After watching the 2 videos (DNA: Human Race and DNA: Pandora's Box) and discussing bioethics issues related to advances in molecular biology, we must ask ourselves: "Just because we can, should we?"
In this blog debate, present your opinions supported by strong arguments and credible sources. Refer to the rubric provided in class for assessment guidelines. Your initial blog entry outlining your position should be posted by Tuesday. You are also required to respond to at least one other blog entry by Thursday. Comments to other blog posts should be done with respect and should be focused on critiquing the author's position on the subject and should not be an attack on the author him/herself.
Happy Blogging!
The argument of whether the human race should be able to change the genetic make-up has been disputed since the human genome was sequenced. We have tampered with the mythical "Pandora's Box", and have let loose the knowledge that is said to lead to hope. If this is factual, why are we not further advancing the studies of ridding the world of sadness and despair? If we could change the genome for medical purposes, why are so many opposed? I personally believe it should be further studied because of the benefits it has for the human race and our future.
ReplyDeleteChanging the human genome could result in an outstanding amount of new discoveries that could further our knowledge in developing cures for live changing diseases. Cancer is one of the more prevalent problems in the world. It causes hardships and has a very high risk of death. Finding the cure or a prevention would save millions of lives and facilitate the lives of many families suffering through this ordeal. There would be more peace and many people wouldn't be scared of doing the things that could potentially risk their encounter with cancer. Another reason to further study the genome is making super-humans to perform the tasks that would be to hard for others. In this case it could benefit the justice system. If a human of higher intelligence and processing power was trained to develop stronger critical thinking and problem solving skills, that individual could potentially solve a case, or find a person of interest. This individual could be the key to solving many mysteries. Birth defects is another topic of concern. Being able to detect abnormalities and being able to change them would ensure a healthy delivery and wouldn't cause the hardships that many born with a genetic disorder would face.
Tampering with the human genome should not be frowned upon, instead it should pushed into further studies. A set of laws should govern the extent of how far research and studies can go. Not only would these advances lead to a better future, they could lead into further human evolution. Pandora's Box was opened and cannot be shut. With this knowledge, all that is left is hope.
References:
ReplyDeleteT, Tannsjo. "Should We Change the Human Genome?" National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 14 Sept. 1993. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
"Should the Modification of Human Genes Be Pursued?" The Premier Online Debate Website. Debate.org, n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2014
After watching the two videos and gathering further research, I have come to a decision that I do not agree with the idea of mankind being permitted to alter the genetic code. The idea of even considering tampering with the human genome is extremely unethical, unnatural, and unpredictable. Many in support of modifying the genetic code simply don’t understand the implications they are making. Some would argue that by altering the human genome, we can enhance the appearance of unborn children and modify them to portray extreme physical features, like beautiful clear blue eyes, or the ability to posses super-human qualities, but what the real question is: What if that child’s genetic code you altered didn’t turn out the way it was planned to? There is not enough evidence to intelligently and confidently modify the genes of humans. If a human gene were to be modified and in turn we get unpredictable results, would it be morally right just to simply destroy that mistake of a child? A number of experts have focused on the possible unknown consequences of human genetic engineering and were able to compare and gather information from modifications gone wrong in plants and animals, where they were able to discard of the subjects, where as in humans, it would be considered highly unethical to dispose of. The modification in the long run is unnatural and WILL NOT provide long-term benefit to mankind. Human’s good genetic qualities have always been a result of natural selection and should continue to be. The unintended consequences of tampering with the genetic code are too high to just play with.
