Editing of the human genome in the past has been only a sight seen in dystopia works such as Brave New World. Now, genetic enhancement is a prevalent today and people are beginning to realize the issues that can arise from creating these designer babies. Gene editing can be helpful to eradicate life changing disabilities. Yet, the term disability does not correctly label these differently abled people, as the idea of what is considered disabled has changed overtime. To fully understand the consequences and implications of genetic selection and enhancement of human embryos, society must mature and declare lines of what is and is not ethically moral. Gene editing is the alteration of a person’s genetic material to delete undesirable traits or to create desirable new ones. Scientists can identify a defective DNA strand to be cut out and changed, then they use a protein that acts like scissors to cut out the improper gene and cells, then a healthy strand of DNA is inserted at the cut site and enzymes repair it (Crow). The goal of gene editing is to treat genetic disorders. Gene editing could potentially decrease or even …show more content…
This therapy changes the outcome of a child who would have likely had to live the rest of their life with a life-threatening disability. Genome editing is the road that humans can take towards the interest of preventing and treating diseases. It’s being explored in research in single gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, and sickle cell disease. It’s also likely that with further research, treatment and prevention of more complex diseases such as cancer, heart disease, mental illnesses, and HIV can be treated (“What Are Genome Editing and CRISPR-Cas9”). Helping babies live longer and fuller lives is for the greater good of our society, it will reduce suffering overall which is the goal of
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The issue of modification through gene manipulation becomes increasingly complex when considering how this technology can be used as a means to unethical and harmful uses. In the article, Babies with Genes From 3 people could be Ethical, Panel Says, Rob Stein exposes various concerns about three gene donors in an embryo, including how a scientist, “Could introduce some new disease into the human gene pool or that scientists could try to do this for other reasons-nonmedical reasons, like create designer babies where parents pick the traits of their children.” Stein goes on to explain how the gene replacement procedure would take place, which continues to usher in a plethora of concerns as whether to allow Crispr technology be tested on a embryo.
Green briefly touches on gene therapy that aims to cure diseases in an individual. He also considers the fact that this is therapy is particularly risky and dangerous, he holds strong with his idea that, “if the disease is serious enough […] it is usually worth trying.” (pg. 56). Green then moves onto the second ‘square’ of this chapter-germline gene therapy. Green goes much more deeply into this section, mostly because this subject often
Alexis Wolf Professor Julia Gousseva October 29th 2017 Critical Reading 112 Are designer babies the future? Just think about it, designing the traits of your future child to look specifically however you want. The article “The Life Editor” by Michael Page discusses the idea of scientifically modifying genes and the possibilities the methods of gene editing can hold. Page describes the new innovation called CRISPR gene editing.
Designer genetics to create a baby after careful selection is a meme, and “we can say that memes are ‘selfish’, that they ‘do not care’, that they ‘want’ to propagate themselves, and so on, when all we mean is that successful memes are the ones that get copied and spread, while unsuccessful ones do not” (Blackmore 37), and some may consider this genetic modification to be a successful meme which is why parents are so willing to try it. By using technology in this type of way, it may possibly benefit some if it is spread for good causes, such as helping a baby be born without a disease that is known to run in the family so the parents won’t have to see their child go through pain. Many parents put their faith in “23andMe” and their technology because it is their last hope to be able to conceive a child without them having to worry about any debilitating disease or disabilities and since this procedure would be implicated even before the child is developed, there would be no questions of morality. However, some people might take advantage of this new technology and use it for nothing more than creating their fantasy child, as they start to choose non-health related traits such as weight, height, gender and eye color.
The book creates a sense of mortification about how they “grow” the children, which in turn makes the modifications seem immoral. This is the same way the media makes stem cells seem like an extremely immoral act. One way to retrieve stem cells is to grow a blastocyst and take the cells from that organism. The debate is whether or not the blastocyst is a human or not. Although I understand this argument, there are alternative ways to recover stem cells, for example adults have stem cells that can be
However, with the advent of technology, eugenics has been advanced to even encourage parents to carry out a selection of the kind of babies they want to give birth to resulting in the term “designer babies” through prenatal testing (Asch, 1999). If parents notice that their expected baby might suffer some form of disability they usually resort to eugenics whereby they can choose to terminate the pregnancy. Disability rights advocates oppose prenatal testing that results in genetic enhancement because they view it as discriminatory against the disabled. This holds true because genetic enhancement and improvement of fetuses that would have been otherwise born with some impairment discriminate against existing people with disabilities as it sends a clear message to those living with disabilities that they should never have been born. Prenatal testing and genetic enhancing as a means of eugenics mostly result in selective abortion of disabled fetuses thus sending a very loud discriminatory message to those that are already living with disabilities.
