Genetic technologies offer great promise for the advancement of medicine and medical technologies. Genetic technologies offer the ability for medicine to be engineered specifically to the personal traits of the individual, as is seen in creating specialized chemotherapy treatments. Genetic technologies begin to enter a grey area when their use is considered for applications such as changing or determining the physical or psychological characteristics of individuals. Does this violate the natural order? Is altering the genetic makeup of an individual to prevent a serious disease acceptable? These are questions which must be considered, as the field of genetics is rapidly advancing, and these are possibilities which may be present in the near future.
While genetic technologies are sometimes viewed as a vessel for scientists to "play God," it's a reality that genetic technologies have the ability to save thousands of innocent lives each year, sometimes being the only possible form of therapy available. For example, if a pregnant woman discovers that her unborn child has a serious defect, gene therapy might be a possible treatment, enabling the child to lead a happy and healthy life, disability free. In cases such as these, this is the only way to prevent harm to not only the patient at hand, but possibly even future generations. As with every type of therapy, however, there are always cons to consider. Gene therapy always has the possibility of quickly becoming a cosmetic field. If a child has a serious disability, yes, gene therapy is necessary in order to save the child's life. Just using the therapy to "enhance" something about the child to please the parents? This is unethical and could be detrimental from the child in the long run, rather than benefit it. Regardless, gene therapy is becoming much more of a reality rather than a science fiction movie, and in the future, will be a possibility to those who are in need and, unfortunately, possibly only to those who can afford it, raising more ethical questions about its necessity in the medical field.
I agree with what both of you are saying. Genetic technologies holds a large amount of promise for the future of health. These advancements will allow many lives to be saved and even improve people's quality of life. Genetic technologies is still a relatively unknown concept, but it shows promises of improvement with therapies for cancer, diabetes, hepatits C, influenza, and much more. However, there is still a question of ethics when it comes to this topic. Freedom of choice is a value that every human should be entitled to out of respect for human life. the use of genetic technologies could potentially take away this human right. It is great to use this advancements to cure diseases, but when parents start to "engineer" their future child to be the exact way that they want it starts to cross ethical boundaries. This should remain a natural process that is not manipulated with. Not to mention, there are so many unknown factors related to these technologies that it is unclear how safe it truly is. This is a major risk that could seriously outweigh the benefits of genetic technologies. We need to ask ourselves if this is really good and necessary; which we might not know until genetic technologies becomes more advanced and understood.
Genetic technology is a slippery slope. It started with the discovery of DNA and genes, continued with the invention of prenatal techniques such as an ultrasound, and eventually led to the widespread use of in vitro fertilization as a reproductive technique. The genetic technologies just listed are not necessarily "bad" things; in fact, they have all proven to provide positive components and have truly aided in the progression of science.
However, it is not the invention/discovery itself, but rather the future discoveries that are the problem. I like to think about it this way: what did women do a century ago when they gave birth to a child with obvious birth defects that later led to retardation or other disabilities? There was no such way to know prior to birth that the baby had these defects until the invention of amniocentesis and CVS in the second half of the 20th century. Now, these inventions directly give way to selective abortion, which in a few decades, will probably lead to widespread human cloning and non-therapeutic genetic engineering.
My point here is this: as we deviate further and further from the "natural" production of children, we lose the value of reproduction, and thus, the value of life. What ever happened to the way things used to be?
Genetic engineering has become an increasingly important issue. It holds great potential for the future of the medical field. However, we must be very careful and take ethical considerations. Should we really be able to design a child based on characteristics that we value such as certain looks? That seems somewhat robotic to me. I can definitely understand where Liz is coming from. At what point do we stop? Will researchers ever put an end to science in certain areas because we are going too far? I am not sure that this is the case. If people are willing to pay to design their child, then researchers will find a way to make that possible with science. People for generations before us managed to survive and reproduce with what they had. The innovations are not always for the better. As Chelsea pointed out, using genetic engineering to prevent or help a child who has disabilities or a disorder is one thing, but using it for the enhancement of the child is quite another. We may lose individuality. Every parent who can afford it would most likely want characteristics in their child that would be quite similar. Creating an athletic, intelligent, and attractive person would be the norm. As science is getting closer and closer to developing options such as these, the issue is becoming much more pressing. It is easier to decide what is ethically acceptable now than to go back once the damage has already been done. Do we really want to take the chance and see what happens? We must determine what (if there are any) boundaries should be drawn. Of course, there is no way for everyone to agree, but what is best for the majority and for future generations must be considered.
