We Need an International Ban on Genetically Modified Humans Essay

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

“170.3 million hectares have been planted with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for example rice, eggplant, and tomatoes” (Haspel). Genetically modified organisms are when an animal, food, or plant whose genetic material has been amended from engineering techniques. The first step to the genetically modified organisms birth was when a russian scientist in 1935 discovered deoxyribonucleic acid. Therefore, after the birth of deoxyribonucleic acid (D.N.A.) according to Dictionary.com it is “an extremely long macromolecule that is the main component of chromosomes and is the material that transfers genetic characteristics in all life forms.” Thus came the first genetically engineered crop a 1982 antibiotic resistant tobacco plant (Wikipedia). Consequently genetic engineering has come a long way in society, for example its safety issues. Hence the debate on genetically modified crops, whether they are safe still remains on a tightrope is that genetically modified crops are nontoxic of consumption.

Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary

Modern technologies are constantly advancing in a multitude of ways to the degree that scientists have gained enough knowledgeable about the human genome to be able to find specific genes during the embryonic stage of reproduction. Scientists have already begun to use this knowledge to allow parents the ability to select the sex of their child and screen for genetic diseases via preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) with in vitro fertilization (IVF). Sex-selection has already created world-wide discussion regarding the ethics of such a situation. However, scientists are now looking toward germline engineering which will essentially allow parents to select and alter genetic traits of their children before implantation of the embryo into

Although this may be the case in many areas of people’s lives today, it is not always beneficial, or necessary. People may have trouble deciding whether messing with human genes and cells is ethical. Designing the “perfect child” in many parent’s eyes becomes a harsh question of reality. The concept of a parent’s unconditional love for their child is questioned because of the desire to make their child perfect. If genetically engineering humans becomes a dominant medical option, people could have the chance to create their child however they like: from physical appearances, genetically enhanced genes, and the possibility to decide what a child thinks and acts, parents have access to designing their entire child. Naturally, people could be creating a super-human. Issues between different races, and eventually creating new prejudices against genetically engineered humans may increase. People may not realize how expensive genetic screening is at first. With only the rich being able to “enhance” their children, another social issue might occur, giving the world another type of people to outcast.

Though it is evident that the concept of “Designer Babies” would prove unpopular amongst the majority of society, there still remains to be advocates for a future compromising of GM children. It is argued that gene technology will bring about a new age of human beings who are happier, smarter and healthier. Supporters look forward to a future when parents could quite literally assemble their children from genes listed in a catalogue. A future in which the health, appearance, personality and life span of our children become mere artefacts of genetic modification.

Most parents would do almost anything for their children to be the best and know that in life they will be successful and ahead of the game, but what if even before they are even born you could alter their genes to give them an even greater advantage. This would allow one to “create” a child who is smarter, taller, and prettier, even if the parents never carried any of these traits. As the human race continues to develop and modern technology continues to advance, we have been able to create new inventions that could potentially help us overcome daily issues linked with diseases and mutations, but although to some this seems like an incredible idea, the motion of one day being able to modify your unborn baby to look and be who you want is not only morally wrong, but could result in drastic environmental changes. Genetically engineering has influenced many debates as to whether the ethics behind the motion are right, and like most scientific discoveries comes with many advantages and disadvantages.

It is incredible to see how far genetic engineering has come. Humans, plants, and any living organism can now be manipulated. Scientists have found ways to change humans before they are even born. They can remove, add, or alter genes in the human genome. Making things possible that humans (even thirty years ago) would have never imagined. Richard Hayes claims in SuperSize Your Child? that genetic engineering needs to have limitations. That genetic engineering should be used for medical purposes, but not for “genetic modification that could open the door to high-tech eugenic engineering” (188). There is no doubt that genetic engineering can amount to great things, but without limits it could lead the human race into a future that no one

Recently, there has been a huge uprise in reports from all over the world of new diseases that have affected much of the population today. Diseases such as obesity, Alzheimer’s, Celiac Disease, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and so much more have been on the rise. Researchers have suspected the culprit of these diseases to be our food. Along with the diseases, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) has also been on the rise. The more poor food we eat, the greater the potential harm to our health. One of the poor foods we consume is GMO: the altering of genes in food to produce desirable effects. These effects can range from an improvement in nutritional value, texture, flavor, and a longer shelf life. These

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

Author Chuck Klosterman said, “The simple truth is that we’re all already cyborgs more or less. Our mouths are filled with silver. Our nearsighted pupils are repaired with surgical lasers. We jam diabetics full of delicious insulin. Almost 40 percent of Americans now have prosthetic limbs. We see to have no qualms about making post-birth improvements to our feeble selves. Why are we so uncomfortable with pre-birth improvement?” Despite Klosterman’s accurate observation, there are reasons people are wearisome toward pre-birth enhancement. Iniquitous practices such as genetic engineering could lead to a degraded feeling in a child and conceivably end in a dystopian society, almost like the society Adolf Hitler had in mind. In the minds of

Many people today are often amazed by the amount of nutrition and health information required for humans. The constant stream of genetic modification of food can be confusing. Genetically modified (GM) foods are plants and animals that have had their genetic makeup artificially altered by scientists to make them grow faster, taste better, last longer and to provide more nutrients. Scientists make these alternations by transferring genes from one organism into another in order to change the condition or character of the receiving organism. This process is known as biotechnology or genetic engineering (GE), and it has revolutionized the way that agriculture is practiced in many parts of the world. Researchers are now able to use GE

What if your future child could be engineered to avoid the risk of cancer that runs in your family? What if your fetus' DNA could vaccinate her against Herpes or AIDS? Would you be willing to take the chance to help your child?

Human genetic engineering should be banned because it harms the human race since we would be reducing our genetic diversity through this radical process. Human genetic engineering simply eliminates the “undesirable” traits and encourages specific “desirable” traits. With the endless possibilities of choosing what to eliminate, inevitably the “desirable” traits are picked and chosen on whim decisions such as blonde hair, blue eyes, a slender figure, and tall height (Act For Libraries). According to the British Medical Journal, this idea of designing a baby based on cosmetics is called unrealistic and arbitrary standards of perfection (Caplan). Unrealistic and arbitrary standards of perfection will create identical genomes among humans. Obviously, there would be a tremendous drop in genetic diversity as a result of this. Moreover, when defective genes are replaced with functional genes inevitably, there is a reduction of genetic diversity and causes the human population, as a whole, to be more susceptible to disease and virus (Patra). As shown by this, the “undesirable’ traits are annihilated and “desirable” or functional genes in this instance are promoted. Although scientists for genetic engineering will promote the “eradication of genetic disorders and diseases,” once they are diminished to the best of their ability there would still be a yearn to “perfect” the human race. Instead of annihilating disease we would also be annihilating cosmetic traits we don’t want to see in

Are Genetically Modified (GM) crops safe for environment? Might organisms and environment be harmed by GM crops?