The Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops

An Enhanced Genotype: Ethical Issues Involved with Genetic Engineering and their Impact as Revealed by Brave New World

Gene technology carries with it social and ethical implications—many of which engender personal views and discussion.

The ethical debate concerning biotechnological exploration into genetic cloning has created a monster in itself. A multitude of ethical questions arises when considering the effect of creating a genetically engineered human being. Does man or science have the right to create life through unnatural means? Should morality dictate these technological advancements and their effects on society? The questions and concerns are infinite, but so to are the curiosities, which continue to perpetuate the advancement of biotechnological science. In order to contemplate the effects that science can have on our society we can look back in history and literature to uncover the potentiality of our future

While saving lives is an attractive prospect, several ethical objections have been raised. Firstly, it may be wrong to make major changes to human DNA at all, as it alters the innate nature of humanity. Secondly, the technology has the potential to be used for other, controversial purposes, such as manufacturing humans or enhancing traits. These ethical concerns must be weighed against the benefits of developing this

The ethical dilemma that arises with the concept of genetic engineering is the concern of if scientists are altering the human race to benefit or harm us.

Despite the ethical, social, economical ramifications, gene therapy is such a debatable topic that has so many sides to defend, as there will always be consequences associated with the

Genetic engineering of human beings is a contemporary issue of particular ethical and religious interest - ethical because it invites us to choose between alternatives that may be right (ethical) or wrong (unethical), and of religious significance given that the topic raises serious theological questions about the sanctity of human life.

The question is how to make use of the positive impact of genetic engineering without violating human ethics. Journalist Robert Gebelhoff’s article is directed to the general public and he raises some of the ethical questions relevant to new CRISPR gene editing research. There is a constant struggle between the ethics of genetic engineering and eugenics. The author has cited many examples from other articles in Washington Post and referenced Nobel Prize-winning biologist Joshua Lederberg in this article. The article is directed to the general public. The author has tried to use easy vernacular to expose the positive side of genetic engineering without associating it with eugenics-inspired

After reading the positive effect that genetic engineering has on society, we need to consider the bad side of this reality.

Should safety concerns stop the possibility of being able to supply organs to those who desperately need them or give infertile parents a child? Is cloning a play at acting as God? Many arguments can be made for and against the artificial creation of life through genetic modification, cloning of living beings, and the use of stem cells in different cases. One will find that these disagreements come about within circumstances related to morals, ethics, and the wellbeing of people.

Over 30 years of research and development has gone into genetically engineered plants, and yet the “debate” over the safety of GMO still rages on. According to the Journal “An Overview of the Last 10 Years of Genetically Engineered Crop Safety Research”, all studies (nearly 1,800) have not been able to produce any sign of health risk directly from GE plants while performing these studies under rigorous regulation and scientific standards. They go on to state how the media often distorts and uses the natural state scientific discussion and review “inappropriately” in political and anti GE crop campaigns. Regardless of the numerous benefits provided by GE crops, people often disregard the international scientific consensus on the matter and still choose to spread misinformation about the topic. Many times poorly peer reviewed studies are used “evidence” of the “obvious health risks” caused by GE crops. This is especially dangerous to the scientific community and even stated in “An Overview of the Last 10 Years of Genetically Engineered Crop Safety Research” that

Virtually all commercial foods are Genetically modified(GMO) in the United States. GMO’s have been estimated to be in 75% of all processed foods in American supermarkets. These processed foods range from soda to juices, fruits to candy, and even to cereal to condiments. However, with the world population reaching a peaking 71/2 billion, countries all over the world have begun adapting to GMO methods to feed their growing population, but nevertheless there are countries like Japan and Europe who have denounced GMO foods for being unnatural and taboo, and thus giving GMO foods a bad reputation. However, a genetically modified crop starts out as a seed that had its DNA altered in a laboratory to enhance desirable traits such as weather resistance, herbicide resistance, and an increase in nutritional value. Genetic engineering is known for creating plants with the desired trait very quickly and with amazing accuracy. For example, plant geneticists can detach a gene responsible for drought resistance from one plant and put it into another plant. This new genetically modified plant will now gain the trait of drought tolerance. Compared to the traditional breeding methods used by farmers, this is less time consuming and quite accurate. On the contrary to the mainstream idea that GMOs are injected with harmful chemicals, the truth is that no chemicals are sprayed or injected to GMO’s to create genetic modifications. GMO foods have no scientific proof of having any dangerous risks

Nowadays, genetic engineering is a controversial issue; it has been a topic in many ethical debates and there is not a clear agreement. In the following paragraphs I am going to presents the pros and cons of this field.

Genetic engineering has also been associated with health risks (Nelson, 2001). This is because the process can render some foods which were at some point safe to consume hazardous to those consumers with allergies. The process of genetic engineering cannot be entirely predictable, and foreign substances can develop in these genetically modified foods. This is a fact that is known to the FDA as it does some testing of the final product (Ahmed, 2004). However, there can be no guarantees as to the purity of these genetically modified foods. Besides, introducing new genes to animals and plants can result in the already existing genes to react in a certain way that can include changes in the quality of the organism and reduction of the organism’s nutritional value. Other viewpoints have been brought forth to oppose the production of GMOs such as the arguments that these organisms give rise to ecological risks, upsets the natural balance, hence posing a danger to biodiversity, and that suggesting that genetic engineering is a tool for the corporate to control agriculture (Ahmed, 2004).

One can argue that genetically modified crops are essential in today’s world. The rapidly growing global population creates an immense demand for crops, and with the amount of available land for agriculture in steady decline; it is imperative that each acre yields the maximum amount of crops possible. The book Environmental Impact of Genetically Modified Crops by Ferry, N. & Gatehouse, A. argues that the “…increasing demands on natural resources and food production, has made the use of new technologies such as GM crops in the agricultural sector essential in many world areas” (Ferry, N. & Gatehouse, A. 2009, P. 70). If genetically modified crops were harmful to consume, then surely they would not be so commonly adopted and essential in many parts of the world. Genetically modified crops are so common that according to Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC, 94% of Soy is genetically modified in the US along with 90% of cotton, 95% of sugar beets and 88% of corn (M. Harris-Perry, MSNBC, April 28, 2013). To further advocate for the safety of genetically modified food, Ramez Naam, a professional technologist and author of The Infinite Resource asserts that major scientific bodies such as The National Academies of Science, The American Medical Association and even the French Supreme Court could not find evidence that GMOs are harmful when consumed by humans. It is the reason why genetically modified foods “haven’t required labels thus far” (R. Naam, MSNBC, April 28, 2013). Genetic