Reprogenetics and Eugenics Essay

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary

Eugenics is a taboo science, but back in 1883 it was a modern advancement, discovered by Francis Galton (Carlson). Galton’s original mission was to improve humanity by encouraging the best and healthiest couples to simply have more children; Galton created positive eugenics (Carlson). However, with the positive comes the inevitable negative. Negative Eugenics was more set on preventing the least able from reproducing, in order to preserve the fitness of the

Future eugenicists can extort their knowledge and use it to their advantage. Eugenics is an interesting subject that is co-dependent on society; the future holds great possibilities for acknowledgment in this field of science.

Although this may be the case in many areas of people’s lives today, it is not always beneficial, or necessary. People may have trouble deciding whether messing with human genes and cells is ethical. Designing the “perfect child” in many parent’s eyes becomes a harsh question of reality. The concept of a parent’s unconditional love for their child is questioned because of the desire to make their child perfect. If genetically engineering humans becomes a dominant medical option, people could have the chance to create their child however they like: from physical appearances, genetically enhanced genes, and the possibility to decide what a child thinks and acts, parents have access to designing their entire child. Naturally, people could be creating a super-human. Issues between different races, and eventually creating new prejudices against genetically engineered humans may increase. People may not realize how expensive genetic screening is at first. With only the rich being able to “enhance” their children, another social issue might occur, giving the world another type of people to outcast.

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

Picture a future where everyone is perfect, where judgment would not exist because no one is ugly, everyone is beautiful and flawless. In this “perfect” world each individual would be gifted in a specific category that they would excel in and go beyond what an average mundane could. This is a possible scenario we may encounter in the future if we allow the research of genetically- modified embryos (GM babies) to continue. Discussed by many, this topic has become increasingly popular. For some people this interests them in the sense that we can become the best versions of ourselves, simply by changing our genes. Another reason people support GM babies is that there is experiments that can prevent babies from being born with genetic health problems. Although the creation of these altered GM babies has some advantages, there are several problems that people must consider before we decide to go ahead with these plans. For example, genetic research will disrupt the natural order, which can lead to designer babies or GM babies born with side effects. The dangers of these experiments will greatly affect the world we live in. We must not rush into the practice of GM babies without letting the populations know the outcomes these GM babies can have in our society. Try to help everyone grasp the definition of GM babies and also explain how experiments on embryo can lead to designer babies.

Though it is evident that the concept of “Designer Babies” would prove unpopular amongst the majority of society, there still remains to be advocates for a future compromising of GM children. It is argued that gene technology will bring about a new age of human beings who are happier, smarter and healthier. Supporters look forward to a future when parents could quite literally assemble their children from genes listed in a catalogue. A future in which the health, appearance, personality and life span of our children become mere artefacts of genetic modification.

As the title of the event suggests, the panel talked about the practice eugenics and scientific racism in the Pacific Northwest. More specifically there were three panelists: Dr. Kristin Johnson, who gave a brief overview of the Eugenics Movement in the United States; Michael Dicianna, an OSU 2012 graduate, who spoke on the Oregon State College’s history of eugenics; and Dr. Linda Richards, who presented on Linus Pauling, and whether he was a eugenicist. Overall, all three panelists did an amazing job in presenting their topics, and in an order that had a nice flow to it.

The escalating supremacy and receptiveness of genetic technology to engineer and "design babies," now gives parents the option to modify their unborn children, consecutively to prevent their offspring's from receiving genetic disorders such as: "sickle cell diseases, cystic fibrosis and down syndrome ," or conceivably, make them blue eye coloured, intelligent or else blessed with enviable qualities. Would this mean there will be an increase in the superiority among the rich, both physically and mentally, or will this modification be available for all to exploit, or would we be evidencing engineered babies facing unexpected genetic predicament? The highly contentious issue of designing unborn children to be a perfect "epitome" is thoroughly investigated and examined in the article of, lead author of

In the afterward to this book, author Lee Silver, professor of molecular ecology and evolutionary biology and neuroscience at Princeton, states, "My goal has been to present both the scientific and the political realities of reprogenetic technologies as I see them, along with the ethical dilemmas their use will raise. I leave it to philosophers and bioethicists to figure out how these ethical dilemmas might be resolved." As the book opens, the reader is moved scene by scene further into the future when, ultimately, the development of genetic engineering and its accessability will have formed a world even more polarized

There is much bias and confusion surrounding the topic of eugenics. Many times the reason for this is the lack of understanding of what the term means, where it states “In 1883, Sir Francis Galton, a respected British scholar, and cousin of Charles Darwin, first used the term eugenics, meaning ‘well-born.’ (Genetics Generation, 2015).” This term has evolved to encompass more than just “well-born” as can be seen in the encyclopedia. “The eleventh edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica defines eugenics as ‘the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity.’ (Court, 2004).” The meaning of the word eugenics, due to the way it has been used, confuses many people.

The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.

Let’s retrace this article’s path. There exist distinctions between disease traits and other – e.g., culturally-influenced – traits. The value of culturally-influenced traits change; thus, parents cannot always be morally obligated to “what [they] have the most reason to do” when selecting children, because what is most reasonable in one time/place can be morally abhorrent in another. It is also problematic to claim that people should recognize and implement social institutional reform, instead of genetic selection, when social institutional problems are present – history points to the implausibility of this suggestion. Finally, allowing unfettered, private genetic selection is likely to lead to adverse or unknown outcomes: a) It could lead to the selection of traits that are by no justifiable means ‘best,’ traits that drive homogenization, or both; and b) New genetic technologies have the potential to permit near-unlimited manipulations, the implications of which we don’t know, and thus, cannot allow

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,