Therefore, if two parents are carriers of a certain gene that will disable their child, they can modify that gene to make a child that will not have that disability. As well as some parents will have designer babies to save another child they already have with a certain disease. In this method, parents will choose their child’s blood type and such in order for them to match that other diseased child and potentially give them their blood, marrow, and even organs. Genetically modifying a child’s chance of disease ensures that a child may live a life without potential disease and disability that they may have been more prone to had their parents’ not used this method. This also ensures a healthy life for a child that had a greater potential of having a medical condition due to their parents being carriers of that particular gene.
Eugenics: Addressing the Line Between Utopia and Dystopia Many biologists/geneticists are in favor of eugenics due to the possibility of advancing the human race, limiting disease, and decreasing the occurrence of negative mutations, while others believe eugenic practices are unethical, useless, and have more potential for harm. Eugenic practices have proven to be extremely controversial, so I will focus on discussing the potential impacts of eugenics on the human body, society, and morality. Modern eugenic practices consist of two types of gene alteration: negative genetic engineering, which is the process of removing genes to combat disease, and gene therapy, which improves one 's genetic make-up (Hix, 2009, para. 4). Both methods of eugenics are equally controversial and equally promising. Gene therapy has been used to
Ever since the structure of DNA was discovered in 1953, there have been various advancements.(1) This includes a powerful tool that allows us to modify the genes of human embryos, called CRISPR. Currently it is not legal to modify an embryo and let it develop, but should we ever? On December 1 through 3, 2015, an International Summit on Human Gene Editing took place in Washington, D.C. to discuss what should be done with the new biotechnology.(1) There was much controversy about this, both morally and scientifically.
This allows for the cure of DNA mutation diseases, along with elimination of diseases from the human species. The opposition of CRISPR’s use states that technology is risky, will permanently change the human genome, and open the path of designer babies. The risk of CRISPR is minimal. Thus, the lives saved will for the greater good will outweigh the possible side effects. The worry of altering the genome can be viewed as not an issue as the elimination of diseases will increase the quality of life for people.
Erika Check Hayden, the author of the article “ Tomorrow 's Children,” explains just this. “ ‘As a parent with an incredibly sick child what are we supposed to do- sit by on the sidelines while my child dies? There’s zero chance of that,’ Wisely says” Matt Wilsey is the father of Grace who was diagnosed with a rare disease caused by genetic mutation. “ ‘ CRISPR is a bullet train that has left the station- there 's no stopping it, so how can we harness it for good?’” This quote highlights
Mutation in children is not uncommon and it has caused many children to be robbed of the chances that healthy children are born with. A parent blessed with the gift of a healthy child wouldn’t be able to understand the relief genetic engineering would be able to bring to parents of children born with haemophilia, cystic fibrosis, or muscular dystrophy. Not only would choosing the best traits in an organism be good for humans, but for animals and plants. As previously mentioned, plants would benefit in the sense that they will be able to get immunity to pests and their own types of diseases. Animals would be able to make their prime state by modifying their DNA.
This procedure’s purpose is to switch out genes for more preferred ones, especially to improve the health of the child. Genetic engineering could permit selection of desired physical and pleasurable traits for non-medical reasons, which has created concern in some people. The process of switching out the genes of a fetus to install genes that are more preferred has brought up debate about whether or not parents should be able to alter their babies genes to make them more appealing to the parents interests. There are many different ways of looking at this procedure and in contrast to other scientific procedures it can be for greater good or for unnecessary enhancement that could potentially create problems in society. Designer babies aren’t morally correct or incorrect, but are in between depending on what it is being used for.
The procedure putting another extra clone gene to the mom’s womb and growing is not easy and sometimes it can cause moms and the child 's death. Because we want a clone baby doesn’t mean we want to kill the moms so it is irrelevant and hazardous. Peoples want to believe that we shouldn 't be afraid of cloning babies or having engineered baby, but however people connected to their religion and didn’t want to mess with their god(religion) so because of that most of the people didn’t want to accept this technology. As seen in the (Caplan’s) article, scientists are using CRISPR CAS9 to make a new engineered baby. This tool helps to edit genes in animals and insects and now it also works on human to modify their genes and to enter the new gene to make clone babies.the intriguing instance of genetic modification was that there is a lot of controversies and agreements in human cloning.