Wrigley And Ainsley Newson Summary

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

Humanity is always trying to find a way to make themselves better. In recent news, this has led to a moral debate on weather or not using performance enhancing drugs for sports is morally correct or not. But, what if we had already manipulated the human body to make it better before we were even born? This is what Bill McKibben is referencing in his essay “Designer Genes”, on the morality and the biological arms race that could result when dealing with genetic manipulation and engineering. Though the cat isn’t out of the bag for genetic engineering he references what scientists are doing to skim the fine line that laws and ethics have laid down for us. McKibben’s audience is people who can make laws

Although the intentions of genetically modifying DNA in human embryos is aimed to rid society of genetic defects, it is still essential that this scientific discovery remains ethical. In an article on NPR.org, Rob Stein describes an experiment that scientists have been conducting in which they modify human DNA in order to eliminate life threatening genetic diseases that could be passed on for generations (Stein). In Portland, at Oregon Health & Science University, Paula Amato, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, explains “that their work is aimed at preventing terrible diseases, not creating genetically enhanced people...much more research is needed to confirm the technique is safe and effective before anyone tries to make a baby this way”(Stein). Because scientists like Amato realize their research is controversial, they are taking every precaution to assure what they are doing is morally correct, they are not intending to corrupt society. Although their intentions are good, it is their job to make sure their research is being used in an ethical way. If not, millions of people, who are already obsessed with the idea of perfection, will be able to do something about

Worryingly, there has been minimal public debate regarding this technology that could irreversibly alter the human race. Instead, ethical discourse has been largely contained to scientific and political circles. It is extremely problematic that a large majority of the general public is unaware of the research and debate regarding human gene modification. In addition, the current debate has stagnated, with researchers and politicians being unable to find any common ground. However, upon close examination of the three main ideological groups within this controversy, a key similarity becomes apparent: each group, regardless of whether they are proponents or opponents of human gene

(Glenn, Linda MacDonald, Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering and Transgenics) There are many social and fundamental issues about genetically engineering organisms. The genetic modifyification of animal and human DNA results, intentionally or not, possesses degrees of intelligence or sentience never before tested. Instead of seeing the ‘subject’ of the experiment as a person or animal, they strip them of their rights and think of them as objects. Professor Nemur and Doctor Strauss did not care what happened to Charlie, as long as he provided the information and data they needed to make money and achieve fame. Social and legal controls should be placed on research like this. Who has the right to access these technologies and how will scarce resources (such as medical advances and novel treatments) be given out to experiment

Fast forwards two hundred years and the science (or lack thereof) depicted is almost indistinguishable, a revolutionary new process called CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) is allowing science to edit the human genome almost at will. With the announcement of US scientists creating the first genetically modified embryo, an outburst of ethical debate has arisen. While they are certainly not the first (a Chinese division won the achievement in 2015), this achievement was created through the CRISPR process.

“Advances in genetic science could change the basic nature of human beings by allowing people to alter their genetic makeup or the genetic makeup of their children” (Kahn). Since editing human genes is an extremely controversial topic with great consequences, laws concerning gene editing vary worldwide. In the United States there is no ban on gene editing, however, the government cannot fund embryo modification. Altering human genes is wrong because it could lead to societal problems, create new genetic diseases, and it is immoral.

In the world of science we face a myriad of controversial studies that confront bad press from the public for various reasons, even if the origins reside in the aspiration of the betterment of mankind. One of these studies is the process of gene editing in an attempt to provide people with better health or longer living by moving around and replacing key strands of DNA in their system. Many people opposed to this style of treatment see it as unnatural to mess with nature, some it is perceived as unholy in the eyes of their religious beliefs, and other just care for the safety of the patients that are willing to undergo this sort of treatment. However, me and many others believe that the pros of gene editing out weight the cons. Gene editing may very well may be the secret to unlock the secret to longer and healthier living and maybe push us to something even better than that.

Human gene editing, the highly sensitive and controversial practice in the medical world, has been debated over its ethics during its time and recently during the international summit in Washington DC. Genome editing is a form of genetic engineering in which DNA is inserted, deleted or replaced in the genome of an organism, such as a human, using engineered nucleases, or "molecular scissors." Gene editing on human embryo is extremely risky, medically unnecessary in most aspects, and profoundly damaging to social justice and human rights.

This article addresses the potential of gene editing but also the possibility of misuse. If gene editing is to be further perused, restrictions are necessary as unintended negative outcomes may arise. At the end Kirkpatrick states three issues that must be addressed which are what the public worry the most

John Harris an author writing about gene editing expresses that the procedure can provide more benefit than harm. John illustrates in the article, “yes, their are issues with the process,but the amount of breakthrough that can be achieved s able to have the issues be overlooked”(Harris). Even though there are issues with the experimentation the scientific advancement this can provide will help change the future. When the gene editing is finally complete and mastered by the bio-technicians, it can help save lives. Even with the risks presented the scientific community is leaning in favor for the process, because of the long term benefits it can

The CRISPR technology opens the door to more than a few unethical implications. This genetic engineering is not a technology limited to mature human cells, CRISPR can, and mostly likely will, be used to modify the genes of human embryos, effectively allowing the creation of a new class of modified humans, or what the co-inventor of CRISPR refers to as, “Designer Babies”. This class of modified humans will results in a gradual and irreversible evolution of the human species. The changes will start small, select families will have the power to change their child’s genetic makeup to prevent an imminent disease. But as time and the human understanding of genetic code progresses the temptation to use this technology for vanity will inevitably increase.

disease found in society today. The process of genetic editing, as described in the report, is also

As humans move into the modern age, new thoughts and ideas are being produced into action. One particular controversial idea is the editing of genes and stem cell research on human embryos. Many scientists have decided that it is completely unethical to even approach the subject of it, but there are a few scientists who have decided that they want to work on this. The government has decided that it is unethical and therefore has cut all funding to labs, but there are some wealthy people who have decided to pay scientists, out of pocket, for them to start experiment’s on this idea. The time is coming for the decision to be made on whether we should look into gene editing and stem cell research in humans as a medical miracle or a potential disaster.

With the research and breakthroughs of gene editing and engineering being new and a foreign territory to many countries, there’s not proper legislation in place to ensure this technology is not misused within the United States. While Britain has an agency that is targeted towards both the public and private research, the United States still lacks this structure and accountability (Green, 2007). In the United States, the public research is very regulated while private research doesn’t have an overseeing organization. The real question lies, under what agency or federal organization does gene editing fall into. The author I.H Carmen suggested the President’s Commission of Bioethics (Carmen, 2004). This would be beneficial because then all states would be on the same platform on this issue. However, the Commission primarily advises the president and the president can choose very easily not to follow the advice the council is giving. Another possibility is the