genetic engineering and its dangers essay 350 words

Changing the world: Genetic Engineering Effects Essay

Technology being used in the world today has changed the world to suit us better. The changes relate on how well the people are comfortable in the world, and recount from basic needs of individuals to human aspirations such as knowledge. Changing the world does not take a basic step; it is a complicated and unpredictable process that deals with risks occurrences, unexpected costs and unexpected benefits. Technology has brought about genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering is the alteration of the genetic materials by scientific intervention in genetic process with a significance of gaining new substances or enhancing productivity in living organisms. It interferes with the genetic materials of an organism producing a different heritable materials induced outside the organism through the invasion of the DNA molecule in cells.

Genes used in genetic engineering have a high impact on health and disease, therefore the inclusion of the genetic process alters the genes that influence human behavior and traits. The establishment of genetic engineering has raised many ethical and legal questions, but its significance relies on how different individual perspire the act in their cultural, religion and ethical boundaries.

Scientist have been able to use genetic engineering as a way of creating plants, animals, and micro- organisms by manipulating genes in a way that does not occur naturally. The modified genetically organism spread though nature and interbreed with the natural organism interfering with the future generation.

Genetic engineering has its futurist obligation and its reliability on its concepts should be avoided. “For better or for worse, genetic engineering will affect the major environmental problems of our time- overpopulation, pollution, erosion and the rapid loss of biodiversity” (Anderson, 2000). We should be creative in the real world and let the world’s production be defined by nature.

Genetic engineering might cure diseases and enhance expansion of the genetic repertoire; it has enhanced food productivity and played a vital role in the agricultural sector. In genetic engineering, the DNA molecule is genetically altered through the process of gene splicing, where by the DNA strand is cut into half and joined with a strand from another species (Nuenke, 2001).

When the human DNA molecule is interfered with and joined to another strand a new DNA molecule is created and the normal genes interfered with through the convergence of the two DNA molecule strands. For example a whole chromosome may be lost or gained such as an extra copy of the small chromosome that causes Down syndrome, or part of a chromosome may ne inverted, but be fully intact.

“And they explain how dominant and recessive genes affect us and how they are transmitted from generation to generation” (Nuenke, 2001). This brings about a revolution of a new human being from its original content and transforming everything that is known in the human body.

Genetic engineering will have an effect on our world, not only on food production but will cause effects on humans and the society. From the cultural perspective, human beings are inviolable and live free according to their rights in the society.

The society accepts them the way they are and the type of life they live, therefore introducing genetic engineering in the human mode of living interferes with the basic concepts and their rights in the society: thus degrading the human subjects into objects that can be designed according to the human knowledge.

The society to accept such a change will have an effect on both the human beings and its environment which we can barely imagine. Introducing genetic engineering in the society means the interference of the parental whim and bringing an artificial generation that has different genetic material from the parental genetics.

Genetic engineering in the last few decades has tried to dominate and control nature and humans causing environmental crisis which the world faces today. Genetic engineering on plants and animal gives the power to dominate nature in an inventive and powerful way creating a lot of pressure on environmental movements. It controls nature intimidating human beings, like other species and making them objects of the manipulative control of genetic engineering.

If we cannot prevent this, then, to protect the environment will become a future burden. The environment is the main component of the relation between humans and the rest of nature. Such an environmental relationship may be soon being imposed upon us and children; hence it must take a lead in alerting the society on the dangers of genetic engineering (Anderson, 2000). Genetic engineering has the ability of transforming the children in the world from their natural assertive to being a commodity.

The application of the germline genetic engineering is believed to convert a child to a commercial product with a high degree of normality and meaning. People who will fall short of productivity will be considered as unproductive while the genetically desirable will be productive economically and politically. This would only increase discrimination in the society and the world by changing the way people live (Streiffer, 2005).

