Human Bioengineering Persuasive Essay

“With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve the human race. But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code”(Hawking). Scientists have been practicing editing the DNA of organisms in order to remove unwanted genes and or enhance their survival rates. As technology advances, it allows this practice to become more precise and successful. Scientist have been having successful test in modifying human dna which causes more controversies on whether it should be allowed or not.Genetic engineering should be permitted due to its ability to benefit the medical and environmental future.To begin with the idea of potentially removing unwanted traits in DNA sequences, to aid in removing hereditary diseases.

As we stand in the world today, we as humans have never been more technologically advanced or scientifically intelligent. We have the ability to explore outer space and the depths of the oceans. We are even in the process of developing organs using 3D printing technology. But there is a limit to the extent of advancements that humankind can reach before some begin to pose dangers to humanity or become unethical. Currently, technology is being developed to expand the procedure of in vitro fertilization to genetically modify embryos. The products of this engineering are commonly known as “designer babies”. This technology, when fully developed, would grant parents the opportunity to select against possibly life threatening or altering conditions such as cystic fibrosis, schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s. Using this technology, parents would also be able to make extensive selections regarding their baby’s gender, physical characteristics, and possibly even personality traits and talents. While it is positive advancement to be able to select against life-threatening diseases, the creation of an a-la-carte baby is unethical and crosses the line between positive sociological developments and immoral manipulations of nature for many reasons.

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

The 21st century however forecasts an astonishing increase in innovation in another direction. While previously overshadowed by its larger cousins, physics and chemistry, it seems likely that the biological sciences will steal the limelight in the future. Mapping the genome, reversing the aging process, and finding a cure for terminal illnesses, all represent primary objectives for science. Unfortunately, the ethical questions posed by innovations in biomedicine are far greater than those posed by advances in the physical sciences. Reproductive cloning is one of these innovations, and one that arguably poses the greatest threat to the world as we know it. The universal truth, blindly accepted by man for millennia, held that a human could only be born through the sexual union of a male and a female, to be exact, of an egg and a sperm. By cloning, however, a human life can be created in the laboratory. This is done by taking human DNA and inserting it into an egg cell, sans genetic material. The resultant cell is identical to the original, and can then be inserted into a uterus, either a human or an animal one, and be grown to term, to produce a baby, while circumventing nature’s means of reproduction.

The ethics of research involving fetuses or material derived from fetuses have been widely debated for over three decades, portrayed by its proponents as holding the key to scientific and medical breakthrough and by its opponents as devaluing the most basic form of human life. The latest chapter in this long saga involves the use of embryonic stem cells. Research in this field took a great leap forward in 1998, when the first successes in growing human stem cells in culture were reported independently by Drs. James Thomson and John Gearhart. According to the National Institutes of Health, embryonic stem cell research "promises...possible cures for many debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson 's disease, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns, and spinal cord injuries. The NIH believes the potential medical benefits of human pluripotent stem cell technology are compelling and worthy of pursuit in accordance with appropriate ethical standards (National Institutes of Health 2000). Research in this new and developing field has sparked controversy centered on the moral implications of destroying human embryos and poses several compelling ethical questions. Among them: Does life begin at fertilization, in the womb, or at birth? Might the destruction of a single human embryo be justified if it can alleviate the pain and suffering of many patients?

The ethical debate concerning biotechnological exploration into genetic cloning has created a monster in itself. A multitude of ethical questions arises when considering the effect of creating a genetically engineered human being. Does man or science have the right to create life through unnatural means? Should morality dictate these technological advancements and their effects on society? The questions and concerns are infinite, but so to are the curiosities, which continue to perpetuate the advancement of biotechnological science. In order to contemplate the effects that science can have on our society we can look back in history and literature to uncover the potentiality of our future

