The Implications Of Genetic Diseases In Jurassic Park

The altering of human genes could save lives. You could cure cystic fibrosis or alzheimer's. This would save the lives of many (Doc. 3). This technology could also give you children with specific traits of your choice. Also, this engineering can leave people painfree. This is not good because they can’t detect danger. As a plus side, scientists will eventually take the gene that causes this and help cure those with chronic long lasting pains (Doc. 2). This would make more people happy and healthy across the nation! Eventually we could go so far as to make a genetically engineered nation. As you can see, Genetic Engineering also could have a positive effect on

Human genetic engineering can save people's lives now and could save more in the future. According to a New Scientist article (Le Page, 2015), Layla was three months when she was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, a kind of cancer in the bone marrow. She underwent other treatments like chemotherapy, but those failed so she underwent gene therapy by using the TALEN protein to edit her genes to produce a cancer fighting T cell called UCRAT19; She survived and thrived (Le Page 2015). Saving someone’s life through human genetic engineering doesn’t even have to be as complicated as altering genes. According to TIME Health (Park, 2014), Mya Burkhart was six months old when her parents started to look for a cure to her rare mutation in the gene for citrate. This mutation prevented certain parts of her from getting enough energy, causing breathing and development problems, and after having no luck with any other diagnosis, a genetic scan figured out what the issue was and gave her citrate supplements (Alice Park, 2014). Both Layla’s and Mya’s lives were saved because of human genetic engineering. Layla was cured of cancer because of human genetic engineering, which is one toughest diseases for humans to cure right now, while Layla’s cancer was cured, but Mya’s condition was only treated so maybe if human genetic engineering could continue a cure could be developed to improve her life.

I rarely quote movies in the discussion forums because I usually find it unprofessional. However, I am going to make an exception because the quote is so pertinent to our discussion. There is a great quote form the movie Jurassic Park. John Hammond and Dr. Malcom argue over the ethics of cloning dinosaurs. Hammond suggests people need to give him credit for his cloning accomplishment. Dr. Malcolm replies, "your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they

In 1990, gene therapy allowed for a girl to no longer have a weakened immune system through manipulated cells. The new gene replaced the mutated gene, allowing her to produce ADA and therefore boost her immune system. In the past 25 years, over 2000 new therapies have been approved to “cure” leukemia and rare disorders. In the future, we may even be able to cure HIV. However, is this gene manipulation ethical? From a scientist’s view, genetic engineering may eliminate disorders and some diseases. It would prevent life-impairing disorders such as Trisomy 13 and Huntington’s, and it would cure certain cancers. But, from a social view, is it moral to change someone’s DNA? Will gene manipulation allow the rich to “build a child” with the ideal characteristics and widen the class gap? Other questions also arise. How are we to support the growing population with our limited food supply? Will everyone eventually become the perfect being and become identical, resulting in no variation? And with this lack of variation, could a single disease wipe out

Although the treatment is costly and only available in clinical trials, gene therapy has treated some of the most known diseases, like Parkinson’s disease. People who are for gene therapy believe that it will change our world by getting rid of sickness. They think of a world without cancer and Parkinson’s disease. However, the people against gene therapy see a world with technology overtaking civilization. In their eyes, they think that gene therapy is wrong because of the side effects and the concept behind it. In addition, when thinking about gene therapy, the opposers conjecture that changing the genetic makeup of someone affected with genetic illness is wrong. I, on the other hand, believe that changing the genetic makeup of someone that is ill and suffering is exceptional because it is to their advantage. All in all, gene therapy is a heavily debated topic, but I believe that gene therapy can change our world in a positive

Modifying genomes hasn’t been perfected, and is far too great of a risk to use on society. No one knows what could happen to the population after man starts messing with mother nature. Scientists who are trying to destroy genetic diseases could create new problems or end up killing its test subjects later down the line. The possibilities for disasters are endless. People also claim that modifying humans is the fastest and most efficient way to getting rid of physical and mental health problems, but according to Molecular biologist Ellen Jorgensen, Using CRISPR isn’t what people see it to be. Ellen explains that using CRISPR is not actually easy at all. To use the technology, damaging the gene is crucial. Once the gene is damaged, and the cells start to repair, scientists can then manipulate the cells to repair the way they want it to, and not naturally. This is a complicated process, and it not in any way