Genetic engineering has been identified with concepts such as cloning and HG E, which determines the child’s life course. The cloning system undermines the child senses and its achievement hence interfering with the genetic materials. The use of the cloning system in the society would be a disastrous concept (Streiffer, 2005).

Parents would likely make children adapt to social means with concern to physical ability, appearance and abilities, even though many of those social norms are inherently oppressive. For instance, disabled children have showed fear that the scientific technology would reduce society tolerance for those genetic losses. If genes pre-disposing people to homosexuality are discovered, it is certain that many people would attempt to engineer the genetic genes out of their offspring.

High rates of cancer and deaths will be experienced if genetic engineering is not avoided on human being. The presentation of the viral vectors that bring the alteration of the DNA molecule results to some complications such as tumors that at a later stage develop cancerous infections. When the transgenes are inverted into the genome they interfere the normal functioning of the genes and cause mutation. The introduction of genetic engineering does not predict its outcomes.

Curing diseases is one of its advantaged and certainly very few people will be against diseases such as Lesch-nyhan syndrome. Implantation genetics have been introduced in the world today to assist in the screening process of genetic diseases. This type of genetic engineering is applicable in phenotype enhancements, whereby genetic manipulation will differ on human heights or muscle mass enlargements or make people look thin.

The inventions of such genetic engineering will have an impact on people because many people will get involved in such ideas while other will neglect such ideas. Changing the inheritable genes of human will affect the structure of the society and create an economic significance through the inherited genes.

In the future generations, if genetic engineering is going to be used on human body then a total interference of the human body mechanism will be hindered. This will range from alteration of the DNA molecule which carries the genetic materials. The normal functioning of the DNA molecule will be altered by the technological introduction of genetic engineering to suit the human’s mode of life.

“A new species is characterized by the inability of its members to engage (under normal conditions) in a productive sexual union with organisms that are outside the species.” (Spier, 2002).

Scientists have come up with a way of changing the genes color, heights and body weight. Many people in the world have their own preferences according to the color, height and weight, therefore they preference having a generation that suits their preferences. Many people are in demand of having there DNA structure interfered with and undergoing a genetic engineering which alters the normal functioning of the DNA molecule (Streiffer, 2005).

Genetic engineering will transform the world completely. It has its capacity in changing the world in so many dimensions producing either positive or negative results. Concerns will be on the rise especially on our future generation especially on genetic engineering. Concerns will arise as a result of genetic engineering which will range from ethical issues to lack of enough knowledge on the effects of genetic engineering. Once the gene is altered and placed in species the process cannot be reversed again.

New introduced genes may also act differently with the natural genes and result to an effect on organism which is termed as unpredictable. After the use of genetic engineering in the world, the world will not be in the position to reverse the normal functioning of the genes, it is a process that will be continued over the next generations and to achieve the normal generation before the occurrence of genetic engineering will not be an easy process or it will not occur at all (Rabino, 2003).

In this case, scientists are ready to carry out the genetic engineering but they won’t be held responsible for the outcomes of genetic engineering. The society should be educated on the positive and negative effects of genetic engineering (Rabino, 2003).

Anderson, C. E. (2000). Genetic engineering: Dangers and opportunities. The Futurist; Mar/Apr 2000; 34, 2; ProQuest.

Nuenke, M. (2001). Improving Nature: The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Mankind Quarterly; spring 2001; 41, 3; ProQuest.

Rabino, I. (2003). Genetic Testing and Its Implications: Human Genetics Researchers Grapple with Ethical Issues. Empire State College, State University of New York Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Summer, 2003), pp. 365-402 Sage Publications, Inc.

Spier, R. E. (2002). Towards a new human species? Science; Jun 7, 2002; 296, 5574; ProQuest.

Streiffer, R. (2005). At the Edge of Humanity: Human Stem Cells, Chimeras, and Moral Status Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal; Dec 2005; 15, 4; ProQuest pg. 347

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, April 28). Changing the world: Genetic Engineering Effects. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetic-engineering-effects/

"Changing the world: Genetic Engineering Effects." IvyPanda , 28 Apr. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/genetic-engineering-effects/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Changing the world: Genetic Engineering Effects'. 28 April.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Changing the world: Genetic Engineering Effects." April 28, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetic-engineering-effects/.

