Persuasive/ Argumentative Research Paper
Genetic Engineering, a Problem for the Human Race (Draft 2)
Americans, and everyone else, today tend to believe that genetic engineering is unethical and will cause major complications for the human race. Those people would be correct, because to genetically alter or genetically modify something that is to change the being of something and make it better or worse in the long run, than it was originally was. The people carrying out the process of genetically engineering species are playing the role of God, telling all religions that God is inferior, now. This is the part that makes it unethical and what tends to hold scientists back from using the process on humans, not for their sake but for all the people that dislike the practice. Genetic engineering is a problem for the human race, although it can cure diseases and save lives, the process of the idea is unethical and has slim to none support since scientists are playing God and degrading what humans used to be by changing the very makeup of their existence.
There have not been too many examples of actually modify DNA or altering species genes. Modifying seeds and crops for better production of food and less labor has been done. Scientists have figured out a way to control the genes in a crop where it emits its own pesticides and herbicides so weeds and bugs don’t affect its growth. Scientists have also used genetic modifications to produce a higher yield from a crop and made the crop less perishable. This is effective to an extent, but there are far more complications. The bugs and weeds are adapting to the hormone produced and creating super weeds so they are harder to kill. The higher yield makes the price of the crop go down which lowers the profit to the farmer if he gets one at all. The modified genes in the crops can also affect the genes in humans by making us adapt to certain hormones, and that can result in human’s DNA changing over time. The higher yield that is produced, as most scientists claim will end starvation and world hunger. Genetically modifying food will not decrease the amount of starvation in the world because the people themselves do not control the food, the government regulates the food control and how much is given to the people and people have to give it to people (Jordan 152).
Cloning, as an aspect of genetic engineering, has been done, too. Cloning is against moral rights because scientists are playing God and treating their test subjects poorly. Roger Shinn noticed and documented that dolly was the only successful attempt at a cloned sheep. There were 277 tries. 29 resulted in embryos that survived for more than 6 days, 13 led to pregnancies, most were miscarried, the rest were malformed. Dolly was the only one that developed properly at birth, but developed physiological problems and had to be euthanized (Hollinger 81). The ibex-goat hybrid was another single success. Scientists were trying to save the species of ibex and they failed. There were 493 cloned hybrids. Out of those 57 were transported to surrogate mothers but with only 7 successful pregnancies. Out of the pregnancies, there was only one completely successful offspring (Hollinger 81).
The belief that genetic engineering is a problem for the human race is based on ethics and morals. It is unethical for a group of people, scientists in this case, to play the role of God. Playing the role of God is against religion and that it puts makes those people responsible for more than just one life. The belief is also based on the outcomes of successful genetic modifications. The moral force of the objection that genetic engineering, especially positive eugenics or genetic enhancement is, "playing God" is that we do not know that there are no risks. “A proper humility and recognition of limited human knowledge and fallibility is required for reliable moral behavior. A strong argument for concluding that genetic enhancement and perhaps even genetic therapy is morally unacceptable is that it risks great harm for many in future generations in order to provide benefits for a few in this one” (Gert 29). People will start to own and patent such masterpieces, such as in designer babies or a specific gene that is made up from altering another, which leads to ownership of humans. “A patent already has been applied for to mix human embryo cells with those from a monkey or ape to create an animal that might have kidneys or a liver more suitable for transplantation to human beings” (Gert 28). The ownership of humans is against human rights and could resort back to complicated form of slavery. If the process of genetic engineering becomes successful, it could lead to a master race and separate genetically enhanced organisms from regular humans.
“The predicament is that our newfound genetic knowledge may also enable us to manipulate our own nature--to enhance our muscles, memories, and moods; to choose the sex, height, and other genetic traits of our children; to make ourselves ‘better than well’”(Sandel 50). This makes people have natural talents the unnatural way, they should have it the natural way by working for it. Genetic engineering will evolve from helping people, such as deleting a gene for Tay Sachs to enhancing people, such as increasing size, increasing strength, increasing intelligence, and making human’s resistance to natural and artificial poisons (Gert 28). This is where genetic engineering gets too far from human rights. People should earn their way to victory or achievements. “Genetic enhancements undermine our humanity by threatening our capacity to act freely, to succeed by our own efforts, and to consider ourselves responsible--worthy of praise or blame--for the things we do and for the way we are. It is one thing to hit seventy home runs as the result of disciplined training and effort, and something else, something less, to hit them with the help of steroids or genetically enhanced muscles” (Sandel 53). One should show that he has worked hard to achieve his goal instead of getting altered so that he can still do it “naturally.”