Imagine a future where parents never had to worry about their child being sick-- a future where technology allowed parents the ability to make a flawless child. That future is near, but is halted due to people’s fear of Genetically Modified Babies, which is “a biologically radical technique referred to by terms including ‘mitochondrial replacement,’ and ‘nuclear genome transfer,’ [these techniques] would produce modifications in every cell of any resulting children” (Cussin and Darnovsky 16). This procedure takes the fetus’s cells and allows the doctors to manipulate the cells in any matter they want; then, the cells are placed in the women’s egg. Unfortunately, Genetically Modified Babies are “codified as [prohibited] in more than 40 countries and several international treaties” (Cussin and Darnovsky 16). In the United States, the FDA had a full day meeting on the subject matter. On February 2014, they discussed human modification and prohibited it (Cussin, Darnovsky 17). The idea of a “designer baby” may seem preposterous, but technology is making the concept attainable. In the United States, there are laboratories that have the technology to reach such a goal, but are unused due to the FDA’s law; however, if “nuclear genome transfer were allowed, [the laboratories] could be used for any purpose” (Cussin and Darnovsky 17). America should allow gene manipulation in babies because it is inhumane to let innocent babies suffer from diseases and disorders that can be

Patrick Guinan says that the ethical view of embryonic stem cell research needs to be questioned because it kills off something that has the ability to be a human being (Williams). Some people may think that but Catherine Waldby says that the embryo as just an “idea of human life” (Lauritzen) and finds no destructive behavior used in stem cell research. Even though the issue over stem cell research goes on, sixty-seven percent of Americans say they support the use of embryonic stem cell research (Hall).

Embryonic stem cell research is the study of stem cells derived from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of a human embryo. For many years now, the ethics of embryonic stem cell research has been argued. A recent advance in this line of research is the ability to clone the embryonic stem cells, which allows for researchers to create a completely compatible embryonic stem cell to the individual’s tissue type. Though this new science may be very beneficial, not everyone can agree on the ethics of it. While the National Bioethics Advisory Commission approves of stem cell research via in vitro fertilization, they are strongly opposed of the cloning of embryos, which is expressed in Volume I Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, “Issues in Human Stem Cell Research". On the other hand, Dr. Katrien Devolder, the writer of the article, “Creating and sacrificing embryos for stem cells” is devout to the advocacy of embryonic stem cell research which includes the use and derivation of stem cells from spare in vitro fertilization embryos as well as the creation of embryos for these purposes. Embryonic stem cell research has accomplished so much for for medicine, it would be a shame to not continue it because of opposing views that could easily come to a mutual consensus.

Instead of cloning entire humans and genetically modifying them to our desires, we can use the technology to cure diseases and even help couples that are unable to reproduce. As the reader of this article, you have the ability in deciding the future of mankind and by learning this information on cloning and genetic engineering you will hopefully make an informed decision on the use and research of cloning and genetically modifying humans in the years to

While saving lives is an attractive prospect, several ethical objections have been raised. Firstly, it may be wrong to make major changes to human DNA at all, as it alters the innate nature of humanity. Secondly, the technology has the potential to be used for other, controversial purposes, such as manufacturing humans or enhancing traits. These ethical concerns must be weighed against the benefits of developing this

People always look for miracles in their life. What if there is a way to miracles? Genetic engineering can create miracles, by making impossibles to possibles. From the name genetic engineering we can define that is all about genetics. Haircolor, color skin, eye color, long or short all comes from genes that are inherited from the parents. What if we can create and customize our gene to have specific traits and actions? Genetic engineering is more beneficial than risky and has a huge effect on the today’s society because it plays a major role with treating human diseases, for pharmaceuticals and genetically modified foods for people and animals.

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

The cloning of humans is now very close to reality, thanks to the historic scientific breakthrough of Dr. Ian Wilmut and his colleagues in the UK. This possibility is one of incredible potential benefit for all of us. Unfortunately the initial debate on this issue has been dominated by misleading, sensationalized accounts in the news media and negative emotional reactions derived from inaccurate science fiction. Much of the negativity about human cloning is based simply on the breathtaking novelty of the concept rather than on any real undesirable consequences. On balance, human cloning would have overwhelming advantages if regulated in a reasonable way. A comprehensive ban on human cloning by a misinformed public would be a sorry

Genetic engineering is currently a growing field in which people are obsessing over. This is new and upcoming technology that combines genetic and Nanotechnological enhancements, which completes the direct manipulation of DNA to alter an organism’s characteristics in a particular way. In my opinion, it may very well be a great improvement, but it should only be used when necessary. If I were a parent of a child under 12 years of age, I would not sign up for the enhancement.