The Intervention Of Biotechnology On Life Takes Two Forms Of Therapy And Enhancement

Scientist have developed medicine that takes away pain, strengthens the body, and reduces future health problems. There is also treatment to prolong someones life span. This is an exprodanary advancement from our modern medicine. I myself am not one who can criticize modern medicine. for years it kept my younger brother alive. My desire like many is to have a long and healthy life for ourselves and our loved ones. Unfortunately, our modern medicine has its disadvantages. As i mentioned previously the development of transplants and modern medicine helped me brother for a few years but it also slowly killed him. Disease has killed many people as a result, there is now embryo gene modification. Embryo gene modification is used to eliminate terrible genetic deceases passed on through genes. This gene editing will cure the embryo from any disease, therefore, the child will potentially live a longer life. It will pass its modified genes to its offspring and create a stronger generation. The future may consist of healthier humans with long life

What field/program are you studying at Guilford Technical College and why did you choose it?

Savulescu in "Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement" suggests that we have an obligation to enhance. His core argument can be interpreted as threefold: The right thing to do to enhance, the consistency that comes with the enhancement, and there is no difference between enhancement and treating diseases.

In fact, according to Brock, "treatment of disease that restores normal human function is typically and uncontroversially assumed to benefit persons" (pg. 617). I personally agree with Brock's argument, if genetic engineering could restore the autonomy of individuals suffering from diseases or traits that act as constraints on general human function, then it should be supported. In this regard the author depicts the opposite side of the spectrum, a likely venue for perfectly healthy individuals to seek enhancements, past what is typical for humans. It’s questionable whether or not these enhancements would be taken as a form of competitive advantage against other individuals. Personally, I believe that enhancements like these could be detrimental to

Biotechnology is not just a new fad. Prakash and Conko stated, “And a review of 81 separate research projects conducted over 15 years- all funded by the European Union- found that bioengineered crops and foods are at least as safe for the environment and for human consumption as conventional crops, and in some cases even safer.” (Prakash and Conko 359) This sentence summarizes an important

Humans are on a constant quest in the search for perfection and advancement in all areas of life through progressive scientific knowledge. From such a stance, the future of humans appears boundless with all the potential possibilities biotechnology provides, but such developments will cause ethical, social and biological implications.

The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to

Julian Savulescu wrote Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings and in this article he clearly states his position on the issues as well as providing supporting and opposing sides to the matter. He starts off by explaining this issue is focused on biological enhancement and more specifically genetic enhancement. Then the thesis statement is provided, “I want to argue that, far from it’s being merely permissible, we have a moral obligation or moral reason to enhance ourselves and our

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.

Scientists continue to find new ways to insert genes for specific traits into plant and animal DNA. A field of promise—and a subject of debate—genetic engineering is changing the food we eat and the world we live in.

After the ethical examination of both therapeutic and enhancement gene modification, it can be stated that therapeutic gene modification is a good thing and enhancement gene modification can be a bad thing. But the other issue is where do you draw the line between the two gene modifications. On paper it might seem like a clear cut distinction but take the example of children who use human growth hormone. Assume a child has a medical condition and their treatment stunts their growth, so they are prescribed human growth hormone. The human growth hormone is able to help the child grow to his normal hight thus returning him to the baseline. But now that there is a doctor prescribing human growth hormone, and different parent hear about this treatment

In an ever-increasing technological world, many scientists and researchers are now trying to revolutionize the human body through genetic enhancement. Genetic enhancement is defined as the transfer of genetic material intended to modify one or many non-pathological human traits.

Recent breakthroughs in the field of genetics and biotechnology have brought attention to the ethical issues surrounding human enhancement. While these breakthroughs have many positive aspects, such as the treatment and prevention of many debilitating diseases and extending human life expectancy well beyond its current limits, there are profound moral implications associated with the ability to manipulate our own nature. Michael Sandel’s “The Case Against Perfection” examines the ethical and moral issues associated with human enhancement while Nick Bostrom’s paper, “In Defense of Posthuman Dignity” compares the positions that transhumanists and bioconservatists take on the topic of human enhancement. The author’s opinions on the issue of

The process of life has always intrigued me. From the abundance of technology being created every day to new cures battling new diseases, the world of biology is continually changing. I have always dreamt of being part of a field whose main purpose is to help others and to improve the world around us; to me that is Biotechnology. Biotechnology is the field for future innovations that benefits an individual, but also the society.

Biotechnology is a broad term. Basically, it is the “tools and techniques [opening] new research avenues for discovering how healthy bodies work and what goes wrong when problems arise”(Siedler para. 1). It covers controversial technology and procedure, like genetic engineering and gene therapy. It is controversial because it can affect everyone(Jeremy para. 16). As a consequence, the development of biotechnology has been a “slow, quiet progress”(Kirsner para. 3) because society may or may not recognize the repercussion of it. However, scientist like Smith- a previous chief for the Cambridge biotech company, Genzyme- continues to develop biotechnology(para. 1). Because biotechnology can be controversial, yet scientist continues to develop it;