There are multiple reasons why genetic engineering is inconceivable to the human mind. The main reason is that it is against religion. People should not be allowed to play God and have so much control over the lives of living beings. Humans and other species are meant to be born naturally without any outside forces acting on the birth of that being and it is ethically wrong to tamper with the makeup of a living thing or clone it so that organs can be harvested, once the original has gotten old and the cloned has matured. “Thus, together with cloning, it may give rise to a genetically stratified society, as envisioned in Aldous Huxley's novel, Brave New World. Once this technology is well-developed, it can be used by societies in which those in power are not governed by ethical restraints. Individuals may be genetically engineered to provide various tasks--e.g., as warriors. Imagine a group of people engineered to be resistant to various poisonous gases” (Gert 29). This is the point at which people are raising humans and other living organisms so that they can function to better all the people instead of just the individual. This takes away the individualism that each person is granted as part of human rights.
The problems of genetic engineering are limited. Scientists are going to figure out a way to alter genes and change the makeup of living things with a success rate of 100%, and then people will see that it is not that bad. Humans will see the better aspects of genetic engineering if enough people are willing to go through with it. The world will be like a domino effect; one person will make a baby that has been altered and made perfect, then all others will want a perfect fake baby too. The designed babies do have some complications that come with it though. The altered reproductive cells will alter the reproductive cells of the fetus which in turn alters the blood cells. This will fix the problem of the disease, but the altered reproductive cells will carry through many offspring (King 35). The desire for perfection will outweigh the desire for morals and ethics and religion will slowly sink back to what it was in the past, and soon enough, cease to exist. Then there is the complication of enhancements. What is the limit, or even if it should be used, for enhancements? “We usually admire parents who seek the best for their children, who spare no effort to help them achieve happiness and success. Some parents confer advantages on their children by enrolling them in expensive schools, hiring private tutors, sending them to tennis camp, providing them with piano lessons, ballet lessons, swimming lessons, SAT-prep courses, and so on. If it is permissible and even admirable for parents to help their children in these ways, why isn't it equally admirable for parents to use whatever genetic technologies may emerge (provided they are safe) to enhance their children's intelligence, musical ability, or athletic prowess?” (Sandel 54). Each person should have to earn his way through life and not be “extraordinarily talented” from the beginning. Cloning does have its limitations and will always have challenges. The money aspect is just one point that makes cloning a bad idea. "It is well established that cloned animals often suffer from developmental problems. Very often these problems prevent the pregnancy from continuing normally, and sometimes that cloned offspring that do get born suffer health problems that either kill them in the womb or lead to later ailments in life" (Conner 130). There should be no question as to why people should clone a living being and not even be completely successful with it.
There are aspects of genetic engineering that humans do find beneficial and like the outcome of those alterations. The main aspect is curing diseases. All humans see is the elimination of a deformity and the achievement of a perfect body. They will finally fit in with the “normal people” and not have to suffer the discrimination that comes with the disease. Genetic engineering has the potential to save lives. Who doesn’t want to live longer? People will try to do anything to stay alive as long as possible, not for unselfish reasons, like they claim, but for selfish reason like being afraid to die and not finishing all that they hoped for. Cloning does have potential to be successful, in that humans will make a clone of themselves to later kill it and harvest “their” organs to remain alive longer. Cloning also allows parents, parents who are not able to have children, to have children. "Cloning would permit the couple to participate in the creation of a person, and for some infertile couples doing so might have personal meaning; and for some couples, the genetic and biological connection provided by cloning might be regarded as giving their procreation a special significance as an affirmation of mutual love and acceptance" (Strong 89-90). Dinosaurs would be awesome to have back, right? Probably not, but endangered species can be a positive outcome of genetic engineering. "Cloning could be a useful tool for preserving the genetic material of endangered species on the verge of extinction. It could be especially useful for animals whose genetic diversity is already limited or dwindling" (Conner 132). The preserving of genetic material and trying to revive a decreasing population of endangered species does have its drawback, though. Noah, a baby gaur, was cloned using the eggs and surrogate wombs of domestic cows. It died after 2 days after it developed an intestinal infection that was made worse by the hybrid clone of the gaur and cow (Conner 132). This just proves how bad cloning is, and it could eventually make things worse, in the long run.
