Genetic Engineering in Humans is Bad

Cloning, in Dolly’s case, was to realise a previously inaccessable idea. It was an excercise in popular science to try to create a story that would capture people’s imagination and to concretely show that which had been only expressible in theories, equations and petri dish’s. It was not a test for the efficacy of cloning as a means of production.

As for the ethical considerations which would come into play were human cloning to happen… They would, of course need to be thouroghly discussed and considered. But for the life of me, I cannot forsee a reasonable set of circumstance’s which would lead to human cloning being benificial for any purpose. If someone were to clone one person a million times it would indeed raise ethical issues… So do a lot of potentialities that have next to no chance of happening.

Genetic modification does have the potential to cause harm, as does any tool that has ever been used. This particular tool has the potential to alter so many lives and so many future lives for the better, that i find it extremely difficult to understand, in any solid sense, how there could be an argument against. Ones that i can think of such as “design a child” or patenting wheats that are resistant to round up and owned by monsanto, who own the wheat, or religion etc are problems with the society not the tool. If the tool CAN be used to better lives, then it should, if it doesn’t then the SOCIETY not the tool is wrong.

On the other hand, proponents of genetic research defend engineering as a misunderstood pathway to medical progress. Chromosomal frequencies are a dynamic thing, changing naturally from one generation to the next. Individuals host a variety of genetic mutations, some of which are inconsequential, some that are harmful. For advocates, the ability to remove and replace defective genes with healthy ones is a tremendous medical tool for the prevention of disease, similar in achievement to the development of penicillin or the oral polio vaccine. GMOs, despite any shortcomings, have empowered agriculturalists to produce robust foods, resist crop diseases, and make more nutrition available to the developing world. Since the same benefits might be reaped by modifying human genetics with similar intentions, the risks may be no greater than any other gene manipulation.The question of safety, given medicine’s current rigorously regulated R&D methods, may be minor compared to the quality of life human genetic engineering could offer.

To the scientists who have dedicated their lives to molecular biology, however, such insinuations would be a deep insult. It could be argued that all medical advancements, not just the modification of genes, are dependent on removing the variables of the natural world, and that all are altruistic efforts that have dramatically lowered mortality rates and elevated the human experience. For parents like Charlie’s, nothing could seem less ethical than withholding technology that would have prevented his tragedy. The industries of healthcare, especially where research is concerned, are heavily policed, both by collegiate peers and supervising agencies such as the FDA. There is far less opportunity for corruption than the media would suggest. If a good level of faith can be maintained between the public and the scientific community, there should be no reason that fear should obstruct the advancement of molecular technologies.

That said, genetic power transcends any level of control we have ever imposed on nature before. Genetic alterations, whether natural or otherwise, are often a one-way road. Special attention must be paid to the fact that the entire future of the human genome (all the heritable traits found in all human chromosomes) will be irreversibly changed by artificial gene modification. The level of responsibility imposed by such an undertaking is for nothing less than the future of the human race. Regardless of its potential for miracles, human genetic engineering deserves to be approached in the most conservative way. If there is doubt about the safety, morality, or sustainability of it, it should be avoided or severely limited until those uncertainties are resolved.

With genetic engineering and some more research man kind could finally cure many genetic diseases and disorders such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Cystic Fibrosis, Haemophilia, colour blindness, some cancers, and down syndrome. Thus improving the quality of life of many and even the holy grail of medicine, immortality.

In development for the last thirty-plus years has been a revolutionary gene editing tool called CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats). Based upon the ability to zero in on a specific gene sequence, CRISPR technology allows scientists to easily “snip” unwanted genes from an embryo before cell replication takes off running, completely changing the baby’s fate. The power of this tool is extraordinary. In disease prevention, this is the ultimate game-changer. Something so powerful is immediately compelling. Some people are horrified at the God-like control that CRISPR suggests, and religious groups are especially concerned about the potential consequences. Others believe that this is the technology of the future for which we’ve all been waiting – the one that can perfect food, eliminate both genetic and vector-mediated disease, like Tay-Sachs or Zika virus, or even finally cure cancer. Indeed, CRISPR may have reached the common denominator of most of humanity’s greatest biological enemies. It is the one treatment method that could potentially guarantee a healthy baby for Charlie’s heartbroken parents. If it passes the final stages of research, CRISPR will almost certainly set the course for the way we understand and develop treatments for disease in the future.