1. IvyPanda . "Changing the world: Genetic Engineering Effects." April 28, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetic-engineering-effects/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Changing the world: Genetic Engineering Effects." April 28, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetic-engineering-effects/.

• Cloning and the Principles That Should Regulate It
• Animal Cloning Benefits and Controversies
• Animal Cloning and Engineering
• Environmental Studies: Green Technology
• Reduce Chemical Spills by Using Green Water Purification
• Industrialized Mining Operations in Florida
• Reducing Chemical Contamination on Water
• Effective Methods to Increase Water Quality

Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities

Introduction, genetic engineering pros and cons, works cited.

As of today, the practice of genetic engineering continues to remain highly controversial. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that there are a number of the clearly defined ethical undertones to the very idea of inducing ‘beneficial’ genetic mutations to a living organism.

After all, this idea presupposes the eventual possibility for people to realize themselves being the masters of their own biological destiny, in the evolutionary sense of this word.

Nevertheless, even though the practice in question indeed appears utterly debatable, the very objective laws of history/evolution leave only a few doubts that, as time goes on, more and more people will perceive it as being thoroughly appropriate. This paper will explore the validity of the above-stated at length.

In general, genetic engineering can be defined as: “An artificial modification of the genetic code of an organism. It changes the physical nature of the being in question radically, often in ways that would never occur in nature” (Cyriac 65).

Thus, it is most properly discussed as an umbrella term for the biotech practices that aim to alter the molecular basis of the DNA strand for a variety of different purposes, mostly concerned with allowing people to be able to enhance their lives.

As of now, we can identify three major directions, in which the ongoing progress in the field of the genetic engineering technologies (GET) has attained an exponential momentum: a) Deciphering the structure of the human genome, b) Transferring genes from the representatives of one species to another, c) Cloning. Even though GET became available since not long ago, these technologies proved thoroughly capable of benefiting humanity in a variety of different ways.

Among the most notable of them can be well mentioned:

a) Making possible the production of genetically modified foods. As Coker noted: “In the United States and elsewhere, more than 90% of soybeans, cotton, corn, and certain other crops are already genetically engineered” (24). The reason behind the growing popularity of this type of food is quite apparent – the application of getting increases the efficiency of agriculture rather drastically, which in turn contributes to solving the problem of ‘world’s hunger.’

b) Establishing the objective preconditions for the creation of drugs that could be used for treating diseases that are now being assumed incurable, such as AIDS and cancer. This, of course, presupposes that, as a result of GET being increasingly used by pharmacologists, the lifespan of an average individual should be substantially extended. The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated, in regards to the effects of such a widely used genetically modified drug as insulin, prescribed to those who suffer from diabetes.

c) Providing people with the opportunity to have their children (or pets) being ‘genetically tailored,’ in accordance with what happened to be the concerned individual’s personal wishes, in this respect. What it means is that, due to the rise of getting, the concept of eugenics became thoroughly sound once again: “Besides ensuring that our children are born without genetic defects, we will soon be able to give them genetic enhancements: they will become taller, stronger, smarter” (Anderson 23). Consequently, this will allow the biological betterment of human societies.

Nevertheless, even though there are many reasons to consider genetic engineering utterly beneficial to the well-being of humanity, some people cannot help deeming it utterly ‘wicked’ – this especially appears to be the case among religious citizens.

The reason for this is quite apparent – one’s ability to meddle with the structure of DNA, which in turn results in the emergence of the ‘tailored’ life-forms, implies that the individual in question is nothing short of God.

In the eyes of a religious individual, however, this idea appears clearly sacrilegious: “Humans must show respect for God’s dominion through attentive obedience to the immanent laws of creation” (Clague 140). There are also a number of secular (non-religious) objections to genetic engineering.

