For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222

GENETIC ENGINEERING.
  Term Paper ID:28973 		Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Argues in favor of genetic alteration for the living (for brain disorders, AIDS & other diseases), but against it for the unborn.... More...
8 Pages / 1800 Words
7 sources, 15 Citations, APA Format
$32.00

More Papers on This Topic


Paper Abstract:
Argues in favor of genetic alteration for the living (for brain disorders, AIDS & other diseases), but against it for the unborn. Discusses scientific experiments. Ethical implications. Implications of an altered species. Need for government control of biotechnology. Stresses the need to form policies on genetic engineering of human embryos.

Paper Introduction:
Today, we collectively stand on the threshold of science fiction. Genetic engineering has emerged -- faster, simpler, and more accessible than anyone had foreseen. The pounding gait of science has, in many ways, outpaced the best efforts of theology, politics, and ethics. Each of us planning to live well into the 21st century can expect to be affected by the ramifications of genetic engineering. Already, in vitro fertilization has become routine, and sex selection before conception is possible for aspiring parents(Schaeffer, 1999, p.15); Genetic enhancements are on the verge of providing mankind with drugs to treat brain disorders like Alzheimer’s and epidemics such as the AIDS virus(Williams, 2000, p.9); Total genetic engineering of human embryos is expected to be safe and efficient within the next 50 years(Silver, 1999, p.26). We must form

Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.


