Why Is Gene Editing Bad

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.

According to Antonio Regalado, 15% of adults think it would be fine to alter a baby’s genes to make it smarter. However, 46% think it is acceptable to fix a newborn’s genes to reduce the risk of serious illnesses (Doc. 4). The unique thing about the world is that every single person is different. If genetic engineering gets out of hand, it could lead to a “dystopia of superpeople and designer babies for those who can afford it” (Doc. 3). Once altering the genes of humans is feasible, international rules should be made so that diseases from mutated genes can be fixed, but messing with the child’s attributes are illegal. That way, every country’s government can prevent a future dystopia before it

Genes are a complex part of human life, and make each of us different and special. But what if there was a choice where you could genetically alter your child, making them disease free and astonishing athletes? It sounds almost too good to be true, to have your very own designer baby. For the good of human species, we should be allowed to alter human genetics. With all these amazing abilities and unlimited changes we could make to our children, it would be like shopping for clothes at a mall. This may sound like a dream come true, but it can lead to many problems in the near future. Trying to change human genes takes away each person's own individuality, and could cause people to segregate the people who were not genetically altered. Even if it can make beautiful, healthy children, it has too many problems than benefits to actually be any good for humans.

Human genetic engineering and eugenics have been a largely controversial topic over the past decades. Eugenics can be popularly defined as the science of improving and enhancing a human population or person through manipulating the human genes, selective breeding, and sterilization. The end goal and desired result of eugenics is to basically create a human race or people with more desirable biological, physical, or psychological traits. Eugenics and genetic modification is a current, pressing subject; in April 2015, a group of Chinese researchers, used a new gene-editing technology, called CRISPR to “[tinker] with the genomes of human embryos” (Adams). Presently, according to CQ Researcher, “New genetic technologies allow scientists to delete a mutant gene and insert a healthy one, which…has the potential to eliminate inherited diseases, such as cystic fibrosis.” However, these techniques have only been used on embryos belonging to laboratory animals. The big question here is whether or not science and technology are crossing an ethical boundary by using these techniques and performing genetic modification on human embryos. Do humans have the right to “play God” and alter nature?

As science continues to advance, scientists have found ways for parents to edit the characteristics and genes of their children. This includes the ability to determine and change gender, diseases, personalities, and looks. With further advancements, designing babies could potentially ensure immunity from diseases and mental illnesses for future generations. The editing of a human genome would prevent suffering and hardship. Although this new technology could ensure a better life for an individual, the possibilities of social implications and unethical processes gives unsureness to whether or not these procedures should be an option.

A new epidemic in human reproduction is slowly sweeping the earth, and it is known as human gene alteration. It gives parents the ability to decide their babies' sex, hair color, or even eye color. Creating these so called "designer babies" seems like the perfect way to have the child you have always dreamed of. But is this a moral way to go about reproduction? Is it fair to these children to mess with their genes just for your own satisfaction of having the perfect baby? Gene alteration can also be used in other more beneficial ways. One being to prevent and weed out disease that effects an unborn child. Gene alteration can be very beneficial, but only if used in the right way such as

Parents wish for their children to be perfect and, more so, healthy. Through the advancement of modern technology and science, giving birth to a child of desired hair color, body type, and without any physical or mental ailments could be a reality for all parents, whether or not they are carriers of certain genes. Genetic modification, sometimes called “germline editing,” has the potential to allow for medical doctors and scientists to not only change certain characteristics of a human embryo, but to also alter the future of humanity itself. While this process has many proponents, the modification of the very essence of human life has some people worried. This is, in fact, uncharted territory in the scientific world, and the extent of the possible

The 1997 thriller science fiction movie “Gattaca” depicts a society driven by eugenics where you are only considered upper class if you are genetically modified. Today scientists are editing the DNA in human embryos in order to help infertile couples have children as well as finding treatments to incurable diseases. As we are growing to become more technologically advanced, scientists have progressed towards editing the DNA in human embryos in order to engineer the traits of future children. Although genetically modifying the human genome could potentially find cures to diseases, human embryo editing should not be permitted because of the unknown long term effects and the expensive cost, which will ultimately further the class division that

Genetic engineering is a powerful tool that can be used to accomplish a multitude of tasks. From species population control to ensuring certain traits in a human baby, there isn’t a lot that genetic engineering can’t do. It is becoming more and more acceptable to genetically engineer organisms as our knowledge on the subject grows. There have been experiments manipulating entire ecosystems by introducing a genetically modified organism into it. It’s even possible to change tiny details all the way down to the color eyes a child has. However these developments are not without controversy. Many people claim that changing the genetic make-up of a living being is playing God, and are against it. The works of Kiera Butler, John J. Conley, Ronald Bailey, and Simon Wallace speak on the controversy as well as utility value of genetic engineering.

Therefore, people should consider not only the cost and attainability, but also the possible negative results and impacts on the genes. Despite some noble intentions on the part of a parent as it relates to preventing genetic defects, consideration of the negative impacts of gene manipulation are necessary. Gene editing should not be used to accomplish desirable physical traits. Furthermore, while the benefits to gene modification certainly seem attractive, there is risk associated with the practice. At this stage, it can be argued that the application of an imprecise technology that is not well understood, has the potential to create unintended generational edits. “Given the unlikely success of creating a “perfect” (i.e. presumably genetically error-free) baby, the high risk of collateral damage makes CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing ultimately unethical” (Sas et al, 2017, p. 1). Thus, while gene editing has the potential for positive results, the outcome may ultimately prove to be

Because of those concerns, the government right now put heavy restriction on experiment with gene editing. It would take away the chance to cure many children and benefit for the society any many different way. Birth defects are “contributing substantially to health care costs and the nation’s burden of disease, illness, and long-term disability” (Centers, 2015). With gene treatments, we can avoid those cost and change the future for many

This same technique would also be able to be used for the development of a technology that could trade out inferior traits and replace them with superior traits. Each individual will all possess their own ideas as to what they consider to be an inferior verses a superior trait, however this can still be harmful to society. This technology leads to a concept known as designer babies in which individuals will be able to select for the traits that they consider desirable for their child (Steinbock, 2008). Ethical concerns have been raised that there can be the risk that the connection between parents and children will disappear if the genetics in the children are altered. Children would be considered a product of scientists and not descendants of their families (Issus and Ethics of Gene Therapy, n.d.). If Restriction Nuclease Mediated Recombination is used across the globe to eliminate genetic-based diseases, it may develop other uses that can be controversial to society, such as designing your child to have superior

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.

Those that oppose human germ-line engineering may argue that in changing the genes of future children, the potential for mistakes is present. “Designer babies” could be born with some sort of defect as an unforeseen result of the engineering, which can then be passed on to the next generation. However, it is important to realize that with every decision come risks and room for mistakes. The idea is that the potential benefits outweigh the possible poor results. In an article for Business Insider, Ellie Kincaid states, “With a couple tweaks to the genome, certain diseases, even ones that aren 't genetic (like HIV), could become a thing of the past.” Over seventy-eight

The author, Amy Harmon from The New York Times, discusses the controversy of human gene-editing and how the National Academy of Sciences offered their support for this panel. This article debates the pros and cons of the modification of human gene-editing. The goal is to edit human embryos, taking out any diseases that could be inherited from the parents, and to create genetic traits that can be passed down to future generations. The National Academy of Sciences originally went against human gene-editing, but now they approve of it. This is because they want to be able to control and regulate the science heavily so that it can be monitored and make sure nothing goes in the wrong direction. In my research paper I need to have the basic of all information before I can write on this human gene editing and having this source will help me write a that great paper that I