The most commonly heard one is concerned with the fact that the effects of the consumption of genetically modified foods on humans have not been thoroughly researched. This, of course, establishes a hypothetical possibility for those individuals who consume these foods to end up suffering from a number of yet unexplored side effects.

It is also often mentioned that, because GET provides married couples with the hypothetical possibility to conceive and to give birth to ‘ideal’ babies, it may eventually result in the emergence of the previously unheard forms of social discrimination against people, whose genome happened to be unmodified.

Moreover, there is a growing concern about the fact that being artificially created, the genetically altered forms of life may bring much disbalance to the surrounding natural environment, which is supposed to evolve in accordance with the Darwinian laws of natural selection.

Out of these objections, however, only the second one can be defined as being more or less plausible. After all, the availability of getting is indeed a comparatively recent phenomenon, which in turn implies that there may be some unforeseen aspects to it.

The rest of them, however, do not appear to hold much water – this especially happened to be the case with the religious one. The reason for this is that the process of just about any organism coming to life, which religion refers to as the ‘miracle of creation,’ biologists have long ago learned to perceive as nothing but the consequence of the essentially ‘blind’ flow of molecular reactions in the concerned DNA.

As Chapman pointed out: “What causes the differentiation in the genetic code? The mechanism for this – the genetic software, if you will – comes through the epigenetic markers that surround the genome” (170). In other words, the ‘miracle of creation’ is ultimately about the chain of self-inducing genetic mutations, which presupposes that there is nothing intelligent or consciously purposeful to it in the first place.

Genetic engineering, on the other hand, makes possible the thoroughly rational manipulation with the structure of DNA – hence, allowing biologists to not only remain in full control of the process of a particular genetic mutation taking place but also to define its course.

It is understood, of course, that the practice in question does undermine the epistemological integrity of the world’s monotheistic religions, but this state of affairs has been predetermined by the laws of history and not by the practice’s ‘wickedness.’

Apparently, the fact that many people continue to refer to genetic engineering with suspicion, reflected by their irrational fear of genetically modified foods, once again proves the validity of the specifically evolutionary paradigm of life.

The reason for this is that, as we are well aware of, throughout the course of history, the implementation of technological innovations always been met with much resistance. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that due to being ‘hairless apes’, people are naturally predisposed to cling to specifically those behavioral patterns, on their part, which proved ‘luck-inducing’ in the past.

Nevertheless, as time goes on, their ‘fear of the new’ grows progressively weakened – the direct consequence of people’s endowment with intellect. We can speculate that before deciding to become ‘stock herders,’ ‘hunter-gatherers’ used to experience a great deal of emotional discomfort, as well – yet, there was simply no way to avoid the mentioned transformation, on their part.

The reason for this is that it was dialectically predetermined. In the mentioned earlier article, Coker states: “Eventually, humans took more control of animals and plants through agriculture, and then civilization took off. Today, we can hardly imagine how harsh the pre-agricultural existence must have been” (27).

The same line of reasoning will apply when it comes to assessing what would be people’s attitudes towards genetic engineering in the future. In all probability, our descendants will look down on us in the same manner that we look down on the members of some primeval indigenous tribe, who were never able to evolve beyond the Stone Age. After all, in the future, leaving the formation of one’s genome up to a chance will be considered barbaric.

Nevertheless, it is not only the laws of historical progress that presuppose the full legitimation of genetic engineering but the evolutionary ones, as well – something the exposes the sheer erroneousness of the claim that the concerned practice is ‘unnatural.’

In this respect, one may well mention the most important principle of evolution – the likelihood for a particular quantitative process to attain a new qualitative subtlety, positively relates to how long it remained active.

This principle, of course, suggests that for as long as the representatives of a particular species continue to expand the boundaries of their environmental niche (as it happened to be the case with humans), they will be experiencing the so-called ‘evolutionary jumps.’

