Social Ramifications Of Genetic Research

Genetic testing has become a highly controversial issue among both the general population and the scientific community. It is a process that exposes a person’s entire genome sequence, allowing it to be read and evaluated to identify potential risks for genetic diseases or diseases that could be passed onto offspring (Holt Productions, 2012). With thousands of genetic tests already being used, and more being established, it seems logical to put this growing technology to use. Some agree that it is a person’s right to know and understand his or her genetic makeup. However, others argue that, despite the benefits of genetic testing, caution should be used to carefully inspect the risks associated with this new technology.

<br>4. The rights of knowing someone's own health status and keeping that information private to oneself should be provided to all members of a society. Only the individual should have full access to information about his own genetic constitution and others should be prevented by legal regulations. As we have said above, the results of genetic tests can sometimes be detrimental to the individual. If a person does not want to know the information, its nobody's business nor right to declare it. This includes even not explaining favorable test results without the individual's request.

The final, but perhaps most tremendous, genetic controversy is known simply as the “Designer Baby Controversy.” According to Welch and CBS News, scientists Junjiu Huang and his colleagues at Sun Yat-Sen University in Guangzhou, China, “have successfully edited DNA in human embryos, a highly controversial move governing much criticism in the scientific community.” Huang and his team have spliced out a gene called HBB, which causes beta-thalassemia, a fatal blood disease, and successfully replaced it in the embryos with a healthy copy of the gene. This method could be used to fix many other single-gene diseases, and, eventually, modified to remove other multiple-gene disorders, as well. However, two large problems arise from this. The first

Genetic Testing carries a particular set of ethical, legal, or social implications, depending on the reasoning behind the testing. For example is the test for medical purposes, diagnostic, or predictive with a treatment? Or is the testing done for personal decision-making reasons? That is, predictive without a treatment, carrier, or prenatal? In any circumstance, privacy and confidentiality are critical because the genetic results are directly related to an individual’s identity. Not only is confidentiality an issue for health care, but to prevent genetic discrimination in insurance coverage and employment, as well. Information from a genetic test can affect an entire family. If the disorder is either genetically dominant or carried by an individual,

Privacy is a common concern for individuals considering utilising genetic testing. There is a highly likely chance that the information obtained from the test will be disclosed to the individual’s physician which these genetic tests are usually conducted under the supervision or suggestions of. Therefor all the results, whether it be positive or negative, end up with the physician. This disclosure of information is a major concern for some because the information, once passed to the physician, becomes part of the medical record of the individual and the information is then easily accessed by the insurance companies which the clinics are associates of. Insurers have an interest in utilising genetic information to underwrite an application for personal insurance. This may in turn affect the likelihood of the applicant making a claim under the policy. Insurers can ask applicants to disclose genetic information derived from a genetic test. The insurance companies may then charge extra due to the presence of the risk of a genetic disease. The disclosure of information can

According to Kenneth Pakenham, Jo McEntire, and Jessica Williams (2013), in “Making Connections” Gene therapy and genetic tests are long experiment by scientists to find out specific genes are related to fatal diseases and birth defects. Many severe diseases depend on the gene type. When genes are known genetic tests for many genes will be available. Despite several challenges for gene therapy, genes treatment is possible identifying their defective genes tests.

The opponents of genetic screening claim that genetic screening brings negative effect to the individual. For instance, Kelly Nicole and her teammates who focus on medical field point out, “A report showed that over 19 million people had their medical information breached since 2009. Fear of discrimination and lack of confidentiality is especially a concern when one considers the inconsistent regulations of dried blood spots storage and use” (236). The data from Kelly shows that genetic screening may leak personal information, increasing the personal social pressure. Although the information preservation system of genetic screening is not perfect. The benefit of genetic screening to the society is huge greater than the harmful

People against genetic screening argue that, “testing violates the rights of privacy, confidentiality, and autonomous decision-making of the individual” (Grosse et al., 2009, p. 7). Autonomy is the principle of self-determination. Access to information and counseling so that an individual’s participation is based on informed consent is fundamental to achieving and maintaining autonomy (Centre for Genetics Education).

There are many risks to new advancements in science and technology, but the biggest fears of the public often come from fear of change and not actual bad outcomes. The fabrication of DNA present in human chromosomes is a topic commonly tackled in science fiction, where the results are based on the supposed negatives of what is ultimately positive change and not on the actual risks. The easiest way to show that supposed fears are not real risks is to relate it to reality. Ultimately, it is my view that fabrication of human DNA has many potential benefits that outweigh the risks if they are dealt with appropriately.

Greek scholars were the first ones to speculate that characteristic traits of parents could be transmitted to their offspring. The scientific analysis began in 1880 by Gregor Mendel, by experimenting with green peas, observing that the traits were inherited as individual units also known as genes. During this period, physical nature of genes were less known but in 1970’s researchers discovered a series of enzymes that enabled you to snip apart genes at fixed sites along a molecule of DNA and join them together in a reproducible manner. Scientists were able to contemplate about gene therapy following the genetic advances that have produced new drugs and antibodies. In the later years, gene therapy was discovered in 1980s.

It is not our goal here to review all the possible (medical, social, etc.) implications, which could be involved in genetic research and in the development of

Although science of genetics still has to be improved to able to accurately predict genetic conditions, the information it provides can be a good indicator of future illnesses. This helps psychologically prepare and “receive genetic counseling” (Amy) and prepare for any surgery that may be required to prevent the disease. This new invention has opened up amazing possibilities and should be used in order to better our health. The small group of people who aren’t afraid of the possible consequences believe that their “life is worth more than the cost of

Genetic information is claimed to be sui generis. Within those double helix strands of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA, are mutations, some which affect the development of the organism. Recent research have led scientists to develop a new type of treatment for mutations. Gene therapy is the name applied to the treatment of inherited diseases by corrective genetic engineering of the dysfunctional gene. [1] This revolutionary advancement in medical technology, however, has provoked a portion of society into ruling this treatment as inhuman and unethical. [2] Despite the large criticism, this procedure alone is dangerous to attempt since the human immune system could reject the new DNA, which causes the patient to fall ill. [3] Gene therapy, a twenty-six

Even when humans themselves are not being genetically modified there are still issues that arise when their genes are being taken to modify other crops and organisms. As more human genes are being used in non-human organisms to create new forms of life that are genetically partly human, new ethical questions arise. For instance, what percentage of human genes does an organism have to contain before it is considered human and how many human genes would a green pepper for example have to contain before it can be eaten without qualms. Human genes are now being inserted into tomatoes and peppers to make them grow faster. This suggests that one can now be a vegetarian and a cannibal at the same time. In addition to this people have the right to

The public attention about research studies for genetics is comparable to the topic of eugenics from the early 1900s. Eugenics focused on the sterilization of humans based on their illnesses (e.g. Sickle Cell Anemia), mental disabilities (e.g. Down syndrome), or even life decisions (e.g. Habitual criminals). In the 1980s, Americans were given a poll and “44% favored compulsory sterilization of ‘habitual criminals’ and of the ‘hopelessly insane’” (Reilly, 2000, p. 486). This, along with several other cases,