ReplyDeleteThe more I read into and investigate this issue, I increasingly become concerned about the lack of scientific evaluation regarding this topic. Recently, Livescience.com reported many parents agreeing that they “should have the power to ensure that their children have a healthy life”, but what many are not taking into consideration is the complications that come with modifying the human genome. These so called “designer” babies have the potential to encounter an array of genetic problems as a result of genetic engineering. Altering the genetic code is dangerous and uncertain, and reproduction itself is doubtful and most often leads to congenital diseases, and in worse cases, death. By changing the gene’s, we are making humans susceptible to diseases that they now have no immunity to. There has to be a limit to science when it comes to altering any type of genetic code, otherwise, the limits of modification will be pushed further then they are meant to be, and at that point, the idea of life and altering the human genome simply becomes a game. Man was meant to evolve, NOT to be genetically modified. The end result in altering the genetic code would be a bunch of hand-picked, modeled to perfection babies, a sea of unpredictable outcomes, and the potential upbringing of new diseases.
Works Cited
"Altering the Human Genome." DNA- The Human Genome. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2014. .
"The Human Genome Project." The Human Genome Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2014 .
Strachan, Tom. "Disease In Alteration." Identifying Human Disease Genes. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 17 Jan. 0099. Web. 14 Jan. 2014. .
"Human Genetic Engineering: A Very Brief Introduction." Human Genetic Engineering รข€“ An Introduction. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2014. .
"Genetic Testing: Ethical Choices." Genetic Testing: Ethical Choices. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2014. .
The Human Genome Project was an international research effort to determine the DNA sequence of the human genome. It started in 1990 and was essentially completed around 2005. The main contributors to this project include: James Watson, Francis Collins, Fred Sanger, Craig Venter, Alec Jeffrey, and Jim Kent. These scientists were able to sequence the whole human genome, and prove that it is made up of approximately 20 000 to 25 000 genes. This project also gives the world a resource of detailed information about the structure, organization, and function of the complete set of human genes and other functional elements found in DNA. This information could be the basic instructions for the development and function of a human being. However, this discovery also flirts with an ethical line.
ReplyDeleteWith this discovery, not only are scientists going to be able to eventually find the cures for certain diseases, but they will also be able to change anything about a human being. This means that opening this information up to the world of scientists could lead to things like altering genes for unethical reasons. For example, one may want to alter their unborn child's genes so that he/she is born without any diseases. However, some people may look at this as an opportunity to create "the perfect human being". Some people will start to abuse and misuse this information causing many problems, and crossing many lines. If we allow this information to be used by the wrong people, it could eventually become unmanageable. Radical countries may use this opportunity to create super humans that could then lead to the demise of the world. Perhaps you could say this statement is a bit exaggerated, but when we engage in the unknown we can't sometimes control the end result.
Another issue that may arise is where scientists plan to harvest these genes. You can't put a dollar value on a human and their genes, nor can you justify birthing a human for experimentation.
Another point of contention is that it goes against religious views. Do we have the right to play God? Should we play God? He put all of us on this earth for a purpose, and gave us individuality. Nobody is perfect, so who is to say that this would avoid these imperfections. We all help each other out in our own ways, and I feel like with creating this "perfect" human it avoids a lot of life's gifts and experiences that God has prepared us for and given to us. For example, being able to experience emotion, the ability to overcome struggle and mould ourselves into the unique human being we are today, being able to have our own unique talents, being able to look at a new born baby and wondering what their life will bring, what they will become, and who they will become. Will we have less faith in our lives? Will we no longer turn to God in our times of need, and instead turn to a scientist in a lab? Where will it end?
Furthermore, by tampering with our human genome, how do we know that something worse won't come out of it? From our theories of evolution and natural selection, we know that everything on this earth happens for a reason, and the earth is able to bounce back from it. With artificial selection, we risk the chance of losing what took billions of years to establish. Also, with people having infinite life spans, how is the earth supposed to sustain it? The earth cannot even handle what humanity has already done to it, let alone the further damage we plan on doing to it.
