Should Genetic Engineering Be Controlled By Law.

DNA stands for Deoxyribonucleic acid. Deoxyribonucleic corrosive is an atom that conveys a large portion of the hereditary guidelines utilized as a part of the improvement, working and propagation of all known living creatures and numerous infections. The National Institutes of Health and Welcome Trust from the London UK and Craig Vendor of Celera Genomics from Maryland USA at the same time exhibited the grouping of human DNA in June of 2000, finishing the first significant attempt of the Human Genome Project (HGP) (Ridley 2). As researchers connection human attributes to qualities fragments of DNA found on one or a greater amount of the 23 human

When it comes to the topic of genetic modification there is a debate whether or not

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.

The Declaration of Independence describes individual rights as “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Congress). These inalienable rights are threatened by genetic modification. Specifically, Tony Wang, in his research on the ethics of genetic

On November 6th, 2012 Proposition 37 that would have required genetically engineered foods labeling was among 10 other initiatives on the ballot in California. Unfortunately, only 6,088,714 people (48.59%) voted “Yes”, so it was defeated. I think it was a mistake to reject this initiative because if it had been passed it would have benefited Californians in a variety of ways. It would have become a conscious decision whether to buy a genetically engineered or not. Also, producers would have had to stop misleading customers by saying that their products are “natural” even though contain Genetically Modified Organisms. In addition to the advantaged obtained immediately, passing of Proposition 37 most likely would have led to the decrease in a general level of products that include Genetically Modified Organisms in the foods market. Although, at this point, it is impossible to eliminate Genetically Modified Organisms from one’s diet completely, naturally grown production would have become more competitive because people prefer them over GM products which would have caused an increase in production of organic products that, unlike genetically modified, are not harmful for people’s bodies. However, Proposition 37 like any other initiative has downsides, such as: increasing state costs of regulating labeling and possible “costs for the courts, the Attorney General, and district attorneys

When a child is born, the miracle of life occurs. A baby is born with the mystery of who they will be and what will they look like. Will they be the next Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg? Will they be the next celebrity or model? Will they be remembered for generations to come after them? Every parent wants to set up their child for success. It is human nature to strive to be the best or one of the bests. Science has given society a new way to achieve so called perfection, genetic engineering. Genetic engineering has negative impacts and should not be promoted. When you insert ideal genes, such as intelligence and beauty, other genes involuntarily follow. An extremely intelligent child, could have extreme anger

The science of eugenics was widely used during the 20th century in the United States to strategically eliminate the reproductive rights of women who were deemed inferior on the social ladder (“What is Eugenics?”). Some women of color, women with disabilities, and women from lower financial classes were sterilized for permanent birth control, and sometimes without their consent or knowledge (“What is Eugenics?”). The eugenics movement was aimed to promote selective human features in order to increase those with intelligence, good health, physical characteristics, and class. Currently, the recent controversy of human genetic engineering has scientist concerned that it will become the new eugenics. Sterilizing women as a precaution to prevent the overpopulation of unfavorable offspring would go against Jonathan Swift’s equal treatment of all humans, Benjamin Franklin’s hopes for human ethics in science, and be a direct violation to the natural born rights of all humans. Also, the controversial practice of human genetic modification to restrict reproduction rights only to people of desirable traits is unethical because it promotes racial cleansing.

geI think that GMOs should be allowed in America under a highly regulated and controlled system. The reason they should stay is because of the potential benefits of these in production. Genetically modified foods provide multiple perspectives and can come with a wide range and variety of of opportunities. GMOs can be highly controversial but can also be strictly regulated so that the nation remains safe and protected, which should be the prioritized goal of the government of any nation.

       Since the beginning of organized government there has always been a clash between science and politics. Whether it is as complicated as a new drug's detainment of federal approval or whether it is as commonplace as the social acceptance of a new medical procedure, politics has performed an integral part in the formation of science; this integrated unit is what greatly affects most of the society at large. Thus, it is no surprise the scientific discussion of genetic engineering is peppered with political rhetoric.

