Genetic Interventions And The Ethics Of Enhancement Of Human Beings Essay

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.

I support the guidelines outlined by Kitcher for the use of genetic information because of their responsible and ethical nature. I believe that future generations will benefit as a direct consequence of these guidelines. I shall begin by defining eugenics as the study of human genetics to improve inherited characteristics of the human race by the means of controlled selective breeding.

The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to

Savulescu in "Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement" suggests that we have an obligation to enhance. His core argument can be interpreted as threefold: The right thing to do to enhance, the consistency that comes with the enhancement, and there is no difference between enhancement and treating diseases.

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.

DNA are like legos, they work together to build the traits of living things. They are the building blocks of the body. Many scientists today have been figuring out different ways to manipulate, change, add, and subtract genes from the DNA in living things; this is process is called genetic engineering. Some of the living things being experimented on are live people, plants, and animals. Today scientists are debating on the morals of genetic engineering due to what the community thinks of it, because of the christian 's viewpoint of genetic engineering. To some christians it may pose a threat to their, but to others it may be a blessing or a gift. Genetic Engineering is a growing breakthrough in the science community. “Over the last 30 years, the field of genetic engineering has developed rapidly due to the greater understanding of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as the chemical double helix code from which genes are made. The term genetic engineering is used to describe the process by which the genetic makeup of an organism can be altered using “recombinant DNA technology.” This involves the use of laboratory tools to insert, alter, or cut out pieces of DNA that contain one or more genes of interest.”(Pocket K No. 17) Scientist have yet to unlock the full potential of genetic engineering, but the information and the use they have found for it today has reached farther than anyone 's expectations.

According to author Michael J. Sandel in his piece, “The Case Against Perfection,” the main ethical problem with genetic enhancement does not have anything to do with human autonomy. Rather, Sandel believes that the “deepest moral objection to genetic enhancement lies less the perfection it seeks than in the human disposition it expresses and promotes” (Timmons, 505). In other words, genetic enhancement is morally questionable because of how it affects our attitudes toward human beings. He claims that each case began as an attempt to treat

Genetic engineering is the figurehead of the ethical concerns of scientists in the 21st century. Nothing is more engrossed with criticism and dislike than the idea of altering the baseline for living organisms. Many people are skeptical of genetic engineering due to the versatility it exhibits. A scientist could use a genetic editing tool, such as CRISPR, to remove the genes for a hereditary disease in an embryo, but they could also utilize it to alter the physical characteristics of a human baby. This thought provoked the flood gates of ethics to unleash a multitude of unanswered questions and concerns about the usage and further development of genetic engineering. The field of genetic engineering is

In an ever evolving society, the increased use of technology has become a staple in our day to day lives. With the constant advancements of technology the ideology of cloning has now become a reality. The increasing use of science today is slowly leading to the development of cloning and genetic selection. By altering the genetic make-up of a being, scientists have brought about several questions on how the population would adjust to the “super-beings,” and what benefits and consequences both human and non-humans would gain with their creations? Authors Francis Fukuyama, who wrote “Human Dignity,” and The Dalai Lama, writer of “Ethics and the New Genetics,” has called into question the use of cloning and how it could possibly affect others. With the creation of “super-beings,” humans would ultimately suffer a bigger separation from each other and create unfairness among the human species such as a stronger and more intelligent being.

In your excerpt, “Ethics and the New Genetics,” you presented the discovery of the advancement in genetic technology. You mentioned how scientist are able to change the genetic makeup of living things. Another key point presented in your article is the idea of cloning, where one is therapeutic while the other is reproductive. The article discussed that the advancement in technology and genetics should only be used to benefit people. However, you believed that using these advancements in the wrong way can leave a long term consequence to the present and future of the human society. (The Dalai Lama).

Medical professionals today can screen for certain genetic traits (genetic diseases and sex) with in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to obtain a healthy child, and reproductive technology continues to improve. With this in mind, the question arises whether sex selection is ethical. Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, argues that sex selection is moral, based on his ethical principle of Procreative Beneficence: that “couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” [Savulescu 1]. Savulescu claims

My first argument against Genetic enhancement is about the safety of the technology used. Is it safe to use? There are several safety concerns about the technology, all of which lie within the physical alteration of the gene. Genes are very specific and will only work correctly in certain ways. Although scientists may know a fair deal about genes, do they know about the consequences if their technology were to fail? One of the risks directly involved with their technology is the technique of introducing a gene at a random place in the genome. By doing this the gene could interrupt another sequence of genes that are vital for survival. It could also alter the effect that the gene has. The gene might have the effect wanted, such as an increased intellect, but it may also introduce an unwanted effect. This became apparent in 2001 when Joe Tsien genetically altered mice to have a high memory capacity. The mice were able to learn very quickly and were able to retain more information but at what cost? The mice also had an extremely high sensitivity to pain: something that a human being wouldn’t be able to live with. Do you think that’s fair? Would you be willing to sacrifice your quality of life for an enhanced learning capacity? I know I wouldn’t. But what is more unfair is that the embryos, who are the ones who are going to be enhanced, don’t have a choice in the matter. What about the children’s

Genetic modification is a scientific advancement with lots of possibilities. The most compelling argument for genetic engineering is to improve the health of society. Simple genetic mutations can easily affect one’s health. If there are effective and efficient methods to cure this, shouldn’t we do so? Or should we object to this? On what grounds? When it is, after all, the logical next step to medical advancement. It has the potential to save thousands of people from diseased lives and early death. Objections are often based on the fact that it is “unnatural” or the fear of the unknown. But so are IVF and organ transplants. It is difficult to predict with a definite certainty of what will occur in the future as a result of the actions of the present. But when has that ever stopped us? Shouldn’t we have the right to eliminate genetic diseases and push human capabilities through genetic engineering? But at what point should we draw a line on genetic modification?

Author Chuck Klosterman said, “The simple truth is that we’re all already cyborgs more or less. Our mouths are filled with silver. Our nearsighted pupils are repaired with surgical lasers. We jam diabetics full of delicious insulin. Almost 40 percent of Americans now have prosthetic limbs. We see to have no qualms about making post-birth improvements to our feeble selves. Why are we so uncomfortable with pre-birth improvement?” Despite Klosterman’s accurate observation, there are reasons people are wearisome toward pre-birth enhancement. Iniquitous practices such as genetic engineering could lead to a degraded feeling in a child and conceivably end in a dystopian society, almost like the society Adolf Hitler had in mind. In the minds of

The Goal of the Human Genome Project is to obtain genetic mapping information and to determine the complete sequence of all human DNA by the year of 2005. The project started in 1990 and 180 million dollars are being spent on it annually. This adds up to a total of over 2 billion dollars for the 15 year budget. Of this 2 billion dollars budgeted, 5% is spent annually on the ethical, legal and social issues. This report focused on some of these issues.