How far can we go with genetic technology and specifically engineering? That seems to be everyone question, including mine. Yes it is wonderful to be able to fix disabilities and correct impairments, but how far is too far? Should parents be able to create their child? This is where the subject of genetic technology gets sticky. When something good comes about such as being able to genetically alter to fix disabilities it can be taken to far and is hard to stop. If the technology is out there and people want to use it can they be denied or can they create the “perfect” child. This would also go against evolution and natural selection. I am not at all saying that someone doesn’t have the right to live but is it the best option to fix all disabilities mental or physical. Species survive because of diversity and competition. If we wipe out diversity by alter genetics and making everyone the best will our species be able to survive?
I have to agree with Evan that genetic technology can do a lot of good however doctors have to be careful when it comes to blurring the lines between helping conditions to choosing how your child looks and so far as to how they act. The idea that it may be possible to help treat and or irradicate conditions is amazing however it can be taken advantage of. It does raise a lot of questions especially on how to regulate it because we can have situations where the parent can "choose" there child. Gina also brings up a good point that a lot of what makes us who we are and how we thrive is through diversity and if everyone is made to the best then how much diversity can we have.
Like most everyone else, I feel that genetic technology to prevent disabilities and other negative defects could be a very beneficial thing to do. However, like everyone else has said, how far is too far? I feel it is immoral to use genetic technologies to pick and choose what attributes and characteristics you want your child to have. I feel that it will be very difficult to regulate this so that it is only used to prevent defects and not use it for enhancing babies. I think that if we can't have defect prevention without enhancement, then we shouldn't have either. I feel that it's best to just let nature take it's course and not interrupt it. Genetic technologies could give humans to much power and give doctors the ability to "play God," and that could lead down a road we might not want to head down. After all, the coming generations are our future, and being able to change the coming generations is, in a way, controlling the future. Bad things happen and children are born with defects and disabilities. It's just what happens and I think we need to accept that, as heart breaking as it is.
Genetic Technologies are an interesting topic as the use of such technology can have good intentions and even good results but can also result in bad and disturbing worldwide issues. In the Science Museum, I read that people in genetic research are working on an anti aging drug that can reduce the appearance of some people by 20 years. While this seems like a great thing, the effects of this discovery could potentially be very negative. It's hard to draw the line sometimes as far as how much research should really be furthered genetically. Genetic technologies have the propensity to screw with the natural order of things and potentially make our world a less diverse and unique place to live. As stated before, the trouble with genetic research is where to draw the line.
I agree with the opinion that has been shared by several people, that it is important to know where the line should be drawn. Though the benefits of genetic technologies could be great, I feel that it is often taken too far. People have taken something that is supposed to prevent genetic disabilities and turned it into making their child a blonde haired, blue eyed beauty. We live in a society that is so used to having designer clothes and purses that we now must have designer babies too. It honestly disgusts me. I also agree with with Luke said previously. Babies are born all the time with disabilities. I feel that nature should run its course with these situations. That disability is part of who that child is. Some of the most genuine people I've met in my entire life are ones with disabilities such as Down Syndrome. Who are we to alter a life? It is not our place in my opinion, and a line needs to be drawn.
While it is important to draw the line on how far you take genetic engineering, I don't think we will ever reach a point where we truly lose our sense of individuality to genetic technology. If the technology ever exists to make people look any age they want or choose their facial features, I don't think this power would be given to the general public. The fear of losing our individuality should not put a damper on working toward future genetic technologies. I also think that if we have the ability to prevent a baby from having Down Syndrome or some other genetic defect, there is no reason we shouldn't do so. Many genetic conditions (such as Down Syndrome) put a person in a very dependent state, and people with these disabilities often cannon live on their own, because they do not have the mental or physical capacity to do so. These genetic defects also often cause these people pain, frustration, and overall dissatisfaction with life. People with genetic defects are often not accepted into society, and are made an outcast their entire lives. Who would want that for their kid? This does not mean I agree with selective abortion. If that is the only way to prevent a child from having a disability, then the parents should let the child be born with the disability. I'm talking about changing a child's genes, not killing an unborn baby because it has a disability.
This is another topic that tore my views in two separate directions. I believe that genetic technologies can be a great asset to medical research and can also be a detriment to our society at the same time. These technologies have helped us come a long way in medical advancements. Researching cancer and other fatal diseases is a great way to improve the quality and longevity of human life without violating the ethical codes that doctors sign. However, I do not believe that it is right to manipulate human beings for reasons that will not benefit their health. We should not clone human beings just for the sake of science.
This is a very, very controversial topic. I think it is simply amazing that genetic technologies can be used to create individual health benefits and medications and to provide a healthier life for individuals. However, I strongly disagree with the idea that we can clone humans using these technologies and that we can manipulate cells to create humans that we prefer. I believe that as amazing as this technology is, it can also be a huge downfall of our basic human nature. It's a touchy subject on how far science should penetrate our everyday lives and the future; as we innovate we must be careful on how we use what we discover.