Lastly, another problem that could arise is who has the right to this information. Are the parents of the unborn child really in control of the decisions for their child’s life? Who will manage it? Will it be bought and sold on a market for the highest bidder? Will the less fortunate face even more struggles with their lack of means. Will only part of our human population be able to experience and enjoy the good things that come out of this project? Or will this just bring more suffering to the poor? We cannot start putting a dollar value on human life.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, in my opinion the risks far outweigh the rewards. This discovery is way more problematic then beneficial to the human race. What will happen next? In not only our generation, but in our children's generation and the generations that follow. Will it be as simple as going into a fast food joint and placing an order? Would we be able to go into a scientist’s lab and order a "combo of genes"? Will we be given the option to supersize our knowledge with a side of perfect abs? As much as exploring science is beneficial to us, some things should just be left alone.
Works Cited:
"DNA - Episode 3 of 5 - The Human Race - PBS Documentary." YouTube. YouTube, 21 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
“What Is the Human Genome Project?" What Is the Human Genome Project? N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
Fraser, Douglas, Barry LeDrew, Angela Vavitsas, and Meredith White-McMahon. Biology 12 University Preparation. N.p.: Nelson, 2012. Print.
Gannett, Lisa. "The Human Genome Project." Stanford University. Stanford University, 26 Nov. 2008. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
Dear Amanda,
DeleteThe way you approached this topic was hilarious and very well written, and I totally understand your point of view. Although I feel like you aren’t looking at the overall picture, and more so focusing on the little details. I believe that the few positives that will potentially arise from this will definitely out way the many negatives that you posed in your argument. As you mentioned, I do not agree that we should play the role of God, as I am a firm believer that individually is so very important in human life. The fact is that God placed intelligent human beings on the planet for a reason to discover the human genome, and it was his plan all along. Under the right care of the government I am convinced that the right to this information, the price, and a cap on personal preference will be dealt with to an ideal degree.
In my opinion, we have come very far in our understanding of DNA and how it makes up who we are, yet there is still so much that we do not know. This raises concerns about how to proceed in genetic engineering and how we must continue to further our knowledge in genetics before we try to manipulate human genes. For example, we may want to fix a target gene but we don’t know the effect that change can have on other processes in our body. In addition, other concerns on this topic that were looked into, was the fact of who can control our genetic information, the uprising of more unknown mutagens and the implications our hypothetical longer life span. I think we should weigh out the advantages and disadvantages of genetic engineering because it seems that currently there are more disadvantages regarding some of our knowledge about this subject.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the issue of who controls this information is important because sometimes our genetic make-up is not favourable to some people for the reason of the “risk” we carry. What this means is that we are at risk for a certain genetic disease and employers or insurers may be able to look at this information and opt not to hire you. Also, insurers may raise the price higher for those who are at higher risk and may even limit coverage regarding these conditions. Next, if we do manage to eradicate the world of diseases such as cancer, we don’t know if other diseases will rise up and take their place. And since they would be foreign to us, we would have fewer defenses against these diseases and be more vulnerable compared to ones where we have ways to treat them. Lastly, I would like to talk about the implications of a longer life span because if more illnesses are treated than the life span of humans would be extended. This appears to be a good idea because we are able to prolong our lives but we are already living unsustainable lives on on this Earth. Our world would most likely become overpopulated which would cause the Earth even more pressure. Also, there would be implications on different resources such as food, space, and energy and the limits of such factors.
All things considered, we must see that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages as of now. Since this science is mostly untested and theoretical, it is hard to see past the possibilities of things going wrong or becoming even worse in terms of illnesses. I believe that in trying to create the “perfect” human we are setting standards that are not ours to determine. We are already influenced by the media telling us to be a certain way and then you’ll be viewed as perfect. But we are not perfect, we are flawed… we are human. We try so hard to obtain perfection but when will we stop? When will we be happy with who we are despite our imperfections? In conclusion, much thought and work on this issue should be done, to ensure that we do not cause more damage than help.
Sarah,
DeleteI respect your opinions and also how you portrayed them. I do have something to point out though, you say that there could be possibilities of so many things going wrong, but there could also be good outcomes to this. We have the information, the technology, so what else would we be using it for then? Ofcourse it is to better human life. Without attempting then we sure will get no where.
