The Cloning Of The Sheep

   The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be

Eugenics essentially began as a good thing. Early genicists had the intention of improving the quality of the human population by selecting desired traits. Because of the limited knowledge available in the early nineteen-hundreds this approach to changing the gene pool seemed reasonable. The researchers believe that by controlling human “reproductive” conditions like mental retardation psychiatric illness and physical illness / disabilities could be destroyed. The scientific data to prove these statements would never surface.

The idea of eugenics made it possible for involuntary sterilization. In order to improve the human race, it meant regulating reproduction. 1907 Indiana passed to sterilize the mentally insane and inmates. Their plan was to eliminate “defective” genes. By 1960 63,000 people were involuntary

I support the guidelines outlined by Kitcher for the use of genetic information because of their responsible and ethical nature. I believe that future generations will benefit as a direct consequence of these guidelines. I shall begin by defining eugenics as the study of human genetics to improve inherited characteristics of the human race by the means of controlled selective breeding.

The Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell in 1997 is a lawsuit in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law that offered the eugenic sterilization for individuals regarded genetically unfit. The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Virginia’s statute regarding sterilization provided the basis for enactment of similar laws across the United States and subsequent sterilization of 65,000 Americans without their approval or that of their family members. Notably, the ruling of this case was based on the concept of feeblemindedness, which is no longer applicable in medical terminology. Actually, this case primarily involved state-enforced eugenic sterilization for individuals considered feebleminded or genetically substandard in certain ways. The case provides considerable insights concerning eugenics and enforced sterilization in the United States and significant concerns on whether genetics should be used for any king of legal decision.

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.

Through studies such as the Human Genome Project, researchers have discovered more information than ever about genes, chromosomes, DNA, and specific medical conditions and diseases. Although, we cannot hold modern medicine responsible for discovering biological markers and treatments for certain medical conditions, historical events such as Buck v. Bell need to be brought into the classroom for students to understand how linking complex human traits and behaviors to heredity is erroneous and may lead to unjustifiable social policies. Human traits and behaviors are more so based upon an individual’s environment rather than the genes an individual inherits. Many historians worry that contemporary economic and social problems can give rise to a new eugenics movement. Given the constant struggle over limited resources, we can expect eugenic proposals to resurface overtime. The story of Carrie Buck provides a point of departure for discussing and understanding multifaceted issues including the understanding of linking traits to certain behavioral aspects, the understanding of the legislative system and court rulings and understanding what decisions and when these decisions should be justifiable to people within society. Providing education on such controversial and political issues to future generations could

Families across the country rushed to be tested and deemed genetically fit, or otherwise. While all this was going on, eugenics fans blazed across the country toting such propaganda as "Some Americans are born to be a burden on the rest" (Carlson 4), while claiming that it is the duty of the superior to ensure that the "feebleminded" did not over-run them. The hype among the higher upper class was to prove yourself worthy of being especially genetically adept, no matter what background you hailed from (the hypocrisy of this is terrible). Only when eugenicists began to actively sterilize patients did an opposite reaction to eugenics present itself.

Thousands of people are experiencing discrimination with insurance companies, over something they have no control over, their genes. Every person has multiple DNA differences/or genetic mutation that can increase and/or decrease their chance of acquiring certain diseases, such as: cancers, alzheimer's disease, diabetes, heart disease, etc. But just because people may have those certain genes/differences, does not mean that they will ever get that disease (Genetic Discrimination Fact Sheet, 2015). It is also discrimination because, if people are forced to show their genetic information, it will/can lead to vulnerable groups being denied insurance or will have higher premiums to pay. People cannot control their genes and they should not be subjected to this

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.

According to Merriam-Webster.com, eugenics is defined as “the theory dealing with the production or treatment of a fine, healthy race.” Despite this seemingly innocent representation, eugenics is an extremely controversial science. Some even debate whether or not it is worthy of the label of science, or if it’s just a form of intellectual racism. Nevertheless, eugenics was greatly embraced and was behind a scientific and social revolution during the late 19th century through the Second World War. This essay will explore the topic of eugenics which has disappeared from today’s science textbooks. This includes a thorough history of the origin of eugenics, the people behind its movement, as well as its application in society.

In 1833, Francis Galton coined the word eugenics, which means “good in birth” or “noble in heredity” in Greek (Selgelid 2013:3). Galton stated that those who were more suitable would prevail over the ones who were less suitable (Yudell 2011:4). The term eugenics is split into two different categories, positive and negative. When you are classified in the positive eugenics it means that you have desirable traits and they would want to use those traits to reproduce and increase the overall status of human beings. However, if you were in negative classification of eugenics, that indicates that the traits that you obtained as a human were not seen as “suitable”. Because those traits were not then as suitable, you were denied the right to reproduce by the force of sterilization, it generally affected criminals and those with mental disorders. This movement was prominent in North America. However, in Nazi Germany, they applied this ideology to create a desired civilization and as a result millions of people died (Yudell 2011:4). This horrific use of eugenics demonstrates how it was used to enforce prejudice attitudes and discriminating behaviours. Genetic testing for prenatal screening is used for the parent’s knowledge if their child will have a genetic condition or impairment. If it turns out the fetus does, the parents have the choice to abort the fetus or not. Some argue that this has the same premise as eugenics and it discriminates against individuals

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

The fear of genetic discrimination is a phobia gripping many people around the world. People find themselves asking, could my genetic information raise my health bills? Could this cause me to be rejected from a job opportunity? These anxieties are causing people to lash out at genetic research, and ultimately the human genome project. People do not want our understanding of human genomics to advance. This is because the risks of the development of the technology could inflict on them. A major risk is genetic discrimination. I believe that genetic discrimination is wrong and governments should continue to prevent it because it is an invasion of privacy, it violates equity, and it could really hurt people with genetic