People in nowadays are still arguing about the technology of Genetic engineering, but is Genetic engineering really a good thing? Should we go for it or against it? In my opinion, I am against human genetic engineering and there are some following reasons, even it sometimes help people. What are the advantages of Genetic engineering? First, Genetic engineering ends disease, which is the most conductive thing that helps people, in many ways.
There are, of course numerous instances of mimicry in the natural world and Susan uses that to explain the phenomenon, arguing that the Judases have evolved this way of eluding their natural predator: mankind. However, this is also contrary with the theory of evolution of Charles Darwin because evolution actually took a billion years to develop even the apes took 40,000 generations to turns into human being. It is impossible and illogically to happen for Judas Breed to finally emerge as a species capable of challenging human being for dominance within just three years. There is also no reasons for the Judas Breed to develop into a mean creatures as we can see in the film except that the only theory that the reason is most likely due to the effect of the metabolic enzyme that is supposingly the main purpose is just to wiped out one species of roach but instead turns into another creepy
Vital inquiry to be talked about to comprehend the implications of human cloning is when human life starts? C. Ward Kischer, acclaimed American embryologists, wrote in a late article: Since 1973 when Roe versus Wade was won there were many socio-lawful issues identified with human developing life. Premature birth, treatment in vitro research on human incipient organisms, research on undifferentiated cells, cloning and genetic engineering are substantive issues of human embryology (Savulescu, 1999). The answer is clear embryology that life starts at treatment of the egg by a sperm (sexual multiplication) or if the SCNT cloning, implantation and actuation when the benefactor physical cell core into an egg beneficiary (abiogenetic reproduction). Although non-mammalian cloning was accomplished in 1952, mankind needed to hold up an additional 44 years until he was at last cloned the first warm blooded animal.
Advancement in genetic research has enabled setting up of laboratories in various countries for trials of human cloning from somatic cells. Some institutions argue that they have successfully cloned human embryos although such claims are not yet proven (Ayala 8879). Genetic engineering and technologies aim at recreating human beings a process that poses an ethical dilemma despite being of high application in various medical fields such as in animal cloning. The first clone on sheep named Dolly was in 1997, which was estimated to have a success rate of between one and four percent (Kuhse 19). However, in human beings, the percentage may lower and may interfere with the natural biological order of life.
Nonetheless, a considerable lot of the introductory endeavors were unsuccessful and brought about nothing. Halfway accomplishment in animal cloning was accomplished when frog embryonic cells were utilized to clone tadpoles, by the methodology of nuclear exchange. Be that as it may, the tadpoles couldn 't make due for long and kicked the bucket before developing into experienced frogs. By the by, the making of cloned tadpoles was a leap forward venture for cloning researchers. Further, clones of well evolved creatures were likewise made through the same methodology of nuclear exchange of embryonic cells.
The first successful application of IVF in humans took place almost a century later on July 25, 1978, when Louise Brown was born and entitled the world 's first “test-tube baby” (Lerner). 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.
However, humans have practiced selective breeding and create varieties of multi-cellular organisms by changing their morphology. Pomeranian for example; in the late 1800s Pomeranians average weight were 14 kilograms and are all white, but human selectively bred them and modern Pomeranians now only weight about 2.5 kilograms and come in varieties of colours . In nature, natural selection happens as well but unlike in selective selection it does not have an executioner who decides which characteristics are bred. In natural selection, the ones with characteristics that are favoured for survival get to live and pass on their genes, but the ones who do not, died out along with their characteristic because of their inability to compete. This could lead to extinction of that characteristic because it did not get passed on.
However, the views concerning genet-ically modified food are mixed. Many people, including scientists, are worried about creating genetically modified humans. They are worried about numerous things like genetic mistakes be-ing passed on to the next generation; the creation of designer babies who are more intelligent, more beautiful or more athletic; and the possibility of causing severe growth abnormalities or cancer. In my opinion, the advantages of genetically modified organisms versus the cons are overwhelming. Although some believe genetically modified foods have a negative impact on consumers’ health, others believe that there is minimal difference and that it does not mat-ter.
Stem Cell Therapy Research There are many pros and cons to stem cell therapy. If stem cell therapy can help patients who suffer from diseases that is no cure then why not use it? There have been cases that have helped patients with parkinson’s disease, autoimmune, alzheimers, heart attacks, etc.. Of course, like all other forms of medical treatments there are side effects: the cells not taking, sickness from the therapy, but the biggest is seen when embryonic stem cells are used. I personally see no issue in using adult or umbilical stem cells. There are families who have children with chronic illnesses who need their umbilical cords harvested so that later in life, the cells can help save them.
The nonfiction article “Cloning of a Human,” written by Charles Q. Choi represents the way cloning can be a possibility in the near future. Cloning experiments started when Dolly the sheep was cloned and born, making people want to test on different animals other than a sheep and maybe humans as well. This could agitate people because they would have no idea they can be cloned and many people cannot accept the fact that science wants to go as far as cloning. With many scientists wanting to clone, it has in some states been banned. No one knows what to expect in the future of science and the possibility of cloning humans.
Table of Contents Title Page Abstract Review of Literature Introduction Henrietta Lacks The Knot Doctor Jones and TeLinde Doctor Grey and Treatment Birth of HeLa Cells Henrietta’s Death A Cure for Polio Other Contributions Immoral Practices The Lacks Family E HeLa cells were discovered over sixty years ago. HeLa cells have become the foundation to many modern vaccines and have been used in scientific research since its discovery. If one were to step into a cell culture lab anywhere in the world and open its freezers, there would be millions of HeLa cells in small vials behind its doors. As much of a remarkable discovery as they may be, many fail to recognize their origin. HeLa cells were not a creation made by man in a lab, but a discovery found inside a woman.
The three R(s) fuel the fire of the argument that alternatives should be used in place of animal testing. Kelly Overton, a renowned activist, claims in her article Stop Animal Testing that animal testing is an obsolete practice by comparing it to old telegrams and eight track tapes. There are many others like her that believe animal testing should be replaced with newer methods such as stem cell research. However, the ethical debate of using animals for testing pales in comparison to the ethical debate of using stem cells; more studies need to be conducted before stem cells can be fully utilized but it does have great potential. According to PLOS Biology, a renowned peer reviewed scientific journal, it is possible for alternatives to be used as a complementary resource with the research of toxicology but more research and time is needed before they can completely replace animal testing in most cases.
3rd Quarter Outside Reading Project (ORP) My book was Double Helix by Nancy Werlin. The book is mainly about the negative side of biogenetics. The main character, Eli Samuels, acquires a job at Wyatt Transgenics which is a company that focuses on transgenics, such as inserting a human protein gene inside rabbits and milking them to obtain the protein. The protein can then be used to create treatments for arthritis or cancer. Dr. Quincy Wyatt is basically the “Albert Einstein” of science in the book and he personally gives Eli the job.
The Manhattan Project was also aided by help from the UK and Canada. The United Nations gave an abundance of contribution to get scientists from Germany to safety and help supervise the project. The project included a group of top scientists, under General Leslie R. Groves, who worked around the clock to try to develop an atomic bomb within three years. The Americans and the British combined their efforts to research the development of the bomb and created plants and factories to work in. Multiple plants were created for three separate processes: electromagnetic, gaseous diffusion, and thermal diffusion.
Second, they’re doing this thing called human cloning. Last, the scientists should respect embryos just like they are human beings. People today are still debating if the embryonic stem cells are the best fit for the unborn. Scientists have used embryos to test on for the use of trying to find cure to diseases. The treatment may not really work but they are still putting people through risks.