At first glance, it's easy to say no to something like this. Those who say "don't play God" or things like that are too short-sighted to understand the benefits of genetic engineering. There are millions, if not billions, of people who could benefit tremendously from the use of genetic engineering. Crop shortages, diseases, you name it. All of these things can be addressed, if not eliminated completely by proper use of genetic engineering. Almost every argument against this is from the standpoint of religion. Religion should not stand in the way of science. In order for our society to progress, we need to move past these primitive ideas and be able to dream bigger things.
Genetic engineering is ethical in some cases. Cloning, as far as we can see is unethical (what purpose can it serve?) Modifying food should be OK, as long as they are proven safe for consumption. Gene altering to cure genetic disorders is ethical considering we are helping a human nature. For those saying we are not God, as long as we aren't causing any harm to anyone or anything, why would God have a problem with that?
I shall try to be as brief as possible. First off how many people can claim to have never eaten some sort of genetically modified food in their life? I know it may not seem relevant but if you eat a burger, it is highly possible that cow the beef was made from had been genetically modified by the breeders. They do not do this by splicing up thousands of little chunks of science but instead they selectively breed the cows for their genes. This may not seem relevant but in both cases they are trying to isolate specific genes to breed. Although the farmers methods take many seasons longer that making an artificial cell in a lab they are essentially the same, only on different scales. So after all of this I ask everybody the same question. Have you ever eaten genetically modified food? I recommend that before you eat your burgers next time to have a think about what I have said and if it is fine to eat this food then why are we arguing for it to stop. Thank you for you time.
I can totally see how this could be frowned upon. I agree that it does take the surprise out of the birth, but, with genetic Engineering delicious cows are breed to be all the same, and I don't here anybody complaining when they are eating a hamburger. I do not condone human genetic engineering however, that is a whole other category in its self.
Genetic engineering holds many promises for humanity. We may be able to cure many diseases. What would be unethical would be to just leave people ill because we're afraid it's "not natural" to cure them.
Some people are concerned about "designer babies" but as "disease" is truly relative once we find a way to make someone with better traits the lesser traits are by definition "diseases". Not only should this be allowed, but gene therapy in utero should be mandatory and paid for by the government. No parent should get to condemn their child to disease or disability just because they feel the treatments for those things are "unnatural".
Genetic engineering, as a scientific process, cannot be considered unethical any more than in vitro fertilization or pasteurization. I will concede, however, that the uses to which genetic engineering may be put are 'up for grabs' ethically. Human frailty is certainly subject to ethical questions. But as a purely scientific process, genetic engineering is not.
Genetic engineering has the potential to solve many problems in the human world. Like anything else, it can and may even be abused, but it is the abuse of genetic engineering that is unethical, not the act itself. For instance, plastic surgery gives humans the ability to change their appearance. It has many benefits, such as helping a disfigured child feel and look normal. However, it has the potential to be abused, and it is being abused as we speak. This does not mean that plastic surgery itself is unethical. I view genetic engineering in the same light.
Genetic engineering is an amazing discovery in the biological field with the ability to grow organs therefore saving lives and also giving the ability to help infertile couple have children through IVF. Sure, clones could create problems but there are problems with everything that comes to light so my opinion is that genetic engineering is a good thing.
I agree that that the process of birth should stay natural. But so many people struggle with the issue of conception and I don't think it's right to crush their dreams of a baby that is there own. Also if some things lead to another we could end up making clones, clones in my opinion are wrong because that clone is a person and no matter where they are in the world, they would get teased. I think that procedures such as IVF are fine but that is where it needs to stop.
Have a nice day :)
Advances in genetic engineering have enabled many people with infertility problems to start a family. In my eyes, every person should be able to have children if they want to, therefore IVF has played a great part in making this possible. With the laws in the UK surrounding stem cell research, and only allowing taking stem cells from embryos up to 14 days old, I feel this makes the research ethical. This along with advances in medicine, fighting illness & disease is great for the society. Over time, we could possibly develop in terms of fighting illnesses such as cancer, which a lot of the time can be carried through genes.
In the old days, parents would wait to see and check what gender their baby is going to be. However, in today's era, people already know beforehand through ultrasound and whatnot. In addition, people have even discovered means of literally "creating" a child! They can choose what their baby is going to look like; that would diminish the feeling of surprise and joy, especially to the mother, when they see their baby come out and into this world.
