Genetic Engineering Is Kinda BadEssay title: Genetic Engineering Is Kinda BadHuman embryo research has been the subject of extensive debate for some years. In some countries it is prohibited, in others it is not. The main problem is due to the lack of consensus on a basic human question: when does a fertilized human egg become a human being? This is a fundamental ethical question because a human being has human rights, including the right-to life. Biologically, there is nothing more special about a fertilized egg than an unfertilized one. Life is a continuum.
Genetic screening is an issue that will continue to be discussed for many years to come. Points of issue include whether genetic screening of embryos should be permitted. This procedure allows the detection of a defective gene in an embryo. The genetic screening of newborn babies also raises ethical problems. We think that this is a very dangerous practice not only because it can distress parents who have not asked to know the future of their children, but also because these genetic data have the potential to be misused by insurance companies and employers. In a human society, which so often mistrusts those who are different, a genetic passport can be a huge handicap.
The release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment could cause unexpected environmental problems. We need to realize that it is possible to make combinations of genes in organisms in a way that would be impossible by natural selection.
The last issue is the biggest of all. Should we try to change or add genes in the human germ line, the cells in our bodies that have the potential to make gametes? Changes to the germ line therefore have the potential to be inherited. But what is not possible today can be possible next year or in 5 years. Perhaps it is time for a novel form of democracy, in which only those who can successfully complete a questionnaire that will test their background knowledge take decisions! We end with another quotation from the Bible:
The Lord God said, The man has become one of us, knowing good and evil; what if he now reaches out and takes fruit from the tree of life also, and eats it and lives for ever? So the Lord God banished him from the garden of Eden to till the ground … and he stationed the cherubim and a sword whirling and flashing to guard the way to the tree of life. (GENESIS, 3: 22-24)
“Life would enter a new phase” says biophysicist Gregory Stock – “one in which we seize control of our own evolution”.IT IS only a matter of time. One day – a day probably no more distant than the first wedding anniversary of a couple who are now teenage – a man and a woman will walk into an in-vitro fertilisation clinic and make scientific history. Their problem wont be infertility – the reason couples choose IVF now. Rather, they will be desperate for a very special child, a child who will elude a family curse. To create their dream-child, doctors will fertilise a few of the womans eggs with her husbands sperm as IVF clinics do today. But they will inject an artificial human chromosome, carrying made-to-order genes like pearls on a string into the fertilized egg. One of the genes will carry instructions ordering cells to commit suicide. Then the doctors the place the embryo into the mothers uterus. Left without the artificial genes if her baby is a boy, when he became an old man he, like his father and grandfather before him, would develop prostate cancer. But the suicide gene will make his prostate cells self-destruct. The man, unlike his ancestors will not die of the cancer. And since the gene that the doctors give him will copy itself into every cell of his body, including his sperm, his sons too will beat prostate cancer. Genetic engineers are preparing to what has long been an ethical Rubicon. Since 1990, gene therapy has meant slipping a healthy gene into the cells of one organ of a patient suffering from a genetic disease Soon, it may mean something much more momentous: altering a fertilized egg so that genes in all of a persons cells, including eggs or sperm also carry a gene that scientists, not parents, bequeathed them.
The therapy would cure the foetus, before it was born. But the introduced genes, though targeted at only blood or immune system cells, might inadvertently slip into the childs egg, (or sperm) cells, too. If that happens, the genetic change would effect the children to the nth generation. – “Life would enter a new phase,” says biophysicist Gregory Stock of UCLA “one in which we seize control of our own evolution.” Judging by the 70 pages of public comments the national institutes have received since Anderson submitted his proposal in September, the overwhelming majority of scientists and ethicists oppose gene therapy that changes the germ line (eggs and sperm). But the opposition could be boulevard wide and paper-thin.
Genetic change may not be just a problem to geneticists, but it may be hard to quantify. When people are raised in an “all-natural” environment, they’re more likely to reject the “alternative gene technology” that gives them an alternative to a certain mutation—which is often the very gene that’s likely to have the most impact on a kid’s development. The human lifespan varies widely from birth to life. For example, people born with a normal immune system become a minority after about half the age of their peers (in fact the vast majority are the offspring of single mothers between the ages of 5 and 14). Genetically changing the gene doesn’t necessarily mean you will have to replace it with a gene for better health, or you can switch to a different strain. If you just have an old germ and want to go back to that, you could never reverse that. But replacing the gene will make a “reactive” child more susceptible for a variety of diseases. (In theory this is how the “alternative” gene technology can be “reprogrammed”) And if you take over a family with similar genetic material (say, if an American-born couple is raised in a low-cost environment), it could be more difficult for siblings or peers to adopt the same genes.
We’re asking for, and taking control of, the fate of human life. This is not just a science fiction idea, but fundamentally human suffering, in the context of a system of genetically programmed individuals who have the right to choose to be born, and what that decision should look like. This is an economic system designed to produce profit if we can’t get things going right. And though some people are willing to say it’s morally wrong, these groups are much more likely to support it than are others—who share their belief that they are entitled to take it from others (or, in the worst case, to pay for it entirely from their profits and to the institutions that care most about them).
It should be noted that the phrase “alternative” refers precisely to the system of individuals who may be able to change their genes at will, or take their own life if they can get it right. The terms are not always very helpful: when someone is raised with the idea of “natural parenting,” for instance, they’re told that if they do it, they have the power to choose to be left-handed if they like (if they don’t like, there are options they can explore after that). The choice of which trait/set of genes will be genetically modified in order to promote health is not just an economic imperative. It’s also a matter of ethical and moral considerations. It’s impossible to know which trait is genetically different based on one group’s desire to have the right to choose—and to