Should People Be Allowed To Alter Genes Persuasive Essay

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

While the benefits of gene editing are immense, there are still multiple risk factors to be considered. Nearly every type of procedure in the medical field has at least some sort of risk element, but the fact that genetic editing alters the baseline for every single intricate part of the human body poses a far greater risk of damage to the patient. Furthermore, it would be extremely difficult to locate damages caused to the patient after the procedure has been completed because of the millions of cells that make up the body. It is of utmost certainty that genetic engineering will not be an ethical solution to genetic disorders until it has been further developed. Ethical concerns, set standards, and viability all need to be tackled first before gene editing can be a usable tool. None of the articles found for this report provided substantial evidence that gene editing or genetic engineering is ready for any type of real-world application. In fact, many of them provided evidence that it is not ready for usage. Regardless, there are certainly many roadblocks that genetic engineering has yet to overcome. Until it has been proved to be viable and safe for general usage, genetic editing does not appear to be ethically justified for usage in humans in its current

Technology is developing every day. The automobile was revolutionary, and then they introduced the plane. Cell phones can connect us with people around the world. Self-driving cars are in development today! Revolutionary inventions are the expectation nowadays, but a new discovery is sparking controversial questions in the science world. Is it acceptable to alter a baby’s genes to make it a better human? Genes are the instruction book of the body, and they determine everyone’s attributes and how people act in their environment (Medical News Today). Some people say that everyone is different for a reason, and others think customizing the genes of children was meant to happen. Altering an infant’s genes is acceptable to prevent hereditary diseases, but the line should be drawn at making an artificially smarter, stronger, or prettier human.

Genetic engineering is a powerful tool that can be used to accomplish a multitude of tasks. From species population control to ensuring certain traits in a human baby, there isn’t a lot that genetic engineering can’t do. It is becoming more and more acceptable to genetically engineer organisms as our knowledge on the subject grows. There have been experiments manipulating entire ecosystems by introducing a genetically modified organism into it. It’s even possible to change tiny details all the way down to the color eyes a child has. However these developments are not without controversy. Many people claim that changing the genetic make-up of a living being is playing God, and are against it. The works of Kiera Butler, John J. Conley, Ronald Bailey, and Simon Wallace speak on the controversy as well as utility value of genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering is a process that has been dreamed of for generations by the most ambitious of scientists. With current science making this once far off dream a reality, two men were quick to throw their opinions into the air, making their stance clear on the subject. In “Building Baby from Genes Up” Ronald M. Green encourages people to embrace the inevitable benefits that genetic modification will shower upon the world. Contrasting this article is the more reserved Richard Hayes with “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks”, in which he warns of the harm it will undoubtedly bring to humanity.

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.

Imagine this: twenty years from now, when you get married you figure out what you want your child to look like. You go outside, everyone looks like a model with perfect teeth and are each geniuses. In another ten years, kids start having purple skin, gold eyelashes and look how aliens might appear. Why have two arms when you can have eighty-six? You never know where looks could go when you make the impossible possible! This world would be possible if gene editing in babies was allowed, but is this the future we want? What happens if bad things or other defects start to creep in and we do not realize it? Gene editing defies religious beliefs, it can cause further discrimination, and the child has to pay the consequences of your decision.

The human body itself should never be modified to that of a so-called perfect specimen, there is no such thing. Yet, there is with the obsession with designer babies, where one can seemly develop their perfect child within the womb. As such, Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow wrote that gene therapy “evokes fear of playing God, of technological experimentation gone horribly awry, even of the end of humanity as we know it.” (Tuhus-Dubrow, par 70). And states that “Many people condone health-related genetic tinkering, but not a cosmetic kind.” (Tuhus-Dubrow, par

Ethics are going to interfere in sciences due to future developments in genetic engineering. As the research in the field of transgenics continues with plants and bacteria, the same isn’t true with animals. Recently, the discovery of genomics has opened a door where the common sense and the ethics have blocked: The possibility of creating modified humans. A professor of practical ethics at the University of Oxford, Savulescu (2014) states that humans “have a moral obligation” to improve themselves, and since genetic engineering are serving for this purpose, the humanity shall not avoid this. However, the ethics behind this seems more complicated than it is, because, besides the fact that for now this is scientific fiction, the science is getting closer to a reality, and it breaks the common sense of creating a new life. Consequently, changes ought to be done to those genetic modifications happen.

