans through xenotransplantation (the use of live animal cells, tissues and organs for transplantation)[9]. There is the potential, both in xenotransplantation and in the utilization of animals in the procreation process, of placing humans at major risk of contracting new types of infectious diseases[10]. Clearly the McNamara’s view and attitude towards creating their offspring may not have been the most ethical way but they would have done absolutely everything to have the one thing they wanted in this world: a child. Do we have a right to have a child at all costs? It should be obvious that our rights must be limited for the sake of others, especially when our own actions would endanger the lives of others[11]. Are there ethical limits to our good, God-given desire to reproduce? There are limits to all our good desires, precisely because these desires are given by God to be coordinated with one another according to His specific design for human beings. When we add to this the fact that our God-given desires are mingled with sinful desires, selfish impulses, and fallen drives, the need for limits becomes even more apparent[12].

There are many good reasons to both develop cloning and incorporate it into modern medicine. Human cloning is extremely beneficial, but there are some downsides. Many of the problems are ethical in nature. Matthew Nisbet involved the public in his article. He polled the public on their opinions about human cloning and stem cell research. He found that “The public appears to have strong reservations about research that destroys embryos”

The 21st century however forecasts an astonishing increase in innovation in another direction. While previously overshadowed by its larger cousins, physics and chemistry, it seems likely that the biological sciences will steal the limelight in the future. Mapping the genome, reversing the aging process, and finding a cure for terminal illnesses, all represent primary objectives for science. Unfortunately, the ethical questions posed by innovations in biomedicine are far greater than those posed by advances in the physical sciences. Reproductive cloning is one of these innovations, and one that arguably poses the greatest threat to the world as we know it. The universal truth, blindly accepted by man for millennia, held that a human could only be born through the sexual union of a male and a female, to be exact, of an egg and a sperm. By cloning, however, a human life can be created in the laboratory. This is done by taking human DNA and inserting it into an egg cell, sans genetic material. The resultant cell is identical to the original, and can then be inserted into a uterus, either a human or an animal one, and be grown to term, to produce a baby, while circumventing nature’s means of reproduction.

Many experiments done in today’s society are questionable according to the standards set today by ourselves, and others. A large example, without a doubt, is the experimentation of chemicals and other drugs on animals.

The primary argument against this new form of research is that scientists are growing live human beings in a lab. Some argue that because the child is growing in a petri dish and not a womb, it is no longer human. They argue that birth is a key part in the formation of a person, and since the children being grown are never birthed, they are no longer a human. Moreover, some religious protestors claim that the babies grown will never have a soul because ensoulment occurs in the womb. They are unable to say what will happen to a child without a soul, but argue that the children will never have a chance to go to heaven. “Young human beings, especially in their unique vulnerability during early stages of development, are ‘ends’ in themselves, entitled to unconditional respect and protection, not ‘means’ to be utilized to achieve other goals, even when those goals may be lofty and high-minded,” says Father Tad Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center (PBS) This the Church’s extreme disapproval of this research. Furthermore, some opposers claim that once the embryo becomes an “individual,” it is murder to destroy it, yet it is also unethical to continue growing it. Therefore, regulations must be kept where they currently are, if not made stricter. The only solution that satisfies all aspects of the Church’s disapproval is the halting of embryonic research. However, this is

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

After that Ross injects human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), which are meant to start forming a human pancreas in the embryo because of the void. Since iPS can be made from skin cells, any organ made by it has a higher chance of not getting rejected by a person. To develop and make an actual organ, the chimera must go into the wombs of adult pigs. A surgery is required to do so; a team anesthetize a pig and makes an incision so that the chimera embryos can be injected into each side of the uterus. After this, he waits for 28 days, which is how long it takes for organs to start forming. Ross then takes the embryos to see what the stem cells are doing. He sees if the cells started to make a pancreas or any other kinds of tissues. The reason this whole thing is controversial is beacuase the scientists doing the experiments don’t know where the stem cells go, Ross hoped that the cells would make a pancreas, but they could go to other parts, like the brain. The scientists don’t really know what would happen if other animals had human brains. One possibility could be a part animal part human

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.

Science has made a lot of progress in genetics and with procedures that help women during pregnancies. I believe gene modification is wrong because it will mess with evolution and may possibly limit some people from reaching goals that may be unthinkable as of now. On the other hand, gene modifications could help make our society healthier. Furthermore, I have no issue with surrogation because this procedure helps so many families and make their dreams come true. More processes such as freezing sperm for the future are fascinating advances in science that are for the betterment of human race. However, there has to a line where science doesn’t cross nature. Cloning is common among animals but if humans are cloned it can cause many problems.

The first problem that human cloning encounter is it is one of unethical processes because it involves the alteration of the human genetic and human may be harmed, either during experimentation or by expectations after birth. “Cloning, like all science, must be used responsibly. Cloning human is not desirable. But cloning sheep has its uses.”, as quoted by Mary Seller, a member of the Church of England’s Board of Social Responsibility (Amy Logston, 1999). Meaning behind this word are showing us that cloning have both advantages and disadvantages. The concept of cloning is hurting many human sentiments and human believes. “Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality in the cloning of other mammals, we believe that cloning-to-produce-children would be extremely unsafe, and that attempts to produce a cloned child would be highly unethical”, as quoted by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Since human cloning deals with human life, it said to be unethical if people are willing to killed embryo or infant to produce a cloned human and advancing on it. The probability of this process is successful is also small because the technology that being used in this process is still new and risky.

considered an experimental technique (NLM, 2014). Yet it holds the ability to treat and prevent