Allowing fallow parents to have children, does not always work like scientists think it will. Parents are going to try to make their child the best. “Forty-three percent of clinics said they had received requests for PGD that they felt raised ethical questions; most of these were from parents who wanted to select the sex of a child for nonmedical reasons. The survey found that this use of PGD is fairly common: almost one in ten tests was for nonmedical sex selection, a service offered by 42 percent of clinics” (Singer 86). Parents are more concerned about the sex of the child rather than just having a child at random which reduces the reason to have a baby, only if the parents are going to be in favor of one sex over the other. Testing for the sex of the child does face its own complications. “Though IVF is gaining in popularity, it remains an expensive and often difficult procedure” (Singer 86). If money and difficulty wasn’t all ready enough the risks of doing it are worse. “Testing for medical purposes brings its own set of problems. Only a limited number of genetic variations present the kind of clear-cut case for which PGD was originally developed: the certainty of a serious or fatal disease. But what about testing for genes that merely raise the risk of a disease? Or for genes linked to a relatively manageable disease, such as diabetes? How serious must a disease be to justify the costly and potentially risky process of IVF?” (Singer 87). The scientists need limitations on what they can do and if it will either increase or decrease the chance of disease. If they don’t know beforehand they should not even attempt at trying to be successful. “They may also be "guilted" into testing that doesn't make good on the promise of a healthier child; most of the newly discovered genes have relatively weak correlations with disease or play small roles in complicated processes, and some may affect the body in ways that scientists don't yet fully understand’ (Singer 87). Then the scientists don’t know if the gene taken out or getting screened will affect other ones and cause substantially greater problems. How can a science so far back in readiness, actually be used?
Saving lives and curing diseases is a great use of genetic engineering, but scientists need to find a way to have a 100% success rate. As long as it is keep at just saving lives and curing diseases. Genetic engineering should never be used to develop babies that are perfect in every way or to just kill and harvest organs from a clone. It should never be used to enhance a living being and make it better than others, either. Genetic engineering does seem beneficial and could really have positive outcomes on humans, and other living organisms, it does have more complications than necessary to be dealing with at the current moment.
Works Cited
· Singer, Emily. "Choosing Babies." Technology Review Vol. 110, No. 2. March/April 2007: 86-87. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 19 Feb 2013.
· Gert, Bernard. "Genetic Engineering: Is It Morally Acceptable?." USA Today (Farmingdale). Jan. 1999: 28-30. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 19 Feb 2013.
· Sandel, Michael J. "The Case Against Perfection." Atlantic Monthly. April 2004: 50+. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 19 Feb 2013.
Americans, and everyone else, today tend to believe that genetic engineering is unethical and will cause major complications for the human race. Those people would be correct, because to genetically alter or genetically modify something that is to change the being of something and make it better or worse in the long run, than it was originally was. The people carrying out the process of genetically engineering species are playing the role of God, telling all religions that God is inferior, now. This is the part that makes it unethical and what tends to hold scientists back from using the process on humans, not for their sake but for all the people that dislike the practice. Genetic engineering is a problem for the human race, although it can cure diseases and save lives, the process of the idea is unethical and has slim to none support since scientists are playing God and degrading what humans used to be by changing the very makeup of their existence.
There have not been too many examples of actually modify DNA or altering species genes. Modifying seeds and crops for better production of food and less labor has been done. Scientists have figured out a way to control the genes in a crop where it emits its own pesticides and herbicides so weeds and bugs don’t affect its growth. Scientists have also used genetic modifications to produce a higher yield from a crop and made the crop less perishable. This is effective to an extent, but there are far more complications. The bugs and weeds are adapting to the hormone produced and creating super weeds so they are harder to kill. The higher yield makes the price of the crop go down which lowers the profit to the farmer if he gets one at all. The modified genes in the crops can also affect the genes in humans by making us adapt to certain hormones, and that can result in human’s DNA changing over time. The higher yield that is produced, as most scientists claim will end starvation and world hunger. Genetically modifying food will not decrease the amount of starvation in the world because the people themselves do not control the food, the government regulates the food control and how much is given to the people and people have to give it to people (Jordan 152).
Cloning, as an aspect of genetic engineering, has been done, too. Cloning is against moral rights because scientists are playing God and treating their test subjects poorly. Roger Shinn noticed and documented that dolly was the only successful attempt at a cloned sheep. There were 277 tries. 29 resulted in embryos that survived for more than 6 days, 13 led to pregnancies, most were miscarried, the rest were malformed. Dolly was the only one that developed properly at birth, but developed physiological problems and had to be euthanized (Hollinger 81). The ibex-goat hybrid was another single success. Scientists were trying to save the species of ibex and they failed. There were 493 cloned hybrids. Out of those 57 were transported to surrogate mothers but with only 7 successful pregnancies. Out of the pregnancies, there was only one completely successful offspring (Hollinger 81).