Works Cited
ReplyDelete"Archived — Analysing Arguments For and Against Patenting Higher Life Forms." Intellectual Property Policy Directorate. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
"Genetic Discrimination." National Human Genome Research Institute. Web. 12 Jan. 2014.
Gostin, Lawrence O. "Genetic Discrimination" Http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
Zheng, Ming Y., Ph.D. "Genetic Engineering." Http://www.gordon.edu/. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
Ever since the human genome has been completely sequenced in 2003, the question of “just because we can should we?” in regards to altering our human genome has been raised several times. This question creates much controversy because of the ethical issues and questions it brings up. Although the sequencing of the human genome has potential to lead to many significant advances and discoveries in genetic engineering, I believe it should end there for the sake of the greater good. For many reasons, I do not believe that mankind should have the right to alter their genetic code.
ReplyDeleteNo one should have the power to direct evolution and take it into their own hands. Natural selection works for a reason, and we should not mess with nature in that manner. Mankind was meant to evolve by the theory of “survival of the fittest”. This theory will no longer be in effect if humans have been genetically modified to defy the laws of nature.Would we even still be considered human if we are genetically modified? The modification of genes is simply an unnatural process which goes against every occurrence in nature and should not be pursued further. Nature is the only thing we have left in this corrupt world. Who’s to say we have the right to change the process of nature to “improve” it. Why fix something if it isn’t broken? The human race has the power to do so much, and it only take one person to overstep their authority and take things too far. No one is certain of how nature will react to genetically modified organism, the outcome is simply unknown.
In addition, who’s to decide where to draw the line in genetic engineering? If the results don’t turn out the way it was expected, when will they be satisfied? These are the questions that must be asked when making this serious decision. From my understanding, not enough research has been done to successfully alter our genetic code. There is no certainty to ensure that it will be safe in the end, making the results unpredictable and dangerous. To me, it’s not worth the money and time in taking the chance to find out if it works or not. No one can anticipate the result of this change, because there is simply not enough information on it. Also, who is there to blame when it all goes wrong?Since the human genome belongs to everyone, there needs to be limits and regulations established before someone does the wrong thing. A humans life should not be a gamble, and no one should be left with that responsibility.
Another great reason to not allow humans to alter their genetic code is for reason of misuse. Many people do not like their physical appearance and will want to use this for cosmetic purposes. If it is possible to alter the genetic code, I believe that it should be used for strictly medical purposes. Selfishness and greediness will cause someone to take things too far, and not be able to reverse it. As the future remains unknown, we cannot predict what will happen. An alteration in a gene might be good for today, but can be problematic for tomorrow, as a results, it may not be possible to eliminate those “undesired genes”. In an ideal world, altering our genes to reach our perception of “perfect” sounds like a good idea but that thought is just unrealistic. The human race is not invincible, were were not made to be that way. For right now, I believe the world is not ready yet to make these changes. Nothing good ever comes from rushing into things, therefore baby steps must be taken to ensure a successful future.
To conclude, I believe that the discovery of the human genome was a very important part of understanding the human body, but it should be left at that. I do not believe that there is enough evidence to say that altering the human genome will be completely beneficial to our society. If anything, it will cause more harm than good, making the stakes too high to risk. Instead of trying to change mankind, we should first better understand ourselves before making any life altering changes. Like James Watson said “when you understand something you can start to control it.” As the results remain unpredictable, modifying the human genome is not a risk that should be taken. Everything, even science has its limits, and this should be one of them.
ReplyDeleteWork Cited
"DNA - Episode 3 of 5 - The Human Race - PBS Documentary." YouTube. YouTube, 21 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
"DNA - Episode 5 of 5 - Pandora's Box." YouTube. YouTube, 23 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Jan. 2014. .
Waugh, Douglas, Dr. "The Human-genome Project and Pandora's Box." US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2014. .
