The Pros And Cons Of Genetic Engineering

Why are humans stuck how they are? Why do some have lethal flaws? Why do theses flaws exist? The correct answer is they don’t have to: Human genetic engineering can solve some of theses lethal issues now and can solve more in the future. It can help the next generation experience what everyone strives to achieve. Human genetic engineering research should continue because it can save people's lives, improve human’s lives and improve the lives of the next generation of children.

Throughout the world, many intelligent minds exist. One, in particular, had something to say about Human genetic engineering. “Nuclear weapons need large facilities, but genetic engineering can be done in a small lab. You cannot regulate every lab in the world. The danger is that either by accident or design, we create a virus that destroys us” (Stephen Hawking). Hawking is considered to be one of the most intelligent people in the modern world. For this reason, his statement is not to be taken with a grain of salt. The concept of Human genetic engineering is surrounded with danger and controversy. There are several different positions on human genetic modification. Conservatives, or Traditionalists believe such innovation or change would be detrimental towards the human race. Conservatives say that families are the foundation of society so changing how families come to be would ultimately tear society apart (Foht). Others say that innovation of such magnitude would act as a boon to the human race. Concerning the danger of genetic engineering, it could definitely become an immense detriment. However, with the correct limitation and government oversight, the human race will benefit from it. Genetically engineering a Human embryo is a step that science will eventually take. Whether it be decades or centuries from now, genetically modified humans will walk the Earth.

Lots of people believe that it is wrong to alter genes of an embryo whether it is for benefit or not. This controversy in genetic engineering dramatically splits the people who support it, and the people against it. This division is harmful to our societies and communities all together. Social justice is one of the many controversial issues; with genetic engineering comes social injustice (Gallagher). The process of in-vitro fertilization and PGD is ridiculously costly, so typically only wealthier people will have access to it. Gallagher fears that this will cause division between the upper class citizens and the lower class citizens. Michael agrees with this idea, stating that the upper class will become “superior” to the lower class, causing unjust social division. A divided social system is not an appealing effect of genetic engineering therefore people of the middle and lower classes may be against it (Michael). This division is a major drawback of genetic engineering as broadens the gap between the two classes, creating more social controversy. Another negative consequence of genetic engineering is the idea of immorality. An interesting moral problem is the fact that by altering and enhancing certain genes, parents are essentially choosing their child’s eventual identity. Genetic engineering becomes an even bigger problem when parents choose characteristics like gender, cosmetic

What if it was possible to prevent certain lifelong diseases such as Huntington’s and even diabetes in the next generation? As medicine advances in the 21st century a very controversial topic, that is believed to do so is genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is considered anything where genetic material is modified in order to change its characteristics. This has been around for a long time, but prior to recent decades, most controversies over this topic was aimed towards crops rather than humans. However, now, with modern medicine, procedures such as in vitro fertilization have become the center of an ethical engineering worldwide debate. Many people struggle with the ethicality of genetically engineering people; however, what genetic engineering is

Many of the ethical dilemmas that exist today will most likely be exacerbated when the technology for genetic sequencing becomes mainstream. Controversial topics like abortion and LGBT rights, which haven’t even been fully resolved in modern society, will re-emerge in a new light, as it becomes easier to test for diseases and other characteristics of an unborn child.

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.

It is impossible to learn more about how genetic engineering affects humans without first testing and experimenting it.

Genetic engineering in the 21st century has evolved so much, that some say the world is on the edge of a scientific innovation that brings up one of the greatest controversial concepts of all time; the genetic engineering of human beings. I believe that genetic engineering of humans, or also known as eugenics, is morally wrong, hazardous, and will lead to many problems today.

For example, some suggest that genetic engineering does not include superficially changing genes to what a parent may see as a more desirable trait for their offspring such as fair skin or green eyes. As stated in the Columbia Law Review, one of the world’s leading publications of legal knowledge,“Of clinics that offer Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, forty two percent have used the technology to allow couples to choose the sex of the child, twenty four percent have used it to select an embryo that is an immunological match with an existing sick child, and three percent have used it to select for a disability common to the parent, like deafness or dwarfism”. From this quote, it is evident that those who have the opportunity to modify their offspring’s genes do not do so in an attempt to get rid of life threatening diseases and illnesses, but rather for their personal

How will the world be if there are no genetic diseases? In this article, Ronald Green explain how the genetic engineering can help the humanity to have better traits. It also talks of how parents can select the genes of their sons, preventing any type of genetic diseases and also making better their abilities. He said that with the genetic engineering we can end with the genes of dyslexia and obesity. It explains how by selecting our genes in our genome we can create better babies, and that means better persons for our society, but a big percent of the society is against this science because they are afraid of the impact that it can have in religion, and in the humanity.

Modification of an embryo’s DNA is a process almost unprecedented before this century. While in earlier generations the idea of being able to alter a human’s DNA was mostly fictional, today it is a possibility to be a real medical advancement for the human race. The intended use of this medical advancement is strictly for prevention of genetic diseases, disorders, and other mutations present within the DNA. One such example of this is the hopeful prevention of inheritable genetic diseases. An inheritable genetic disease, is a disease only caught by being inherited by the child through the parent’s genetics. Yet with modification of DNA becoming a more realistic possibility, scientist are working to treat children afflicted with such genetic

The make-up of the human genome is very interesting. So many possibilities and different variables that make up our genes. The genes are like snowflakes, every person is unique. But, what if one could be genetically designed? Bill McKibben's, "Designer Genes" describes the inside scoop of designing the human genome. With Genetic Modification engineering genes and Somatic Gene Therapy, these both have amazing pros and devastating cons

Genetic engineering in humans is a growing ethical issue in healthcare, even more so with the advancements in technology. Some people argue that genetic engineering is like playing God because a person is being altered for their own personal reasons. Whereas other people argue that genetic engineering can help those who need it, more specifically those with life-long or terminal diseases like diabetes and cancer. Although genetic engineering offers cosmetic purposes, these purposes should be ignored and genetic engineering should only be used for necessary medical diseases/problems.

Genetic engineering is the process whereby new DNA is added or existing DNA is altered in an organism 's genome. This may involve changing one base pair (A-T or C-G) or deleting entire sections of DNA or adding additional copies of a gene. This results in creating new traits that were not previously present in the organism’s genome. This is done to selectively breed desired traits or to create plants with increased resistance to pesticides and increased tolerance to herbicides. For example insulin is a protein that regulates sugar content in our blood and is produced normally in the pancreas. Genetic engineering is used to produce a form of insulin that is similar to yeast and bacterial cells. This genetically engineered insulin is called

Thirteen years have passed since the human genome has been decoded. From then on, we knew exactly what makes us human: a string of code telling our cells what to do. Unsurprisingly, the public’s imagination had never been so zealous in discerning what a single biological discovery meant for the future of humanity. Thirteen years ago, news sources buzzed with hot-topic articles warning us of designer babies and man-made crops. Based on the frantic journalistic climate of the time, one might think us normal people would soon be replaced by post-humans. To find crude evidence for the decade’s excitement (or disdain) for the upcoming human genetics revolution, one needs only check google search trends for words like ‘genetic enhancement’ or ‘designer baby.’ Interest peaks around 2003, the year of the human genome project’s conclusion (figure 1). Today, many are not interested in current genetic events. Despite the public’s dwindling interest in the human genome, the scientific community a been working along with increasing fervor.