Pros And Cons Of Genetic Engineering

You are probably familiar with GMO’s (genetically modified organism) and scientifically modified food that has had its DNA changes. There has been debate on GMO’s has been going on for a few decades, whether GMO are safe and even ethical. However, there is another debate that far surpasses GMOs and has a potential to radically shake society: the issue of genetically modifying humans. Changing our DNA could limit health issue or create a new Frankenstein’s monster among humans. Frankenstein had the wrong intent when he set out to create his monster. He only cared about himself and advancing his future. If Genetic engineering is sought after to just create something new there will be another monster. However, genetic can be safe and ethical if its intent and use is for medical purposes. We need to help the sick in society and one way to do that is with genetic engineering. With this purpose genetic engineering is not overstepping our authority like Frankenstein did.

Why are humans stuck how they are? Why do some have lethal flaws? Why do theses flaws exist? The correct answer is they don’t have to: Human genetic engineering can solve some of theses lethal issues now and can solve more in the future. It can help the next generation experience what everyone strives to achieve. Human genetic engineering research should continue because it can save people's lives, improve human’s lives and improve the lives of the next generation of children.

In recent years genetic modification has been advancing. Genetic modification is when a living organism has been altered to a specific state of characteristics. So far scientist has made one attempt to modify genes from an embryo recently. Whether they were successful or not is question unanswered yet. Gene modification can be great and all. However, is it right to modify genes? Apparently, the population agrees to modify genes since there has been licenses of approval for gene modification. If Society cared about gene modification, then there would be signs of disapproval of gene modification. However, this is viewed morally wrong in my point of view. The pros of modifying genes are that defeating diseases, potential to live longer, genetic diseases, and able to select character traits of babies. The cons of modifying genes are failures on the way to perfecting genetic modification, genetic modification babies can have more greater problems, very expensive, and when does it stop?

Throughout the world, many intelligent minds exist. One, in particular, had something to say about Human genetic engineering. “Nuclear weapons need large facilities, but genetic engineering can be done in a small lab. You cannot regulate every lab in the world. The danger is that either by accident or design, we create a virus that destroys us” (Stephen Hawking). Hawking is considered to be one of the most intelligent people in the modern world. For this reason, his statement is not to be taken with a grain of salt. The concept of Human genetic engineering is surrounded with danger and controversy. There are several different positions on human genetic modification. Conservatives, or Traditionalists believe such innovation or change would be detrimental towards the human race. Conservatives say that families are the foundation of society so changing how families come to be would ultimately tear society apart (Foht). Others say that innovation of such magnitude would act as a boon to the human race. Concerning the danger of genetic engineering, it could definitely become an immense detriment. However, with the correct limitation and government oversight, the human race will benefit from it. Genetically engineering a Human embryo is a step that science will eventually take. Whether it be decades or centuries from now, genetically modified humans will walk the Earth.

Bioethical and public concern ring clear, especially after the announcement in May that scientists maintained a human life (in the form of an embryo) within a petri dish for up to thirteen days. As president of Students for Life of America says, “There is no reason for experimentation on that human life and science itself should not be heralding that fact that a tiny human

Imagine a newborn baby hasn´t seen the world and never will, because this baby is blind. This child’s parents worry about his/her safety. Throughout their lifetime, this child will have many obstacles. The baby could have been saved if only the family had the resources to genetically modify their baby. Retinal Information Network reports at least 242 cases of hereditary blindness. That baby is one of the 242 cases that could’ve been cured through a new technological process that changes cells in one’s body for better cells. This is genetic modification (also known as genetic engineering). Healthy lab produced cells will replace gene cells that are negative in a personś body. Many diseases can be cured with access to genetic modification. The unhealthy disease cells can be replaced or missing cells can be added to a body. By performing genetic modifications, life spans can be lengthened. Animals and humans could live longer by replacing old cells with new ones. Also, with the assistance of genetic engineering, “super humans” can be created. Heroes with “powers” on t.v. can become a reality.