Theeradication of many genetically transmitted diseases and conditions, evenalcoholism and obesity, is expected. If alcoholism is eradicated, why nottake it a step further and give the little one blue eyes? References Clark, Thomas W. On the subject of genetic engineering, I favor theethical position described by Williams. (April 1 , 2 )"Brains in a Bottle". Extreme examples bolstering the con-side ethics of the geneticengineering debate include viable fears that genetic enhancement andcloning may well produce a separate race of humans. If it isnot, "then a detailed analysis of life's mechanisms is simply a means to anend, not an intrinsic threat to the specialness of life..."(Clark, 2 ,p.38). But we are individuals, and our personal survival instincts donot emerge until we live, breathe and feel. (Sept 1999)"A Crucial Encounter". "Genes Out of the Bottle." (Feb 28, 2 )The New Republic. That this disparitywould likely occur along economic lines is particularly appalling, and thelong term ramifications defy the imagination. Of course, the flip side prompts a flurry of paranoia and ethicalcondemnation. The problem with such tinkering is that it becomes sodifficult to draw a definitive line. These questions and others challenge the verycore of our collective ethics, and test the mettle of our conscience.Determining the prudence, worth, and legality of genetic engineering maywell be society's most daunting hurdle: ultimately, the benefits ofbiotechnics are as tempting as the risks are troubling. Many feelthat too many gene researchers are using their freedom to dangerous ends-in the quest for cures and scientific breakthroughs, the lack of anyclearly articulated legal standard allows them to take chances that canplace human subjects in harm's way (The New Republic, 2 , p.1 ). Such an actionwould retard, not advance, our human saga. The perils of biotechnology are sotreacherous, the risks so outrageous, that to remove ethics from the debateover regulation would be to condemn the human race to a highly unnaturalevolutionary trajectory. Mayor, Federico. If it is, Clark concludesthat "advanced biology does pose a threat and we might seek to limitresearch into what once were the mysteries of life"(2 , p.38). (May, 2 )"Playing God, Carefully". Clark reports in his piece "Playing God, Carefully", thatthe discovery of a minimum genome is close at hand; thus, the "thebiological interplay of DNA, proteins, and other subcellular components insupporting the necessary functions of life... v6 i3 p.37. Ultimately, how we choose to regulate what goes on in the lab formsanother side of the debate. Williams, argue that ethics must indeed bethe focus of the debate, positing that under Silver's construct,genetically engineered superintelligence(or jumping ability or disease-immunity, etc.) will become merely a product on the market the same as anyother -- to be bought and sold according to personal wealth and the balanceof supply and demand. As for the living, as a means of deterring disease,biotechnology should proceed slowly and carefully, lest it lose its oneflimsy moral platform. Thomas W. In this, if we may reverse the effects of Alzheimer's, or stop thespread of AIDS, then we cannot rationally deprive ourselves of this luxury. Eventually, parents will even utilizegenetic engineering to create superior progeny equipped with ideal height,intelligence and looks. Parents arenaturally inclined to provide their children with any boost that may betterequip them to overcome the challenges of the world. Historically, we have witnessed the tendency of the scientificcommunity to preoccupy itself with questions of "can we do it?" as opposedto "should we do it?". Would we truly seek to makelegal the genetic superiority of one class over the next? The Humanist. Each of usplanning to live well into the 21st century can expect to be affected bythe ramifications of genetic engineering. A coherent, federalregulatory system for biotechnology must be rooted in firm ethical ground.The time for private-sector genetic tinkering has passed. On theone hand, if our law makers conclude that playing God in the lab is notfundamentally wrong, then society may reap a bounty of rewards. p.26. (Oct 22, 1999)"Revolution in Biology Drives Revolution in Theology, Ethics and Law". Our survivalinstinct is a moral one, and it commands us to preserve ourselves as bestwe can. To deprive an individual ofhis right to begin life with his genetic code intact is to deprive him ofhis right to survive on his own terms. Genetic engineering would subvert this cherished philosophy, forit would render an altered specimen genetically superior than a naturalone. Privatesector scientists may experiment on human embryos in any fashion they deemfit: private funding virtually guarantees autonomy in the lab. Ivy League spermfetches quite a price. No ethicists on thismatter seem to dispute the fact that the people unable to take advantage ofgenetic engineering will be those who lack the funds to do so. And so genetic engineering hasprogressed in earnest; Congress has enacted no governing statutes,President Clinton has proposed no comprehensive regulatory approach, and nofederal agency currently exists with jurisdiction over these matters(TheNew Republic, 2 , p.9). v36 i1 p.15. Forcenturies, humans have enslaved one another on the basis of an assumedgenetic inferiority belonging to members of different races and cultures.In modern times, most of the developed world understands that no race isgenetically inferior to another- we are all members of the same humanspecies. Our planet suffers so many ills, not the least of which includeoverpopulation, the depletion of natural resources, poverty and pollution.In this light, it seems rather foolish to attempt to ethically endorse anytechnology that would ultimately serve to lengthen the lifespans of thewealthy and the privileged. Already, in vitro fertilizationhas become routine, and sex selection before conception is possible foraspiring parents(Schaeffer, 1999, p.15); Genetic enhancements are on theverge of providing mankind with drugs to treat brain disorders likeAlzheimer's and epidemics such as the AIDS virus(Williams, 2 , p.9);Total genetic engineering of human embryos is expected to be safe andefficient within the next 5 years(Silver, 1999, p.26). This fact would be scientifically irrefutable. And worse, what we create may not like us. We are