In the third chapter of Ronald M. Green’s Babies by Design Green suggest the idea of categorizing the different degrees of human gene modification into the style of Punnett squares. Additionally, this chapter mainly focuses on the boundaries and of genetic engineering from Somatic modification treatment to germline enhancement. Green breaks this chapter up, in essentially four sections. He acknowledges the benefits of all four types of genetic modification and while some are less controversial than others, he presents a more in-depth argument for ones that are hotly debated, like germline gene therapy.
Hayes believes that the genetic modification will become a race which will lead to a greater divide in the population. Hayes argues that by using genetic modification the population will seek to enhance themselves for reasons cosmetic, athletic and cognitive reasons which would be passes of to their offspring who would later too enhance their offspring, leading to the eventual loss of the common human
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.
Page uses this to his advantage to describe the negative side of gene altering. Page states “Such irresponsible behavior might be disastrous for the health of children but for now it poses no large issues.” Page also mentions the idea of “designer babies”, this brings forth issues relating to the holocaust. The Holocaust was based on the idea of a perfect race, with the technology of the CRISPR gene, who knows what could happen and what this could lead to. Page discusses the idea of “gene drives", which CRISPR makes both easier to create and much more powerful.
Fukuyama brings up topics that can be split into two categories: risks and benefits of genetic engineering along with the affordability of genetic engineering. Considering scientists aren’t entirely sure how genes work, they bring about several ills they wouldn’t be aware of, whether they be immediate ills or ills that show up much later (Fukuyama, 678). Genetic Engineering could have horrific effects on a population which could lead to the abandoning of genetic modification, just like in the way that hydroelectricity is no longer used as much because of the potential of dam breaks or environmental effects (Fukuyama, 680). There is also a possibility that only the rich will have access to this technology, so the state would possibly have to intervene to fix this inequality (Fukuyama, 680). Fukuyama concludes his writing by posing the fact that no matter what happens with genetic engineering, genetic engineering will change the course of human history on several levels, and on levels greater than that of any human biotechnology (Fukuyama, 681).
As technology advances, more things become possible. One of these things is genetically modifying a baby, this is very wrong. Genetic modifying or genetic engineering is altering someone or something’s DNA. Scientists hope to cure diseases with this method but doing this can lead to some harmful effects. This process is very unethical.
He also states this claim, “Humanity would take control of its own evolution and kick it into overdrive” (Hayes) which was the need for a policy by giving examples of what can occur or happen if a child is genetically engineered. He backs up/supports his claim by giving examples of the progress made by us in the genetic engineering field. He talks about the discovery of the 5-HTT for reducing the risk of depression and the DAF-2 gene variant which double the lifespan of nematode worm which, if successfully applied to humans, will double our life span (Hayes). His warrant of his claim was that he makes his paper very sound and attractive to the audience or readers. Hayes also passes across that parents want their children to be the best of the
Loria, Kevin describes some of the more positive outcomes to designer babies. "Hughes asks: If a parent were to come along and want to change the genome of their child "and the goal of this is to make sure a kid doesn 't have depression or doesn 't end up obese" — interesting in theory, but likely not actually possible given the complex web of environmental and genetic causes behind those conditions — "on what ground does the state then step in?" His argument is that we don 't stop people from passing on what we consider "bad" genetic codes, things that might make a person 's life harder, so we shouldn 't stop people from trying to provide someone with a "good" genetic code. Hughes doesn 't think we 're ready to make those sorts of changes yet; he says "it 'd be perfectly reasonable for the government to prohibit genetically modifying human embryos until it 's adequately tested and shown to be safe — still quite a high bar to pass. But he thinks that genetically enhanced humans in the form of designer babies are going to happen."
The researchers then combine the broken gene with a healthy gene. This new healthy gene is now modified and free from the mutation it had before. Although many individuals’ ethics and morals stand in the way of gene editing, this technology affects society in many different
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.
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.
Science has enabled us to thrive in a world where change is a must if an organism wishes to live. It has allowed for us to bend and twist the world at our feet, even having enough strength to repel the touch of death. Genetic engineering is the next scientific advancement that will stand close in the near future. It has the capability of modifying the food production process, elimination of diseases and disorders, and the guarantation of the best traits in an organism.
The argument is between whether or not the United States should or should not prohibit genetically engineered babies. In the prohibit genetically engineered babies debate video that were moderated by Jon Donovan, Sheldon Krimsky, and Robert Winston are for the motion while Nita Farahany and Lee Silver was against the motion. With all four of them being all more than credible enough to give this debate they all seem to agree on one thing, and that was just release something like the ability to genetically engineer babies could be a danger to the future of those children. The reason why it’s a danger is because there has been no extensive test run that would prove that engineering a gene would have side effects, or wear off in the future when the child got older.
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.
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.
