Rhetorical Analysis: Are We Asking Our Scientists To Play God

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.

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.

In his illustration “Genetic Engineering Cartoon” from the “Amazing But False!” series, artist Chris Madden emphasizes the perspective that both the anxieties about and the expectations toward the future of human genetic modification have reached a point of ridiculousness. Madden supports this perspective by utilizing social satire, hyperbole, and caricature. His purpose is to entertain audiences in order to prompt them to recognize the ridiculousness of certain aspects of the genetic engineering debate. Madden conveys his ideas in a sarcastic and humorous tone for an audience that is neither well informed about nor seriously interested in the debate over genetic modification.

Heather Douglas wrote her paper "The Dark Side of Science," which was published in The Scientist and reprinted in The Norton Field Guide to Writing with Readings, which emotionally postulates that scientists should share a degree of accountable for the intentions and outcomes of their scientific discoveries, regardless of whether those present intentions and future outcomes are good- or ill-willed. Heather uses the mercurial metaphor of a carelessly thrown match to ignite the understanding of her readers to the idea of scientific answerability. Ms. Douglas also suggests that a type of regulation be put in place to distribute the burden of responsibility, although she is careful to not overtly mention any type of governmental regulation. In the end, "The Dark Side of Science" is a suppositional argument which espouses that the responsibility of the misuse of science extends up and down the spectrum of ownership. However, Douglas' position leads to a spirit of fear and not hope, holds one accountable for the evil of others, stifles creativity, proposes unrealistic regulations, and postulates that a possible evil outweighs scientific good.

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.

As the penman predicted, the mankind is now in the process of putting on the analogous paradigm to the control of mother nature (Mazzoni). Literally speaking, people are now engineering nature. They try to create and produce new forms of life by making interventions on the microcosmic level. With genetic modification, people climb to a new, highest level of genetics. The cloning industry as well as genetic engineering are advancing so fast that it would only take a short time until people would feel the power and would misuse them on their own account (Schumacher).

Since human beings are born, people always try to find a general standard to judge our morality and behaviors. We call this standard as moral compass, people expect that a stable moral compass can become the rules of all human behaviors. In Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us”, he points out that people have a very contradictory mentality when they face relationship between human and animals becuause people have their own ideas and attitudes about different animals. That is why people do not have a stable moral compass when they face different animals. The same moral issues also exist when people deal with the influences about the new genetic technologies.

The deliberation of bioethics in human cell and stem cell research has flip-flopped altercations between whether stem cell research corrupts the future or if basic ethical uses in clinical research are being held to its standards. The idea of having genetically altered drugs and cells sits with people the wrong way, and with that they have come to the decision that cell research will cause more problems than it stopping them. However, while a majority of people and scientists believe genetic engineering is an evil corruption of nature’s course, genetic engineering has the greatest potential to do something great for our future, but it is our moralistic responsibility to follow the rules of bioethics. The author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta

The Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering also show that genetic engineering can lead to overpopulation and wars. First of all, in Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., everyone is the same and they have strict laws. In Harrison Bergeron, people are made to be the same by putting weights on strong people, making beautiful people wear ugly masks, and hindering smart people’s thoughts. In Jonas’ community, there is Sameness, which is making everything the

The Rise of Human Genetic Modification? There are many controversial issues throughout time that have risen and led countries to disagree to with one another worldwide. Eugenics and genetic engineering on humans is a topic that many believe crosses a major ethical boundary. Many scientists and ethicists believe that gene editing on human genes is unethical at certain degrees and it should not be done until the proper precautions have been overlooked and restrictions are made.

Farmers and ranchers have been manipulating genes for plants and animals well before gene sequencing and molecular techniques were practiced. The size of a grapefruit and coloring on cattle may be attributed to the former. With new knowledge about animal and plant genomes, scientists can now delicately screen, edit, and splice genes for varying reasons. This paper intends to explore some of the more common techniques in genetic engineering (prenatal screening, gene manipulation, and cloning) for humans and the ethical issues surrounding them. Genetic technique and screening has entered the medical scene in numerous countries.

Molecular genetics and human genome create new possibilities for thinking about the conduct of human beings as somatic individuals. Here genes act as the ‘ethical substance’ , that one works in relation to the self (reproduction, health, identity) and in relation to others(family, kinship). This actually put forward a new ethics formulated through biomedical subjectivity. In the Journal, Science, Technology, and Human Values, Brain Salter and Charlotte Salter identified bioethics as a ‘new epistemic power’ which is capable of setting agendas on the basis of an expert authority by governments to legitimize subsequent regulatory policy outputs.

The author of the work “Genetic Engineering” is Francis Fukuyama. The work details some of the advances that genetic engineering has made, along with the advances genetic engineering could make. Fukuyama in the writing “Genetic Engineering” states the advances genetic engineering has made, the several different methods of genetic engineering, the obstacles that obstruct the progress of genetic engineering, and considerations to make about genetic engineering. Finally, Fukuyama concludes with two major points about genetic engineering.

This essay will look more on the advantages and disadvantages of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering has some advantages. Firstly it allows for faster growth rate .Genetic engineering allows of plants or animals to be modified so their maturity can occur at a quicker pace outside of the normal growth conditions that are favourable without genetic changes as well .Secondly, it may also provide a cure for disease to improve health (apecsecadmin, 2014). Genetic engineering can be used to eradicate a number of incurable and deadly disease which could be done by identifying the genes that cause these disease, and manipulate them to prevent people from contracting these potentially deadly diseases.

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.