a competitive species. Under such an arrangement, Williams writes, "theethic of the marketplace favors that highest bidder" as opposed to "theethic of adoption, custody and human rights law, which favors... The temptation to remove an alcoholic disposition from an unborn childis a great one. Ifchildren are born with programmed genetics, haven't we also programmedtheir potential? "Tinkering With Genes: Time for a National Debate". Perhaps even animal characteristics such as night-vision or sonar may be adapted to the human DNA strain (Silver, 1999,p.26). Should human DNA beconsidered sacred? Similarly, fashion models sell their eggs over theInternet for tens of thousands of dollars. Would not genetic engineering,if left unchecked, also attract the high-rollers? Silver, Lee M. Others, like Patricia J. No furtherinnovations should be allowed to take place out of range of governmentalcontrols, and those controls must not allow for genetic manipulations toeffect the unborn. How about aphotographic memory? Should we, as a society,strive to regulate the development of biotechnologies? i3654 p.44. Sonar? One of the thingsthat defines us as human beings is our desire to better equip ourselves forsurvival. Clark's summations aptly present the ethical root of the debate overgenetic engineering. Regardless of any restrictions imposed upon genetic programming of theunborn, economics would inevitably come into play. We may notlike what we see. If it does, ourtask becomes deciding if playing God is wrong. National Catholic Reporter. Genetic engineering is a perilous experiment. According to ethicists, the crux of the debate lies in whether ornot work on minimal genomes constitutes "playing God". So often in science fiction tales a protagonist creates something thathe cannot control. v27 i14 p.9. Predetermining the basic characteristics of a futureperson serves only to violate the very essence of human individuality, notto mention impede the delicate processes of human development. p.9. (Nov 8, 1999)Business Week. For one, the long-term effects of carrying an artificiallyengineered gene(or genes) are unknown. Only in regard to the benefits that biotechnology may provide thosewho are already living, am I in favor of advancing the research. All wholive on this earth have a right to survive. Today, we collectively stand on the threshold of science fiction.Genetic engineering has emerged -- faster, simpler, and more accessiblethan anyone had foreseen. For wealthy parents,this may mean private schools, or special tutors, or private swim lessonsin the backyard pool. And yet we must pay more attention to geneticengineering than we already do -- the science fiction age is upon us. the bestprotector"(2 , p.1 ). Particularly in Western society,capitalism prompts us to take any advantage we can muster. Our society values perseverance,dedication, cultivation of talent, and discipline. In this unraveling story of ours, our creation may verywell be our own kin- stronger, faster, and smarter than we are. (Sept 1999)"Medicine's Last Frontier." UNESCO Courier. Williams, Patricia J. And as for the ethics of genetic engineering, I find it impossible notto condemn virtually any and all gene/DNA manipulations. would be completelyunderstood"(2 , p.37). UNESCO Courier. In this scenario,genetic treatments would create new forms of discrimination -- betweenthose who have taken advantage of biotechnology, and those who have not.Some fear that ultimately the genetic disparity between human beings maygrow so wide that even reproduction between "naturals" and "altereds" wouldbe impossible(Mayor, 1999, p.9). Therefore, private researchers and genetic engineers have been ableput human DNA into petri dishes and do what they want with it. Already, women may pick and choose sperm based onthe physical and mental characteristics of the donor. We must form ouropinions- and our policies- now. It is difficult to conceive of a medical or philosophical frontierthat lies beyond that of genetic engineering- in our time, we are actuallyharnessing the power to change the nature of the human species. Essentially, this discovery will complete ourability to genetically alter any living thing at the most rudimentarylevel. As a strictly preventativemeasure, genetic engineering is difficult to dispute. The pounding gait of science has, in many ways,outpaced the best efforts of theology, politics, and ethics. p.9. Some propose that the laws of business andeconomics should govern the progress of biotechnology; the New York Timesquotes Professor Lee Silver (whose work is also referenced in this paper)as saying, "if the goal is to make genetic information useful as soon aspossible, the debate should be focused on fair business practices andregulatory issues, not ethics"(Williams, 2 , p.9). If we allow geneticmanipulations to occur, how might these characteristics suffer? Are we devaluing the meaning of life as we come tounderstand the fabled "spark" as a merely physical entity, capable ofdissection and reorganization in any private lab? Most ethicists agree that it is time for a national debate. Among these, issues over privacy and justice emerge. If we allow biotechnology to flourish, how much geneticengineering is too much? And, programming an unborn childwith ideal characteristics, though undoubtedly a desirable prospect forsome, could very well create a plethora of other problems (Business Week,1999, p.44). Obviously, the ethical implications of genetic engineering arenumerous. So far, science has not paid much attention to theplaying God question, preferring to forge ahead and leave the ethicaldebate to society and government. AsPamela Schaeffer asks in the National Catholic Reporter: "What happens wheninsurers, employers, business competitors or creditors gain access togenetic information allowing them to assess an apparently healthy person'ssusceptibility to some future disease?"(1999, p.15). So yes, inthe case of an unborn child, human DNA is sacred, and should not betouched. The Nation. Theethical implications of this are manifold: In our quest to pin down a"minimum genome"- the basic molecular structure of what is required tobuild a living organism (Clark, 2 , p.37)- are we placing ourselves atodds with Nature? Schaeffer, Pamela.

If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:

Search for:

or

We can write a Custom Essay just for you.


Browse Essays by Subject