Human reproductive cloning, if successful, will allow infertile couples to have a genetically related child. Identical sex couples can also have a child without the use of donor sperm or donor eggs, although the men would require a surrogate to carry the clone until birth. All of these are restricted by current medical advancements. However, before we can create a
Are doctors unintentionally killing more lives just to save one life? According to the director of the pressure group Human Genetics Alert, David King, humans should not create a child to solve existing problems as it is incorrect (Williams, 2004). However, it is also unethical to leave an ill child to die when there are means to save the child. The fundamental issue here is to question which is more important, saving a current life or worrying about an unborn. Genetic engineering may also create social divide as only the rich are able to afford the expensive procedures.
There has always been a misconception of what it means to clone. The general idea is that cloning is making a precise copy of the cloned subject; however, that is misleading. Cloning organisms does not work completely like the copy machine making copies, but more like breeding animals where two desired breeds are being bred to produce a new offspring where it grows into something that is somewhat similar to the expected outcome. To further understand cloning, the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning must be recognized. As Susan Aldridge illustrates in her article “Human Cloning”, therapeutic cloning is the creation of an embryo which will later develop into tissues and cells for the purpose of research.
In this paragraph, I will touch on where the limitations of CRISPR should be drawn from both a scientific and also ethical view. Maybe this isn’t even achievable to control? Also, I have only mentioned how CRISPR can be used, but have yet to mention possible consequences and dangers. Modified humans could alter the genome of our entire species, because their engineered traits will be passed on to their children and could spread over generations slowly modifying the whole gene pool of humanity. This of course will start slowly and the first designer babies will not be overly “designed”, they will most likely be created to eliminate a deadly genetic disease running in their family.
Despite the vast number of benefits associated with transgenic animal technology, there are however some risks and ethical concerns surrounding the methodology. One of the concerns is human health and welfare. People are very hesitant to consume genetically altered food products because they fear that they will cause them harm due to the lack of testing on GM animals. But what about the welfare of the animals? Many transgenic animals, such as disease models have disease symptoms induced upon them that can lead to deformaties, suffering and a reduced lifespan.
In addition, it is a costly procedure so there is limited access to this treatment. Ethical issues: Offspring of germ line gene therapy have not provided their consent for the procedure. This process can also be used to enhance offspring i.e.. their genetic and physical features, leaving the patient with unfair advantages in certain situations. STEM CELL THERAPY Principles: Stem cells can be used to generate new cells that can develop into functional cells/tissues/organs and it is therefore introduced in the patients body for this purpose. Procedure: First the patient is exposed to radiation.
This is because I think that the ethical and moral issues outweigh the benefits. It is true that it allows people to have the opportunity to determine if their children are prone to getting a certain disease however, at the same time judging the life of someone who is not even born is unethical. If genetic screening is allowed, it will result in parents trying to make the ideal and perfect babies otherwise known as “designer babies.” Due to this, it will lead to decreased genetic diversity for example, Down syndrome and Autism. People with these kind of diseases tend to make the world more compassionate and humane. If we were to remove these diseases we will not be able to preserve diversity.
However, as time progresses animal testing has been put under criticism and some question the methods used. Isn’t animal testing however, made for the greater good? The main purpose for testing on animals is so that we can save and benefit millions of lives. Animal experimentation requires a look at the bigger picture. There are no other alternatives that are suitable or reliable enough to test drugs and products.
While the creation of synthetic drugs and genetically modified vegetables justify helping people with limited resources, the process of gene alteration for humans stands on a different level of intrusion. As Bruce and Bruce note, personal benefits always come first when people try to defend the importance of genetic engineering (146). However, this argument usually only concerns non-human species and does not include the issue of genetic modifications in people. In this case, the morality of interfering with a human body is much more complicated. The level of research in genetic engineering has not reached the point where it is entirely safe to use on humans with no adverse effects.
Hence, this kind of disagreement should be solved by condemning improper operations of cloning for an example, criticizing the act of scientists who are abusing their position to clone human without reasonable purposes and having ‘scientific research’ as their excuse. If these matters are taken stern enough, cloning technology would be a marvelous invention which brings better quality of life for