Anna,
DeleteAfter reading your post, I feel that you have made a lot of great points about this Human Genome Project. I agree that although the intention of this project was to benefit society, the risks outweigh the rewards. I agree that no one should have the power to direct evolution, as it is a natural process capable of recuperating from the natural things that comes its way. As soon as we start to temper with these things, it could lead to the loss of everything that we have. Science is ongoing, and there is still so much yet to know. How do we know that this won’t have a negative effect in the future? Since we are not completely aware of all the possible risks, I feel that it is way too much of a gamble to just go ahead with this idea. I also strongly agree that this affects everyone, and that some one person should not be responsible for making this decision for the whole human population. What if something goes wrong? Is the whole human population supposed to then take the consequence for something a few decided to do? Lastly, I agree that some people may misuse and abuse this information as well. With this discovery, so many different things will soon be possible in the near future. People will not only be replacing their disease genes, but also any genes they are not satisfied with, and if we put this information in the wrong hands, it could lead to matters way beyond our control.
As you mentioned, ever since the human genome was sequenced in 2003, the question has been just because we can open Pandora’s Box should we? In your argument I argue that modifying the human genome will possibly result in altering natural selection, be considered ethically wrong to some people and cause for some parents to want their children to look a particular way (ex. have blue eyes and blonde hair), but if this technology is managed properly and is used to only cure defects and diseases, I believe in opening Pandora’s Box. Imagine finding out that your son will be born with a birth defect like Down’s syndrome. If you had the chance to cure this disease would you not want to? You might be able to make his life better and independent rather than him being incapable of living by himself. Furthermore, why would we not open Pandora’s Box after the U.S. government gave a 3 billion dollar grant to James Watson to sequence the human genome? The possibility of this technology being able to cure deadly diseases and birth defects would change the world forever. All the money that goes to finding cures for diseases like cancer, could be used to reduce poverty in the world, or even to make our industries more environmentally friendly just to name a few. Imagine how much we could improve the world with the 4.9 billion dollars that goes to cancer research alone. That is why Pandora’s Box must be opened.
DeleteStarting from the beginning of time, humans were essentially clueless to life, and everything associated with it. The knowledge that is now available about humans, evolution and adaption has not only increased but also arisen. This information has unfolded because people were open to new ideas, topics and opinions. As humans we are hot wired to evolve, take on new tasks and discover new possibilities. A new possibility that has been disclosed is the human genome project, which will allow a large expansion on gene expression, activity and how they can be altered. Ample controversy has arisen from this, as there are still unanswered questions according to the effects it might have. Even though there poses a risk, I believe we should use the human genome to guide the altering of genes for medical purposes only, because if we never try we will never know.
ReplyDeleteThere are many diseases that are present in our society today that are either curable or treatable. The reason that they are curable or treatable is because scientists in the past have used their knowledge available for them to create medication to deal with the problem. As the world evolves and moves on, there has been more technology to detect larger, untreatable or incurable medical issues. The fact is that science in the past has used the insight that was given to them to cure diseases, to release pain, to save lives. Currently we are gifted with a decodable code that will potentially present us with the power and wisdom to help those with medical issues. Leaving the genome unused would change the way that humans have been looking at science since the beginning of time. Closing Pandora’s box would close the potential to advance in the world of science.
I have been blessed with a healthy body, in the means that I have never been diagnosed with a disease or medical issue. Even though I have never experience this firsthand, I have been surrounded by it all my life, through friends, family, and the community. The thing that I have learned is that medical issues effect people different ways and at different intensities. I could be incorrect but I think I’m fair to assume that most people detest pain, emotional pain, or physical pain. When I sit back and think about it, millions of people are in pain at every second, there is a away to decrease or diminish the pain, the solution is not being used, it is wrong. If using the human genome to cure one person from their disease, release them from their hospital bed, release them from pain, I would say yes.
Donating money to organizations trying to cure diseases comes frequently, since everyone wants to do what they can to help fund for research. It seems futile to be donating money to these organizations when realistically the secret to curing the disease has already been found. There has been large funding that has been done for the human genome project. Deciding not to use this information found would put all the hard work and money to waste.