It is commonly argued that Genetically Modified Organisms pose numerous risk to the health of the environment, however compared to current farming practices, Genetically Modified Organisms, pose, if any, a minimal threat to the environment . And in addition to that GMOs have been able to counterbalance the effects caused by traditional farming and others human errors. For example, emission of greenhouses gases been a major concern for scientist, who see levels of gases like Carbon Dioxide on a rapid and the American government, who has the duty to regulate such developments. However, Genetically Modified Organisms have played a significant role in the reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Modified crops need impressively less fuel allocated to themselves in order to be maintained. As well because such crops need less tilling, Carbon Dioxide is allowed to remain trapped in the soil. According to these findings, in 2008, this resulted in 16 billion kilograms of Carbon Dioxide to be removed from the earth’s atmosphere. Not only has GMOs played a significant role in reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, they have also decreased soil erosion. Soil erosion, an issue that is not heavily regarded as

Biotechnology is the application of scientific techniques and exploitation of biological processes used to improve and modify animals, plants and microorganisms to enhance their value through genetic manipulation. Over time, advances in the field of molecular biology has allowed scientists to take a particular gene from any organism, including, bacteria, viruses, plants or animals, and introduce those genes into another organism. An organism transformed using genetic engineering techniques is known as transgenic organism (Independent learning center, 2012). This paper discusses the positive and negative effects of genetically engineered organisms in agricultural applications and the Canadian regulation or legislation that relates to this issue.

Genetic modification is a scientific advancement with lots of possibilities. The most compelling argument for genetic engineering is to improve the health of society. Simple genetic mutations can easily affect one’s health. If there are effective and efficient methods to cure this, shouldn’t we do so? Or should we object to this? On what grounds? When it is, after all, the logical next step to medical advancement. It has the potential to save thousands of people from diseased lives and early death. Objections are often based on the fact that it is “unnatural” or the fear of the unknown. But so are IVF and organ transplants. It is difficult to predict with a definite certainty of what will occur in the future as a result of the actions of the present. But when has that ever stopped us? Shouldn’t we have the right to eliminate genetic diseases and push human capabilities through genetic engineering? But at what point should we draw a line on genetic modification?

Genetic engineering has become increasingly normalized in today’s society, and people are exposed to this technology now more than ever before. Most people are aware that food companies practice genetic engineering on their plants in order to design the most profitable crops, but it isn’t generally known that this same technology can be applied to humans. The concept of picking certain traits and characteristics of a human may appear desirable, but many risks and potential side effects may follow considering that it is unknown what genetic engineering could affect in future generations. Francis Fukuyama, an accomplished and distinguished professor of political economy and philosopher, conveys his concern that genetic engineering is developing at a surprisingly rapid rate. Within his book, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, he claims that genetic engineering not only will potentially be detrimental for the human race, but due to the change in nature of human beings, such engineering will also result in significantly impacting government and politics. Although genetic engineering can be seen as a huge technological advancement that could potentially help millions, there are drastic negative effects and reasons for disapproving genetic engineering that are too important to be overlooked.

Genetic engineering has to do with manipulating organisms and DNA to create body characteristics. The practice of genetic DNA has shown an increasing amount over the past years. The process of genetic enhancement involves manipulating organisms by using biotechnologies. The technique is by removing a DNA from one life form and transferring it to another set of traits or organism. Certain barriers are conquered, and the procedure involves changing a form of cells, resulting from an improvement or developed organism. GMO which is a (Genetic Modified Organisms) is the operation done in a laboratory where DNA genetic from one particular species or animals is directly forced into another gene from an unrelated subject of plants or even animals.

8. References Abstract of the research paper Takeshi Ishida “Should genetic engineering be controlled by law?” I chose this topic because I used to study medicine at my former university.