I don't think genetic engineering is very good because it's sorta cheeky and is against the word of my God Buddha and Allah. It is bad and wrecks the genetic distrubutor modifiers and deoxy ribonucleic acid modifiers so isn't very good. My mom says that science is bad too so you shouldn't listen to the pros. Someday I will be President of Canada so listen hard
Today I am here not only brighten your view of this topic but to expose you to a different perspective. Gene modification is highly unethical to the environment and to our society today. It brings me great sadness to see that people debate about this topic since it seems clear to me that the knowledge given to us from God should be used to address the purpose of life, rather than perfecting the physical state of society. No human can ever be flawless that's just something we have to learn to accept. Our life expectancy cannot exceed a certain number of years. We should rely on God's will.
No one has the right to manipulate the creation of the ALMIGHTY.This has to be strictly prohibited as it can affect the religious status of different religions.So there should not be any discrimination among the society as it helps them build a better individuality.It helps in keeping the individuality intact
Let's talk about food. The Monsanto company (for example) is not looking to benefit us. They are only digging in our wallets by patenting their gmo crops. Remember the incident where their seeds blew into other farmer's crops and contaminated them? Those innocent people were forced to destroy their hard-earned seeds because they supposedly belonged to Monsanto. They are also looking at "terminato?" Crops where the seeds they produce will be infertile (so seeds would have to be bought by the company every single year). Now imagine that spreading and contaminating our crops. So many more reasons why gmo is bad but not enough space.
Genetic Engineering does not seem ethical or natural. Fixing the DNA for something for our benefit is not right. We may be benefiting from the modified genes, but it is not natural and is fixed. With genetic manipulation, there will be an imbalance in nature. For an example, if we were to genetically manipulate humans so that they are resistant to diseases, it could off set nature. Diseases are meant to control the population, so that the human race does not grow too much and use up all of earth’s resources. Even if a human is genetically modified, it does not mean that they are perfect. By definition, perfect means that the human will have no flaws and will have the required elements or characteristics. But if the genetic manipulation changes all of these things to make a “perfect human”, than that person no longer has their own identity. Also, we will never be able to live forever and will only live for a certain number of years, since our body will break down and die. Even with genes fixed, it seems impossible.
I am really leaning toward no I would first have to ask, when having this HGE therapy is there an increased risk and/or incidence of miscarriage, intrauterine fetal death, or stillbirth? Also, are there any known complications of the pregnancy that can be related to these HGE therapies? At this point I am looking into the HGE to treat genetic diseases in the fetus. Now this type of HGE is understandable. You might even say it is medically necessary, which is why most medical insurance companies will probably cover it, so I think HGE for this purpose is probably ok. But as far as HGE for "enhancement" goes, I don't think that is right. I am not sure what the procedure is or how often it does or does not cause a miscarriage, but there is that to consider. Also getting all these "enhancements" for our babies will cost quite a lot and only the elite will be able to afford it. This type of HGE is NOT medically necessary so most medical insurance companies will not cover it. I read that this means only approx. 10% of the population will be able to get these "enhancements" for their children. So what happens then? This 10% gets to be in some way superior to the kids whose parents couldn't afford the HGE so they were born all natural? By the way, what comes next? I mean are the scientists gonna go all 'Spiderman' on us? Or try to make some of the characters from the X-men?
Genetic engineering, is not natural, we have no idea of the harm that could come to us in the future. Once we start, who decides when enough it enough? It is interfering with nature and not for the better. We have survived this long without it and have thrived, the human race is not suffering, we are doing just the opposite. Genetic engineering is not needed to advance the human race.
Disease and defects are natures way of controlling the population. Whilst the advancements in technology are amazing and admirable, not enough is being done to support an increasingly aging population. It makes far better sense to invest the extensive amounts of money into developing a way of supporting the lives that can be saved in poverty stricken countries and even well-developed countries who have made no provisions to support the elderly, then with a more stable and self-sufficient economy, go about saving the lives. Far more thought needs to be put into the consequences of these amazing medical advancements.
An important thing that happened in 1999 was that a series of surprising experiments were released in Britain—experiments that the industry had spent six months trying to suppress. They showed that laboratory rats that were fed genetically engineered potatoes had severe problems with their digestive tracts, immune responses, and the development of nearly all their vital organs. Their brains, hearts, livers, spleens, etc. were all significantly reduced in size, and many of the endocrine glands were enlarged. Some of this data was published in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, but the lead scientist was fired and the research was never finished. The suggestion is that much more extreme health effects are possible, but the industry has a huge vested interest in seeing to it that we don’t ever know for sure.