Genetic technologies offer great promise for the advancement of medicine and medical technologies. Genetic technologies offer the ability for medicine to be engineered specifically to the personal traits of the individual, as is seen in creating specialized chemotherapy treatments. Genetic technologies begin to enter a grey area when their use is considered for applications such as changing or determining the physical or psychological characteristics of individuals. Does this violate the natural order? Is altering the genetic makeup of an individual to prevent a serious disease acceptable? These are questions which must be considered, as the field of genetics is rapidly advancing, and these are possibilities which may be present in the near future.
ReplyDeleteWhile genetic technologies are sometimes viewed as a vessel for scientists to "play God," it's a reality that genetic technologies have the ability to save thousands of innocent lives each year, sometimes being the only possible form of therapy available. For example, if a pregnant woman discovers that her unborn child has a serious defect, gene therapy might be a possible treatment, enabling the child to lead a happy and healthy life, disability free. In cases such as these, this is the only way to prevent harm to not only the patient at hand, but possibly even future generations. As with every type of therapy, however, there are always cons to consider. Gene therapy always has the possibility of quickly becoming a cosmetic field. If a child has a serious disability, yes, gene therapy is necessary in order to save the child's life. Just using the therapy to "enhance" something about the child to please the parents? This is unethical and could be detrimental from the child in the long run, rather than benefit it. Regardless, gene therapy is becoming much more of a reality rather than a science fiction movie, and in the future, will be a possibility to those who are in need and, unfortunately, possibly only to those who can afford it, raising more ethical questions about its necessity in the medical field.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what both of you are saying. Genetic technologies holds a large amount of promise for the future of health. These advancements will allow many lives to be saved and even improve people's quality of life. Genetic technologies is still a relatively unknown concept, but it shows promises of improvement with therapies for cancer, diabetes, hepatits C, influenza, and much more. However, there is still a question of ethics when it comes to this topic. Freedom of choice is a value that every human should be entitled to out of respect for human life. the use of genetic technologies could potentially take away this human right. It is great to use this advancements to cure diseases, but when parents start to "engineer" their future child to be the exact way that they want it starts to cross ethical boundaries. This should remain a natural process that is not manipulated with. Not to mention, there are so many unknown factors related to these technologies that it is unclear how safe it truly is. This is a major risk that could seriously outweigh the benefits of genetic technologies. We need to ask ourselves if this is really good and necessary; which we might not know until genetic technologies becomes more advanced and understood.
ReplyDeleteGenetic technology is a slippery slope. It started with the discovery of DNA and genes, continued with the invention of prenatal techniques such as an ultrasound, and eventually led to the widespread use of in vitro fertilization as a reproductive technique. The genetic technologies just listed are not necessarily "bad" things; in fact, they have all proven to provide positive components and have truly aided in the progression of science.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is not the invention/discovery itself, but rather the future discoveries that are the problem. I like to think about it this way: what did women do a century ago when they gave birth to a child with obvious birth defects that later led to retardation or other disabilities? There was no such way to know prior to birth that the baby had these defects until the invention of amniocentesis and CVS in the second half of the 20th century. Now, these inventions directly give way to selective abortion, which in a few decades, will probably lead to widespread human cloning and non-therapeutic genetic engineering.
My point here is this: as we deviate further and further from the "natural" production of children, we lose the value of reproduction, and thus, the value of life. What ever happened to the way things used to be?
Genetic engineering has become an increasingly important issue. It holds great potential for the future of the medical field. However, we must be very careful and take ethical considerations. Should we really be able to design a child based on characteristics that we value such as certain looks? That seems somewhat robotic to me. I can definitely understand where Liz is coming from. At what point do we stop? Will researchers ever put an end to science in certain areas because we are going too far? I am not sure that this is the case. If people are willing to pay to design their child, then researchers will find a way to make that possible with science. People for generations before us managed to survive and reproduce with what they had. The innovations are not always for the better.
ReplyDeleteAs Chelsea pointed out, using genetic engineering to prevent or help a child who has disabilities or a disorder is one thing, but using it for the enhancement of the child is quite another. We may lose individuality. Every parent who can afford it would most likely want characteristics in their child that would be quite similar. Creating an athletic, intelligent, and attractive person would be the norm. As science is getting closer and closer to developing options such as these, the issue is becoming much more pressing. It is easier to decide what is ethically acceptable now than to go back once the damage has already been done. Do we really want to take the chance and see what happens? We must determine what (if there are any) boundaries should be drawn. Of course, there is no way for everyone to agree, but what is best for the majority and for future generations must be considered.
