If you had an opportunity to prolong or even save your life, would you take it? For some, this might sound quite ludicrous as though a vivid scene from a fantasy. Whereas, it is just one possible example of how genetic engineering affects human development. Whether it is practiced to lengthen the lifespan of a living organism or make considerable improvements in agriculture, medicine or other fields, there are still lots of debates regarding its application in the real world landscape. Even so, prohibiting the successive evolution of genetic engineering is not a solution, and I do not agree that its further development should be banned.
In a similar world, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley individuals are not born from parents but from jars. These jars are tampered with to have control over the development of the embryo. In this world, close relationships to anyone is looked down on. In both Gattaca and Brave New World, both societies wanted to achieve a perfect world but Gattaca’s definition of perfection is to achieve a world of genetically superior brings whereas in Brave New World it is to have a stable civilization. What stands out in comparison of Gattaca and Brave New World is that to achieve stability in Brave New world is to have no close relations to anyone.
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.
He also wrote a third rule that stated the amount of Purines is equal to the amount of Pyrimidines Later in the 1950’s x-ray diffraction was being used try to find the shape of the DNA. X-ray diffraction is where the real x-ray goes through the DNA and crystalizes the DNA in whatever form that was there. A female scientist by the name of Rosalind Franklin discovered the shape of a double helix. While Rosalind Franklin was the first person to ever discover the shape of DNA she wouldn’t get the credit. After Rosalind Franklin lost her battle to ovarian cancer James Watson and Francis Crick waited a few years and used the information claiming it as their own discovery.
And yet, it is difficult to be completely biased and think we should stop animal testing once and for all. However, in this essay, I will try to balance the controversy by outlining why such practices should be cut down significantly, but still kept in a certain percentage. First of all, it is important to mention that many human lives have been saved thanks to cures that have been first tested on animals. It is impossible to neglect the fact that there is a vast number of treatments and cures available, that wouldn’t have come to light if there hadn’t been series of experiments conducted on animals. Despite sounding unethical or immoral, we have to acknowledge that millions of lives have been saved.
Many people believe that scientists should develop a clone human but government are against human cloning. Cloning has several of prejudice. For example, expanded danger of acquired infections comes from the way that all clones have the same qualities and in this manner may be helpless to a specific kind of sickness. This may result in one sickness wiping out a whole population. Another inconvenience is absence of quality variety.
This allows for variation in species and a better way to cope with changes and stresses in the environment In conclusion, Epigenetics is a double edged sword. It has both positive aspects that have helped the human population survive and grow but it has also has caused disease and unstable DNA. With this knowledge, Scientists are testing the possible of artificially modifying the epigenome through gene therapy. This can cure diseases such as cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer’s and creating a new human population that is able to adapt to various environmental
Mitochondrial DNA-Mitochondrial organelle is concerned with the making of cell energy. There can be almost between 100 and 1000 mitochondria within a cell and each one contains many copies of the mitochondrial genome. Mitochondrial DNA is a round molecule of DNA 16,569 base pairs in size and firstly referred as the Anderson sequence, acquired from the mitochondrion organelle from within the cells. 10. Y-chromosome-The Y chromosome is usually found in males only is a small chromosome and unlike other genes it can only be changed by the uncommon occurrence of mutation.
The generally population doesn’t know what the real meaning of genetically modified crops are and they are unaware of the effects it plays on our digestive system and our bodies as a whole. Aim: To investigate whether genetically modified food crops are effecting our health in a good or a bad way. Motivation: This project was a motivation to choose this research topic because it showed how fascinating Genetic Engineering is, by the way our knowledge and technology has grown so much over the years allowing us to modify the genetic code of genes to our specific liking. It was through that fascination that people wanted to learn more about Genetics and how they can be modified. A lot of experiments and projects have been done to food crop sources all over the world in the altering of their genes that made it a good topic to
People think that this will make the next generation perfect, this is not entirely true. If every single person in the world was perfect, technically no one would be perfect. No one would be perfect because everyone would be the same, which kills the strive for something even better, perfection. Also, scientists say that this can cure all diseases by removing a certain gene. Scientists actually could remove a gene which causes disease, but this could end up introducing a new, more powerful disease to the body.
Stemming from this controversy, debate regarding the moral obligation that individuals have to provide their cells for research has begun. The Lacks family would probably disagree with this argument, since their experience with a cell “abduction” has led to neglect, withholding of information, and a dehumanization resulting from lack of credit and recognition given to Henrietta Lacks. Despite all of the grievances and injustices, the Lacks cannot deny the scientific uses and progress enabled by the cells; one can only wonder what would have become of medical research if the HeLa line had not been
Over the years, there have been many controversial issues surrounding medical research, but one of the most arguable topics of all time is the use of embryonic stem cells. Some individuals believe that extracting stem cells from unborn babies will be useful to create new medications or, in most cases, help regenerate damaged cells. Although, many people disagree with the process scientists use to obtain these stem cells. By continuing embryonic stem cell research, scientists are denying an unborn child the chance to live, they are not letting nature take its intended course, and they are not adhering to the religious or moral beliefs of many people. For these reasons, embryonic stem cell research should be discouraged.
Topic Sentence/Main Claim: Many people think animal testing is bad because it is “unethical”. This is not a very good claim because animal testing helps us with so many things without harming humans. The government is also taking away all of the unnecessary animals in labs. Many people say that we would fund new medicines faster if we use humans for testing. If we did testing on humans we would find cures faster but we would be harming ourselves, when animals do a good job and don’t harm any humans.
Vaccines Luc Montagnier once said “It [is] clear that prevention will never be sufficient. That 's why we need a vaccine that will be safe.” Throughout history, scientists and health professionals have looked for ways to effectively combat a disease before it could infect an individual. Developing better health literacy and better overall cleanliness helped with sicknesses like the common cold. Things like sewers and plumbing helped prevent most major diseases. Even though better sanitation decreases the frequency of contracting diseases, there is only one way to almost be completely immune to an illness.
However, if the government were to regulate scientific advancements, the scientific world would not see much development, nor would everyday life be as efficient. In addition, science would be restricted to basic knowledge if it were not for advancements. A totalitarian government should not regulate scientific advancements because there are many negative effects that follow, such as the loss of true happiness and knowledge of the world, as told by Huxley. Government regulation of science negatively impacts knowledge of nature and its surroundings. Before the Scientific Revolution, people blindly followed the beliefs of the Church and never questioned whether or not these beliefs were true.