Genetic engineering is the figurehead of the ethical concerns of scientists in the 21st century. Nothing is more engrossed with criticism and dislike than the idea of altering the baseline for living organisms. Many people are skeptical of genetic engineering due to the versatility it exhibits. A scientist could use a genetic editing tool, such as CRISPR, to remove the genes for a hereditary disease in an embryo, but they could also utilize it to alter the physical characteristics of a human baby. This thought provoked the flood gates of ethics to unleash a multitude of unanswered questions and concerns about the usage and further development of genetic engineering. The field of genetic engineering is

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.

When it comes to the topic of genetic modification, most of us will readily agree that genetic modification should be allowed. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how genetic modification can be dangerous. Whereas some are convinced that people should be able to modify their genes, others maintain that modifying genes can cause too many risks and dangers for humanity. Genetic modification should not be allowed because it is unacceptable to change the natural course of human life.

Despite experiments being conducted since the late 1900’s, it was until 1999 that genetic modification in humans was recognized. In September of 1999, James Wilson, founder and director of The University of Pennsylvania's Institute for Human Gene Therapy, attempted to genetically modify humans by injecting genes in patients blood. This form of genetic modification is not the same as PGM because in gene therapy they injected an adult with genes, while PGM is done embryonically. Wilson and his colleagues were finalizing their two-year clinical trial, of which they were attempting to treat a devastating disease called ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency(OTCD), the genetic disorder blocks nitrogen from being processed in the victim's body. The

Most parents would want their child to be free of disease, impairment or maybe even want them to be perfect. Genetic modification provides the opportunity for parents to edit their child’s genome while still inside the mother’s embryo. For example, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, or CRISPR for short, is an editing technique that in short, is like two pairs of scissors. When a virus infects a cell, it inserts its RNA into the cell’s DNA and tricks the cell into replicating hundreds of viruses until the cell bursts and the newly created viruses target new unsuspecting cells. CRISPR finds and cuts the RNA that the virus injected into the cell multiple times until it turns into small, separate pieces that pose no threat to the cell and then creates a normal cell. This also passes down through generations, so the offspring of whoever had CRISPR is now also immune to that certain virus. CRISPR also can edit human features, change skin or eye color, or maybe make them stronger. Genetic modification is the right direction if parents want their child to live a good life.

Imagine a utopian world with the human race where problems have limited human beings for centuries to live a long life. It's possible for human beings to be born without genetic diseases and viruses; due to this era being highly advanced in technology it is possible of curing diseases and viruses that are in the human genes. Doctors have developed a way to prevent newborn babies from receiving health problems through genetics. For example, health problems on the Cystic fibrosis, Sickle-cell anemia, Hemophilia, and Alzheimer's disease has the potential of being cured by enhancing the gene. Genetic engineering works by manipulating the genetic material and modifying its characteristics. It works is that doctors manually input a different form of DNA or remove a certain part of the DNA.

In the feature broadcast “Genetically Engineering Almost Anything,” the editors, Eleanor Nelson and Tim De Chant, reveal their opinion on genetically engineering genetics in mosquitoes containing Malaria. According to the broadcast, Malaria kills an average of two-hundred thousand humans and sickens over two million people per year. Editors indicate that Africa is the most affected by the disease. The broadcast claims that mosquitos have been studied since the late 1970’s, however, it wasn’t until the 1990’s that there were technological advances in the research of genetic engineered insects. While Mosquitoes are becoming resistant, Evolutionary Biologist are attempting to modify genetics in mosquitoes that contain Malaria,

Genetic Engineering of the human body is the act of intentionally manipulating the DNA make-up of the human body to modify characteristics and is a highly controversial topic. Two opposing articles were written by Julian Savulescu in favor of genetic engineering of humans and Michael Sandel against human genetic engineering. Aside from their perspectives, we can look at the action from a Kantian or Utilitarian standpoint. To see the wide variety of views will help to uncover the position one stands on the topic of genetic enhancement.