I decided to become a problem engineer to get a living and be in the area generally with many fossils. I decided to go onto the engineering side of the campus. It was all going to change for the best. T-rex DNA was discovered to of been preserved in the tyrannosaurus femur. I read the paper. It was thought to of been decaying bacteria. Even with much of the scientific community discrediting the paper my imagination when wild. It wasn’t amber like in Jurassic Park but, my inner child was awoken. Just the idea of preserved dinosaur DNA preserved somewhere sent excitement to my mind. Amazing being surrounded by Dinosaurs. Real Animals not just movie monsters from my early childhood. Many of my family members have questioned me on by blind stupidity towards dinosaurs. They remind me what happens at the end of the Jurassic Park movies. All I will reply within a sarcastic tone, “Death by Dinosaur. How many can put that on their tome stone.” Three years later they proved that the tyrannosaurus rex cells trapped inside and preserved by the high iron consideration of blood settling inside of the leg were real. I am still chittering with excitement about the possible end

Genetic engineering is the figurehead of the ethical concerns of scientists in the 21st century. Nothing is more engrossed with criticism and dislike than the idea of altering the baseline for living organisms. Many people are skeptical of genetic engineering due to the versatility it exhibits. A scientist could use a genetic editing tool, such as CRISPR, to remove the genes for a hereditary disease in an embryo, but they could also utilize it to alter the physical characteristics of a human baby. This thought provoked the flood gates of ethics to unleash a multitude of unanswered questions and concerns about the usage and further development of genetic engineering. The field of genetic engineering is

Altering a person’s genes create an ethical issue that needs to be thought out. Altering a person’s genes could help prevent disease but without laws being in place for the extent of using this alteration, parents would be playing god with genetics (scientists seek ban). Not only would parents be playing god, but the most fundamental issue is how we will view 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” said George Q. Daley who is a stem cell expert at Boson Children’s hospital. (Scientists seek ban). Even though scientist want to know more about the genes ethics is important to them. Volti talks about how if this is available to

For example, the gene therapy is very helpful in improving the human’s health, looks, and intelligence. As Maciamo Hay (2014) state that other than curing genetic disorders like color blindness, cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell disease, Tay-Sachs disease or Huntington's disease, gene therapy is also a non-invasive, relatively safe and, in most cases, free of side-effects gene modification. Designer babies are created in order to produce the best embryo by selectively choose the best seed whereas the scientist believes that just by changing the baby’s DNA they can produce a baby with physical appearance as the parents have requested such as the eye color, shape of the nose and also remove the unwanted inherited disease.

For example, to create greater advantages for society, with genetic selections, ¨we could alter the genes in an egg or a sperm to make a child a bit smarter¨ (Waldman). Making children more intelligent could lead to a generation of geniuses which could result in plenty of new discoveries in a variety of fields. Also, since everyone would have increased intelligence, less bright kids wouldn't suffer for not excelling in academics like some of their peers. Additionally, when using CRISPR, humanity’s scientific knowledge could grow by leaps and bounds because it would allow people “to figure out how our molecular processes actually work — or better understand what our genes do¨ (Plumer). Advancing the understanding of genes and what they do could cause numerous improvements in the medical field.

Ian Malcolm, remarks about “man playing God”. I was perplexed by the concept of man playing God. It was later when I came to understand that even if the intentions of cloning were valid and well-meaning, there would still be major risks. The power wielded by the humans to clone and essentially rebirth the dinosaurs has ethical flaws due to genetic engineering and the use frog DNA to fill in the missing holes of the dinosaur DNA. Nevertheless, the humans of Jurassic Park, intoxicated with their role of “God”, prove to be too carried away with their greed, and overlook the ethical aspects of their

Many scientists and others believe that if gene therapy can be refined, it could be implemented to ultimately put an end to genetic disorders. The parents would have the children they want, and the children who had the natural disposition towards a genetic disorder could possibly become a normal child, whereas otherwise they would probably end up losing their life due to abortion. Those that support gene therapy view it as a win-win strategy:

Genetic Engineering has developed by very rapidly over the past twenty years. It is also one of the most controversial topics to go through the United States. From the research gene therapy to the cloning of different animals, genetic engineering can save lives while at the same time, endanger them as well. There are many pros and cons which are being heavily debated by political, scientific, and many other organizations. Most are centered on the idea of using Stem cells as a way of curing diseases.

Bio-hacking is always under debate as to whether it is ethical to alter DNA and create new opportunities for life, food or on the opposite side, to dangerous and could lead to decimating a vulnerable ecosystem. Many critics of Bio-hacking, such as, Dana Perls of the environmental group Friends on Earth, believes that just because we can, doesn’t mean that we should alter DNA. She challenges Bio-hacking or as it is sometimes called,