The belief that genetic engineering is a problem for the human race is based on ethics and morals. It is unethical for a group of people, scientists in this case, to play the role of God. Playing the role of God is against religion and that it puts makes those people responsible for more than just one life. The belief is also based on the outcomes of successful genetic modifications. The moral force of the objection that genetic engineering, especially positive eugenics or genetic enhancement is, "playing God" is that we do not know that there are no risks. “A proper humility and recognition of limited human knowledge and fallibility is required for reliable moral behavior. A strong argument for concluding that genetic enhancement and perhaps even genetic therapy is morally unacceptable is that it risks great harm for many in future generations in order to provide benefits for a few in this one” (Gert 29). People will start to own and patent such masterpieces, such as in designer babies or a specific gene that is made up from altering another, which leads to ownership of humans. “A patent already has been applied for to mix human embryo cells with those from a monkey or ape to create an animal that might have kidneys or a liver more suitable for transplantation to human beings” (Gert 28). The ownership of humans is against human rights and could resort back to complicated form of slavery. If the process of genetic engineering becomes successful, it could lead to a master race and separate genetically enhanced organisms from regular humans.
“The predicament is that our newfound genetic knowledge may also enable us to manipulate our own nature--to enhance our muscles, memories, and moods; to choose the sex, height, and other genetic traits of our children; to make ourselves ‘better than well’”(Sandel 50). This makes people have natural talents the unnatural way, they should have it the natural way by working for it. Genetic engineering will evolve from helping people, such as deleting a gene for Tay Sachs to enhancing people, such as increasing size, increasing strength, increasing intelligence, and making human’s resistance to natural and artificial poisons (Gert 28). This is where genetic engineering gets too far from human rights. People should earn their way to victory or achievements. “Genetic enhancements undermine our humanity by threatening our capacity to act freely, to succeed by our own efforts, and to consider ourselves responsible--worthy of praise or blame--for the things we do and for the way we are. It is one thing to hit seventy home runs as the result of disciplined training and effort, and something else, something less, to hit them with the help of steroids or genetically enhanced muscles” (Sandel 53). One should show that he has worked hard to achieve his goal instead of getting altered so that he can still do it “naturally.”
There are multiple reasons why genetic engineering is inconceivable to the human mind. The main reason is that it is against religion. People should not be allowed to play God and have so much control over the lives of living beings. Humans and other species are meant to be born naturally without any outside forces acting on the birth of that being and it is ethically wrong to tamper with the makeup of a living thing or clone it so that organs can be harvested, once the original has gotten old and the cloned has matured. “Thus, together with cloning, it may give rise to a genetically stratified society, as envisioned in Aldous Huxley's novel, Brave New World. Once this technology is well-developed, it can be used by societies in which those in power are not governed by ethical restraints. Individuals may be genetically engineered to provide various tasks--e.g., as warriors. Imagine a group of people engineered to be resistant to various poisonous gases” (Gert 29). This is the point at which people are raising humans and other living organisms so that they can function to better all the people instead of just the individual. This takes away the individualism that each person is granted as part of human rights.
The problems of genetic engineering are limited. Scientists are going to figure out a way to alter genes and change the makeup of living things with a success rate of 100%, and then people will see that it is not that bad. Humans will see the better aspects of genetic engineering if enough people are willing to go through with it. The world will be like a domino effect; one person will make a baby that has been altered and made perfect, then all others will want a perfect fake baby too. The designed babies do have some complications that come with it though. The altered reproductive cells will alter the reproductive cells of the fetus which in turn alters the blood cells. This will fix the problem of the disease, but the altered reproductive cells will carry through many offspring (King 35). The desire for perfection will outweigh the desire for morals and ethics and religion will slowly sink back to what it was in the past, and soon enough, cease to exist. Then there is the complication of enhancements. What is the limit, or even if it should be used, for enhancements? “We usually admire parents who seek the best for their children, who spare no effort to help them achieve happiness and success. Some parents confer advantages on their children by enrolling them in expensive schools, hiring private tutors, sending them to tennis camp, providing them with piano lessons, ballet lessons, swimming lessons, SAT-prep courses, and so on. If it is permissible and even admirable for parents to help their children in these ways, why isn't it equally admirable for parents to use whatever genetic technologies may emerge (provided they are safe) to enhance their children's intelligence, musical ability, or athletic prowess?” (Sandel 54). Each person should have to earn his way through life and not be “extraordinarily talented” from the beginning. Cloning does have its limitations and will always have challenges. The money aspect is just one point that makes cloning a bad idea. "It is well established that cloned animals often suffer from developmental problems. Very often these problems prevent the pregnancy from continuing normally, and sometimes that cloned offspring that do get born suffer health problems that either kill them in the womb or lead to later ailments in life" (Conner 130). There should be no question as to why people should clone a living being and not even be completely successful with it.