To conclude, everything happens for a reason, which means that we were supposed to find the human genome. Closing the box that gives us the potential to do life-alerting things seems irresponsible, as it is our job as humans to advance with science, and we are one click away.
Work Cited
"DNA - Episode 3 of 5 - The Human Race - PBS Documentary." YouTube. YouTube, 21 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
"DNA - Episode 5 of 5 - Pandora's Box." YouTube. YouTube, 23 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Jan. 2014. .
"Genetic Information Discrimination." Genetic Discrimination. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
Ever since the discovery of the human genome in 2003, the question as to whether or not mankind should be permitted to alter the genetic code is that of a complicated one. Although this question persists as theoretical, it could easily become the hardest bio ethical issue of all time. Currently, scientists are successfully altering the genes of mice with methods that are not yet ethical for use on mankind. However, these methods could become safe for use in the very near future. In reality, every parent in the world would like to have children who are healthy, beautiful and free of any genetic mutations or disease. If mankind were able to possess the ability to alleviate suffering, the possibilities would be endless. Not utilizing this valuable information would be like kicking the cure to cancer to the curb and never wanting to see it. To date, upwards from 3 Billion Dollars has been spent on finding and discovering the human genome sequence - not using this information would be foolish and a waste of taxpayer’s money. If we (as a society) could cure all mental and genetic disease before they even occur, why are so many against it?
ReplyDeleteIn today’s society where the environmental conditions are worsening by the hour, raising a healthy child becomes more and more challenging. As more factories upraise around the world, pollution becomes a much larger issue. As many are aware, pollution causes many respiratory and health issues to those that live in the areas of high concentration. As more and more children are born in these areas, they are also suffering from these illnesses; even though they had nothing to do with it. The dangerous chemicals found in air pollution contain dangerous chemicals such as benzene or vinyl chloride - these dangerous chemicals are directly linked to cancer, birth defects and long term injury to the lungs, as well as the brain and nervous system. But what what can society do with the people that are forced to live in these polluted areas? Let them live horrible lives of pain and suffering? The answer is correcting the genetic code. If doctors were given the allowance to tamper with a child’s genetic code before he/she is even born, they could make them immune to these harmful carcinogens. There are tests being done that can prove changing the human genome can eliminate cancer and other pre-birth mental illnesses. If a parent were given the choice between a perfectly healthy child and one with a mutation that caused a mental illness, why wouldn't they choose the healthy child? Any parent in the right mind would choose to have a healthy child that is free of any genetic mutations or tendencies that could possibly lead to sickness later in life. Governments around the world should most definitely allow the alteration of the human genome - the money has been spent to find it, why not use it? Why have family members die of breast cancer instead of a peaceful death of old age? In my opinion, that itself says it all. If scientist could pre identify the various genes that cause cancer, leukemia, MS, Hodgkin disease then why not modify the the embryo to have the gene removed at birth? Let mankind correct its mistakes and end suffering once and for-all.
Works Cited
Delete"Result Filters." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2014. .
"Should the Modification of Human Genes Be Pursued?" The Premier Online Debate Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2014. .
"What Is Air Pollution for Children?" What Is Air Pollution for Children? N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Jan. 2014. .
Ever since the human genome has been completely sequenced in 2003, the question of “just because we can should we?” The answer to that is a simple “no”. For years, scientists have been trying to determine if we can change evolution using genetic engineering techniques. Now that we have reached that point; who makes the decision to release this information to the public? Can we really trust this power in the hands of some person we barely know? If we choose to only allow certain diseases or disabilities to be treated through genetic engineering techniques, then where do we draw the line? We would not be able to control who is using this information. The ‘Pandora’s Box’ contains useful information, but very dangerous information. Unfortunately, there are many people who don’t care about other people, and would rather have power. Imagine if these techniques were around during Hitler’s ruling. Who would have stopped him? He had already been researching to create clones, how close could he have gotten with this information? Our knowledge of diversity is sprouted from our differences. If you are able to choose genetic information, where will our distinction go? What may happen to the religion, our family traits and diversity of appearance? We are not sure of the problems that may arise from a genetically modified human being. The possibility of mistakes and problems are endless. Looking for cures and medical improvements to stop diseases is what gives us hope in this world. If we manage to cure every issue with the human body, are we creating issues with the human race? There will be no hope for the future, which is exactly what Pandora’s Box stands for; hope. Our world is definitely not stable enough to accept this mass amount of power.
