Human society has continually drifted towards reaching our full potential, and yet the ban on genetic engineering has prohibited the only methods left to achieve that aim. Genetic engineering—a science that can bring us many medical wonders, extend our life span and make the world better—is being blocked from developing by a group of people that are simply just afraid of change. Just like artificial intelligence, genetic
Negative impacts of transgenic animals and crops. (9 Biggest Pros and Cons of Transgenic Animals., 2015) & (G., 2015) 1. The use of transgenic animals is unethical: - People that oppose the idea of modifying genes for animals to create offspring that will help the society in some way say that doing this is a major part when going against moral ethics. Additionally, animal advocates are particularly the main people that are not in support for this habit. These people strongly believe that animals also carry rights like humans and it’s against the rights to change their DNA and genetically modify it for human use.
Basically, the difference between the two is that in reproductive the cloned embryo is implanted in the womb and is going to develop into an organism and in the therapeutic, the embryo will never develop beyond a chunk of cells. In this matter, although some people think that therapeutic cloning is wrong, I believe that is beneficial because it will cure for a lot of diseases and it will reduce organ transplants. Although, I have to agree with many scientists when they say that reproductive cloning shouldn’t be done in humans because it would likely result in a lot of problems for the cloned as an individual and for the society in general. According to Australian Stem Cell Lab Centre, “Therapeutic cloning refers to the removal of a nucleus, which contains the genetic material, from virtually any cell of the body (a somatic cell) and its transfer by injection into an unfertilized egg from which the nucleus has also been removed. The newly
Animal Testing: Beneficial to mankind or just plainly immoral? A controversial subject such as animal testing always has strong supporting evidence coming from both sides of the metaphorical “battlefield’’, but is there really a need to choose a side? Is it possible that there is a “right” and a “wrong” argument on this topic? Testing different products (albeit medical or cosmetic) is extremely difficult to do without a suitable test subject, because when testing products for humans it is often times frowned upon when e.g. new medicine for combatting cancer is tested on a live person.
However, in SCNT the egg is not fertilized by a sperm cell which then blurs the line between whether the process should be used to harvest stem cells. Currently there are many restrictions globally on cloning. However, it is mostly used for complete human cloning along with some places restricting the use of therapeutic cloning. Researching cloning is still legal with restrictions, however, cloning for therapeutic uses is becoming more of a usable option. There are also issues with the cloning itself that need to be addressed.
There are also many concerns drawn toward the uncertainty of gene therapy, especially when looking at previous deaths in result of gene therapy. Many think it is not morally acceptable to be testing on human beings when there is so much risk involved. It is also stressed that ‘gene therapy could possibly manipulate gens to genetically control traits in human offspring that are not health related (encyclopedia.com).’ To many, genetic modification or manipulation of genes is not morally or ethnically acceptable and therefore should not be done at all. Even though this procedure could save a life or help someone stretch their life span, people think it is unacceptable to play with the ‘body’ we were given. As gene therapy progresses we can see that it has many benefits and the future of gene therapy does look promising.
For someone like Victor Frankenstein, education does indeed provide negative influence on society. His view on science became misunderstood with his theories on resurrecting the dead and people saw him more of a monster than a man of science. Other than his creation being the monster, Victor to me, would be the monster in this story because his decisions were an act against god without thinking of the consequences and the blood of everyone his creation had killed would be on his hands. People today wonder about the scientists of today and though most use their education to help then environment and the people living in it, but whether or not there are others like Victor Frankenstein who would try to defy god like he had
The technology today is not advanced enough yet. In order to give birth to a cloned baby, women need to risk miscarriages, stillbirths, or the birth of deformed babies in terms of creating just one successful clone. Tim Redford states, “Nobody yet knows how to clone a human humanely. Ian Wilmut, the Roslin scientist who produced Dolly, counts her as just one successful out of 272 attempts.” (Radford, theguardian.com). Just like Dolly and other cloned animals, the chance of success is low; therefore, many lives will need to be sacrificed.
Animal Testing Animal testing has a lot of controversy behind it, it doesn’t matter which side you pick there’s just the matter that we need to test medicines, the fate of the human population falls in this subject. Medicines and other drugs are very delicate and it’s not like we can cut them out of society. Therefore we need something to test it on because if not we could set a new disease out on the world with an untested medicine. We might as well keep it how it is because there will just be more casualties from either untested medicines or testing on the human kind which are more than a billion times smarter than a monkey or rodent and could seriously hurt themselves or the people around them. So with that Commercial and Scientific animal testing should be supported because it can help scientist find a
Oryx and Crake demonstrate the bad scientific observations and the dangers hardly ever conversed in fiction before, but that are noticeable in present societal order. Bio-engineering is the world ruled by technocrats and dominated by capitalist interests. Atwood prepares and alerts the readers about the commercial exploitation and use of hazardous bioforms. Another contemporary concern dealt with in this novel is bio-piracy. It is the practice of commercially exploiting naturally occurring biochemical or genetic material, especially by obtaining patents that restrict its future use, while failing to pay fair compensation to the community from which it originates.