There are aspects of genetic engineering that humans do find beneficial and like the outcome of those alterations. The main aspect is curing diseases. All humans see is the elimination of a deformity and the achievement of a perfect body. They will finally fit in with the “normal people” and not have to suffer the discrimination that comes with the disease. Genetic engineering has the potential to save lives. Who doesn’t want to live longer? People will try to do anything to stay alive as long as possible, not for unselfish reasons, like they claim, but for selfish reason like being afraid to die and not finishing all that they hoped for. Cloning does have potential to be successful, in that humans will make a clone of themselves to later kill it and harvest “their” organs to remain alive longer. Cloning also allows parents, parents who are not able to have children, to have children. "Cloning would permit the couple to participate in the creation of a person, and for some infertile couples doing so might have personal meaning; and for some couples, the genetic and biological connection provided by cloning might be regarded as giving their procreation a special significance as an affirmation of mutual love and acceptance" (Strong 89-90). Dinosaurs would be awesome to have back, right? Probably not, but endangered species can be a positive outcome of genetic engineering. "Cloning could be a useful tool for preserving the genetic material of endangered species on the verge of extinction. It could be especially useful for animals whose genetic diversity is already limited or dwindling" (Conner 132). The preserving of genetic material and trying to revive a decreasing population of endangered species does have its drawback, though. Noah, a baby gaur, was cloned using the eggs and surrogate wombs of domestic cows. It died after 2 days after it developed an intestinal infection that was made worse by the hybrid clone of the gaur and cow (Conner 132). This just proves how bad cloning is, and it could eventually make things worse, in the long run.
Allowing fallow parents to have children, does not always work like scientists think it will. Parents are going to try to make their child the best. “Forty-three percent of clinics said they had received requests for PGD that they felt raised ethical questions; most of these were from parents who wanted to select the sex of a child for nonmedical reasons. The survey found that this use of PGD is fairly common: almost one in ten tests was for nonmedical sex selection, a service offered by 42 percent of clinics” (Singer 86). Parents are more concerned about the sex of the child rather than just having a child at random which reduces the reason to have a baby, only if the parents are going to be in favor of one sex over the other. Testing for the sex of the child does face its own complications. “Though IVF is gaining in popularity, it remains an expensive and often difficult procedure” (Singer 86). If money and difficulty wasn’t all ready enough the risks of doing it are worse. “Testing for medical purposes brings its own set of problems. Only a limited number of genetic variations present the kind of clear-cut case for which PGD was originally developed: the certainty of a serious or fatal disease. But what about testing for genes that merely raise the risk of a disease? Or for genes linked to a relatively manageable disease, such as diabetes? How serious must a disease be to justify the costly and potentially risky process of IVF?” (Singer 87). The scientists need limitations on what they can do and if it will either increase or decrease the chance of disease. If they don’t know beforehand they should not even attempt at trying to be successful. “They may also be "guilted" into testing that doesn't make good on the promise of a healthier child; most of the newly discovered genes have relatively weak correlations with disease or play small roles in complicated processes, and some may affect the body in ways that scientists don't yet fully understand’ (Singer 87). Then the scientists don’t know if the gene taken out or getting screened will affect other ones and cause substantially greater problems. How can a science so far back in readiness, actually be used?
Saving lives and curing diseases is a great use of genetic engineering, but scientists need to find a way to have a 100% success rate. As long as it is keep at just saving lives and curing diseases. Genetic engineering should never be used to develop babies that are perfect in every way or to just kill and harvest organs from a clone. It should never be used to enhance a living being and make it better than others, either. Genetic engineering does seem beneficial and could really have positive outcomes on humans, and other living organisms, it does have more complications than necessary to be dealing with at the current moment.
Works Cited
· Singer, Emily. "Choosing Babies." Technology Review Vol. 110, No. 2. March/April 2007: 86-87. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 19 Feb 2013.
· Gert, Bernard. "Genetic Engineering: Is It Morally Acceptable?." USA Today (Farmingdale). Jan. 1999: 28-30. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 19 Feb 2013.
· Sandel, Michael J. "The Case Against Perfection." Atlantic Monthly. April 2004: 50+. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 19 Feb 2013.