How far can we go with genetic technology and specifically engineering? That seems to be everyone question, including mine. Yes it is wonderful to be able to fix disabilities and correct impairments, but how far is too far? Should parents be able to create their child? This is where the subject of genetic technology gets sticky. When something good comes about such as being able to genetically alter to fix disabilities it can be taken to far and is hard to stop. If the technology is out there and people want to use it can they be denied or can they create the “perfect” child. This would also go against evolution and natural selection. I am not at all saying that someone doesn’t have the right to live but is it the best option to fix all disabilities mental or physical. Species survive because of diversity and competition. If we wipe out diversity by alter genetics and making everyone the best will our species be able to survive?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Evan that genetic technology can do a lot of good however doctors have to be careful when it comes to blurring the lines between helping conditions to choosing how your child looks and so far as to how they act. The idea that it may be possible to help treat and or irradicate conditions is amazing however it can be taken advantage of. It does raise a lot of questions especially on how to regulate it because we can have situations where the parent can "choose" there child. Gina also brings up a good point that a lot of what makes us who we are and how we thrive is through diversity and if everyone is made to the best then how much diversity can we have.
ReplyDeleteLike most everyone else, I feel that genetic technology to prevent disabilities and other negative defects could be a very beneficial thing to do. However, like everyone else has said, how far is too far? I feel it is immoral to use genetic technologies to pick and choose what attributes and characteristics you want your child to have. I feel that it will be very difficult to regulate this so that it is only used to prevent defects and not use it for enhancing babies. I think that if we can't have defect prevention without enhancement, then we shouldn't have either. I feel that it's best to just let nature take it's course and not interrupt it. Genetic technologies could give humans to much power and give doctors the ability to "play God," and that could lead down a road we might not want to head down. After all, the coming generations are our future, and being able to change the coming generations is, in a way, controlling the future. Bad things happen and children are born with defects and disabilities. It's just what happens and I think we need to accept that, as heart breaking as it is.
ReplyDeleteGenetic Technologies are an interesting topic as the use of such technology can have good intentions and even good results but can also result in bad and disturbing worldwide issues. In the Science Museum, I read that people in genetic research are working on an anti aging drug that can reduce the appearance of some people by 20 years. While this seems like a great thing, the effects of this discovery could potentially be very negative. It's hard to draw the line sometimes as far as how much research should really be furthered genetically. Genetic technologies have the propensity to screw with the natural order of things and potentially make our world a less diverse and unique place to live. As stated before, the trouble with genetic research is where to draw the line.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the opinion that has been shared by several people, that it is important to know where the line should be drawn. Though the benefits of genetic technologies could be great, I feel that it is often taken too far. People have taken something that is supposed to prevent genetic disabilities and turned it into making their child a blonde haired, blue eyed beauty. We live in a society that is so used to having designer clothes and purses that we now must have designer babies too. It honestly disgusts me. I also agree with with Luke said previously. Babies are born all the time with disabilities. I feel that nature should run its course with these situations. That disability is part of who that child is. Some of the most genuine people I've met in my entire life are ones with disabilities such as Down Syndrome. Who are we to alter a life? It is not our place in my opinion, and a line needs to be drawn.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is important to draw the line on how far you take genetic engineering, I don't think we will ever reach a point where we truly lose our sense of individuality to genetic technology. If the technology ever exists to make people look any age they want or choose their facial features, I don't think this power would be given to the general public. The fear of losing our individuality should not put a damper on working toward future genetic technologies. I also think that if we have the ability to prevent a baby from having Down Syndrome or some other genetic defect, there is no reason we shouldn't do so. Many genetic conditions (such as Down Syndrome) put a person in a very dependent state, and people with these disabilities often cannon live on their own, because they do not have the mental or physical capacity to do so. These genetic defects also often cause these people pain, frustration, and overall dissatisfaction with life. People with genetic defects are often not accepted into society, and are made an outcast their entire lives. Who would want that for their kid? This does not mean I agree with selective abortion. If that is the only way to prevent a child from having a disability, then the parents should let the child be born with the disability. I'm talking about changing a child's genes, not killing an unborn baby because it has a disability.
ReplyDeleteThis is another topic that tore my views in two separate directions. I believe that genetic technologies can be a great asset to medical research and can also be a detriment to our society at the same time. These technologies have helped us come a long way in medical advancements. Researching cancer and other fatal diseases is a great way to improve the quality and longevity of human life without violating the ethical codes that doctors sign. However, I do not believe that it is right to manipulate human beings for reasons that will not benefit their health. We should not clone human beings just for the sake of science.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very, very controversial topic. I think it is simply amazing that genetic technologies can be used to create individual health benefits and medications and to provide a healthier life for individuals. However, I strongly disagree with the idea that we can clone humans using these technologies and that we can manipulate cells to create humans that we prefer. I believe that as amazing as this technology is, it can also be a huge downfall of our basic human nature. It's a touchy subject on how far science should penetrate our everyday lives and the future; as we innovate we must be careful on how we use what we discover.
ReplyDelete