Why Is Genetic Engineering Wrong

With new technology it allows us to further research to attempt to benefit humanity and the environment people live in. As well as the genetic engineering playing a positive role in helping with “agriculture, aquaculture, bioremediation, and environmental management, both in developed and developing countries. However, deliberate or inadvertent releases of genetically engineered organisms into the environment could have negative ecological impacts under some circumstances”(Coker 24). With the engineering of plants and medicines, there seems to be no harm done if something were to go wrong and hurt the plant or the medicine just doesn’t turn out right. There comes a point when scientists cross a line and that is when they start to create designer babies. With designer babies, it gives the mother and the father the ability to change and enhance the outcome of their child. The parents are given the opportunity to improve the way their child's “eyesight could be greatly improved, perhaps even allowing [them] to see wavelengths of light that are currently ‘invisible’ to us” (Coker 26). Having a child with not only enhanced eyesight, but with them having your choice of hair color, the eye color you have chosen, or allowing them to have enhanced strength people are interrupting the natural way a child is supposed to be created. A child who has been genetically engineered to have enhanced strength is a child how going to ruin the way sports are played fairly. A child who has been born naturally and has had nothing altered about him will be no match against a genetically engineered one. Some people would take into consideration that the religious church would believe that genetically engineering anything is not moral. Inside “the moral evaluation of germ line cell therapy is different. Whatever genetic modifications are effected on the germ cells of a person will be transmitted to any potential

I agree with your opinion in how genetic technology could leave a negative impact to our society. I believe the idea of genetic engineering is not natural. We have no idea of the harm that could result from this technology. Genetic engineering is another step in giving humans their desires. I believe that altering the DNA of any life form is not just. Genetically manipulating a life form could put an imbalance in nature and society. No one should have the right to manipulate the genetics of other life forms. The idea of genetic engineering is be consider unethical because it is enforcing animal cruelty. Furthermore, I am appalled that some parent choose their child’s appearance, rather than go through the ‘natural’ process, to prevent bullying and discrimination.

Dan W. Brock makes a few interesting points in defending genetic engineering, while being observant of the possible downfalls and negative views of the science. Brock starts of his commentary by addressing how the limits to our genes can not "confidently predict the rate at which that understanding [of genetic engineering] will be achieved in the future nor the ultimate limits on it" (pg. 615). Also, the author states how genetic engineering could help parents ensure their children the abilities to live healthy lives, create new treatments for disease, and produce stronger immune systems.

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

"...the human desire for perfect control is insatiable." (Source B) Cohen argues that genetic engineering is an example of people striving for perfection. He says that because humans always desire complete perfection, the need will never be completely satisfied. This is contradictory to our morals as humans to accept everybody for who they are.

The morality of genetic enhancement (GE) differs from person to person. The stance Michael J. Sandel’s takes is that eugenics and GE has no morality. He states in his work, “The case against Perfection”, that manipulating ones genes makes one less human; since, humans are not perfect which is what makes one human and by designing a perfect person one is taking away their humanity. He thinks eugenics are morally problematic in the cases of abortion; in which the mother would be free to determine if she would like to abort the baby by looking at its genes for illnesses, physical appearance and sex, this would test and even change ones moral values. Sandel is opposed on the quest of perfection due to the fact that one is not looking at the big picture, human life is a precious gift. He argues that one’s faults and quirks are what makes one unique from the other seven billion people on earth. And if one takes away what makes one who they are and becomes the perfect person there will be no originality since many would want to also become perfect. Imagine how many parents would want their child to become the next Einstein or Shakespeare. The freedom to become one’s own person would be taken away. For example, a boy that was GE to love soccer and no other sport and a boy that gets to pursue whatever he chooses, the other boy never had the opportunity or liberty to choose what sport he would like he was programed to love soccer for the rest of

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.

The genetic engineering may not correctly which can seriously affect how the baby turns out. An unborn baby is very delicate and when changing its DNA, if not done correctly there is a large chance the embryo will be destroyed which will completely backfire the whole experiment to create a better future for the baby; If the baby's life ends, there’s no future for it. Also using genetic engineering by modifying certain genes to be enhanced can create negative effects on other genes. Creating a baby with no autism could infact lead to a greater number of problems such as reproductive disorders or anger management. Doctors have also seen worse outcomes such as cancer, organ damage, premature aging and immune imbalance. The process also involves altering chromosomes which effectively causes a good percentage of health issues. This technology is easily being overlooked and should definitely be rethinked in a safer manner. Even if the quality of life were to be upgraded by not having independance from certain things, it’s always just too dangerous to attempt with the life of a loved one on the line. A parent should love their child no matter what they look

On the other hand, the other form of genetic engineering, gene enhancement is the idea of improving average typical genes to be above average. Therapeutic treatment is acceptable, if parents can prevent their child from having a serious or fatal disease, they should be able to pay for genetic treatment if they can afford to do so. However, I completely disagree with the process of genetic enhancement; a parent should not be able to alter their child’s genes from typical or average to above average. If humans even consider gene enhancement for their children, they should revise what is morally and ethically right and wrong. The thought of parents one day being able to enhance or perfect the genes of their expected child is by all means wrong. Children should not be born into a world where their ultimate choices have been made by their parents before the moment of their birth. Children’s genes should be left untouched unless there is something terribly wrong, such as a sickness or disease.

Overall the use of genetic engineering seems to have positive intentions thought the movie. Its original purpose was to help families create children that were clear of any genetic diseases the parents may have. However, as time has progressed, the technology has caused rifts in society, outlasting those who were not born by genetic engineering. Genetic superiority is the deciding factor in society. Those with superior genetic information get the best positions in life, while those with poor genetic information become outcasts. Therefore despite having positive intentions, the technology actually has a negative effect on society.

This essay will inform readers about Genetic engineering using scholarly journal articles to define Genetic engineering and give reasons for and against in order to convince readers why G.E. should not be legal on humans. Although it is said that there are benefits to Genetic Engineering, the numerous risks and complications greatly outweigh the benefits. Genetic engineering is not approved by the FDA in the US, not only because it is unsafe to our health, but also to our society. Genetic engineering will lead to future complications such genetic inequality, countless health risks, and eugenics.

One of the biggest pictures that are against genetic engineering is that humans are not supposed to play the role of God. DNA is a unique thing to every person. Bioengineering itself involves the very technical aspects of modification, and the enhancement of stem cells or DNA and this process can change the human structure. “The progress of civilization has been having been largely dependent upon the out ‘interference with nature’.”(Encyclopedia of Applied Plant Sciences).

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.

First of all, genetic engineering is simply a way of altering oneself. The enhancement may bring great skills to have, but unfortunately this is not only changing the child’s mind completely, it is also giving them no self-actualization ability. I agree with Baylis and Robert’s idea of, “Enhancement technologies having a deleterious impact on the genetic variability characteristic of the human gene pool” (Baylis and Robert) because every human is different and unique in many aspects. This process literally weakens the authenticity of one’s accomplishments and diversity throughout society. It holds that the engineered person’s abilities and talents are no longer his or her own, but are simply because of the alteration. Children are supposed to be different in order to find their struggles and strengths, building themselves. If they are accelerated in everything possible, they will never find their paths in life. According to Baylis and Robert, “The essence of humans is to nurture and protect the natural

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