Continuous advancements have been made in these fields, and thus contribute to human genetic engineering. The method of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, also known as embryonic screening, allows parents at risk of transmitting a genetic disease to ensure their future children are unaffected by the disease. Some say that it would be greatly favorable for parents to have the ability to avoid passing on a genetic disease. While there is potential to eliminate many diseases, it also has an equally likely potential to be a hindrance to progression. Families are placed in a difficult predicament if the test determines the child does indeed have a disease, as they then must then consider the possibility of abortion. This brings about its own ethical concerns, and would only further complicate an already heavily debated topic. There is no arguing the evident benefits of removing genetic disease from the germ line of a family. However, will its allowance create further acceptance for the use of human genetic engineering for its aesthetic purposes, such as hair color, intelligence, or height for instance? :

The technique could be used to cure genetic disease, but also to enhance qualities like beauty, strong, intelligence (Wade). It is frightening that some scientists manipulate the law of nature to create “designer humans,” forever changing future generations (Adams 531). I insist that the purpose of the genetic manipulation of human embryos should be to cure the disease, but the technique holds power to enhance any human gene. Using the technique is possible to use the human desire like cosmetic surgery. Ethicists have been concerned about dangers of altering germline which mean to make change to human sperm, eggs or embryos that will last through the life of the individual and be passed on to future generations(Wade). “It raises the most fundamental of issue about how we are going to view our humanity in the future and whether we are going to take the dramatic step of modifying our own germline and in a sense take control of our genetic destiny, which raises enormous peril for humanity,” said George Q, Daley, a stem cell expert at Boston Children’s Hospital and a member of the group. The genetic manipulation of human embryos should not use for the human desire because the technique can control to enhance human

Gene editing on human embryos, a highly sensitive and controversial practice in the medical world, has been debated over its ethical properties in many medical summits such as the international summit in Washington DC that took place recently. Genome editing is a form of genetic engineering in which DNA is inserted, deleted or replaced in the genome of an organism, using engineered nucleases, or "molecular scissors." Gene editing on human embryo is extremely risky, medically unnecessary in most aspects, and considered profoundly damaging to social justice and human rights.

When discussing the topic genetic modification of humans, some people readily agree that modification of humans is an unsound procedure. Where their agreement typically ends, however, is on the question of how much people generally understand about genetic modification, considering, not only its unfamilirarity, but its broad diversity. Where as some are convinced this bio ingenuity course of action is unnatural and should not be practiced, others maintain that unnatural as it may be, its existence should be unveiled in the acceptance a method that primarily revolves around assisting people for health purposes. I concede that genetic modification in humans should be allowed remedially in reasons related to improving health.

Genetic engineering has been around for quite some time, but it has not been able to go to the lengths that it is now capable of today. In today’s world, it is now possible to essentially snip out part of a person’s genome and replace it with a more desirable gene. This procedure has been done to many children to save them from chronic illnesses and diseases, but now the world is considering utilizing this procedure for another purpose. Not only can this technology save children from illnesses, it can also produce desirable characteristics in future children. Although some parents find this option intriguing, the question still remains whether or not creating designer babies should be allowed, and if it is ethical at all.

One might compare the use of genetic modification to having plastic surgery. Those who were severely burned in fires, born with a cleft palate, or women who have undergone a mastectomy are often candidates for plastic surgery and rightly so, but many others undergo plastic surgery merely to “fit” into society’s idealized concept of perfection. The same goes for the use of genetic modification; there are good reasons for its use as well as bad reasons. The use of genetic modification to create genetically modified children in order to help infertile women conceive is a worthy cause; however, the use of this new technology could lead down a slippery slope.