DeleteJust Because We Can, Should We?
ReplyDeleteAs of 2003, more than 10 years ago, most of the human genome was sequenced. This was a miracle, since many thought that sequencing this would take many, many years. Thanks to many scientists, computer programmers, and all others involved, we now know what makes us humans. Mostly to James Watson, known for his work on DNA, who persuaded the US congress to give 3 Billion dollars to aid in the finding of the Human Genome. Now with all this information that is available to the public, what should we do? According to James, we should direct our own evolution by genetic engineering techniques.
I personally agree with him. This could help humanity as a whole, and it would make us much more happier. How? Well, if we manage to design our own DNA, then we could fix, make, and prevent many types of genetic diseases. In the medical perspective, this is a blessing. By changing our DNA, we could possibly stop or change some hereditary factors. The true goal? To make healthier offspring. Breast cancer is an example of how a horrible illness gets passed down in many families, causing terrible damage to the woman herself, and those around her. If we could alter the genetic code, imagine how much money could be saved and how much stronger and healthier society would be. “2 in every 3 people diagnosed with cancer today survive at least 5 years” (American Cancer Society). Now what if they could live much longer than that? Another example of how we should be agreeing with James Watson is diabetes, a metabolism disorder. This is something you live with your whole life, true that type 2 is preventable by eating healthy and doing exercise, but type 1 is not preventable, no matter what type of lifestyle they have. With this type, the person's own body has destroyed the insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas. People with this type have to take insulin or they will die. If this can be fixed, I am sure many people suffering with this would agree to it.
A great success that we know of, is genetically modified foods which shows how if you were to change the plants environment, while its still a seed and genetically engineering it, then we can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. To do this with humans, making the offspring healthy, it would increase the survival, and the age expectancy. Being born into the world, with an incurable disease and yet knowing that you will die because of it, you and the parents would know what its like to want a cure, a change.
We have all this information that is being ignored, and that could be helping the human body. Designing babies could lead to a society of healthy people. This might seem as a wrong thing to do for some, and for others this means a new life where death could be decreased. Also the money that is being spent could be used for other things, like; oil spills, helping developing countries, and other important issues. So, doing this is for the better of mankind.
Works Cited
"DNA - Episode 3 of 5 - The Human Race - PBS Documentary." YouTube. YouTube, 21 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.
"DNA - Episode 5 of 5 - Pandora's Box." YouTube. YouTube, 23 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.
Although you bring up some fair points in favour of genetically modifying our genetic code, I would have to disagree with your opinion. It would be a “beautiful” world, if everyone was able to alter their human genome for the better, but that is just not the case. Not enough research has been done to say for certain that it would work 100%, without any consequences. Personally, that is not a risk that I am comfortable with the world taking. Also, who draws the line in genetic modification? What happens when things are taken to far? These are the types of questions that need to be considered when making the decision about genetic modifications. You bring up the point of modifying the genetic code to prevent breast cancer. Even if it was possible to pinpoint the exact gene that triggers breast cancer, would everyone be able to have access to this treatment? Or would only those who can pay for it be able to save their lives? In addition, from my knowledge, scientists are still not sure of the effects of consuming genetically modified foods and if it is actually more beneficial to society. Lastly, I disagree with your point on spending money that would be used for treatment of illnesses on other things such as oil spills. Even though this is a nice gesture, you are completely ignoring how costly genetic modification and its research is. All in all, this was a well written post, where you brought up some good argumentative points, good job!
Delete