The emergence of getting suggests that we, as humans, are about to experience such a ‘jump’ – after having undergone the GET-induced transformation, we will instantly attain the status of ‘trans-humans’ (or ‘demi-gods’). As Bostrom pointed out: “Human nature is a work-in-progress…

Current humanity need not be the endpoint of evolution… (through) Technology and other rational means we shall eventually manage to become posthuman beings with vastly greater capacities than present human beings have” (493).

Thus, even though the practice of genetic engineering continues to spark controversies, it is highly unlikely that this will also be ceased in 10-20 years from now – those proven much too slow, taking full advantage of genetic engineering, will simply be no longer around to debate its usefulness.

The earlier provided line of argumentation, in defense of the idea that genetic engineering indeed represents the way of the future, appears fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. Thus, it will be fully appropriate to conclude this paper by reinstating that the sooner people grow thoroughly comfortable with getting, the better.

In this respect, it will prove rather helpful for them to become aware that the emergence of genetic engineering is yet another indication that humanity remains on the pass of progress, and there is indeed nothing ‘unnatural’ about the practice in question. This paper is expected to come as an asset within the context of just about anyone gaining such awareness.

Anderson, Clifton. “Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities.” The  Futurist 34.2 (2000): 20-22. Print.

Bostrom, Nick. “Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective.”  Journal of Value Inquiry 37.4 (2003): 493-506. Print.

Chapman, Davd. “Beyond Genetic Determinism.” Ethics & Medicine 29.3 (2013): 167-171. Print.

Clague, Julie. “Some Christian Responses to the Genetic Revolution.” Ethics &  Medicine 19.3 (2003): 135-142. Print.

Coker, Jeffrey. “Crossing the Species Boundary: Genetic Engineering as Conscious Evolution.” Futurist 46.1 (2012): 23-27. Print.

Cyriac, Kar. “Biotech Research: Moral Permissibility vs. Technical Feasibility.”  IIMB Management Review 16.2 (2004): 64-68. Print.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 3). Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities. https://studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/

"Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities." StudyCorgi , 3 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities'. 3 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities." January 3, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities." January 3, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities." January 3, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/genetic-engineering-dangers-and-opportunities/.

This paper, “Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: September 18, 2020 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering

Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel recently spoke at Stanford on the subject of his new book, The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. He focused on the “ethical problems of using biomedical technologies to determine and choose from the genetic material of human embryos,” an issue that has inspired much debate.

Having followed Sandel’s writings on genetic enhancement for several years, I think that this issue deserves special thought. For many years, the specter of human genetic engineering has haunted conservatives and liberals alike. Generally, their main criticisms run thus:

First, genetic engineering limits children’s autonomy to shape their own destinies. Writer Dinesh D’Souza articulates this position in a 2001 National Review Online article: “If parents are able to remake a child’s genetic makeup, they are in a sense writing the genetic instructions that shape his entire life. If my parents give me blue eyes instead of brown eyes, if they make me tall instead of medium height, if they choose a passive over an aggressive personality, their choices will have a direct, lifelong effect on me.” In other words, genetic enhancement is immoral because it artificially molds people’s lives, often pointing their destinies in directions that they themselves would not freely choose. Therefore, it represents a fundamental violation of their rights as human beings.

Second, some fear that genetic engineering will lead to eugenics. In a 2006 column, writer Charles Colson laments: “British medical researchers recently announced plans to use cutting-edge science to eliminate a condition my family is familiar with: autism. Actually, they are not ‘curing’ autism or even making life better for autistic people. Their plan is to eliminate autism by eliminating autistic people. There is no in utero test for autism as there is for Down syndrome…[Prenatal] testing, combined with abortion-on-demand, has made people with Down syndrome an endangered population…This utilitarian view of life inevitably leads us exactly where the Nazis were creating a master race. Can’t we see it?” The logic behind this argument is that human genetic enhancement perpetuates discrimination against the disabled and the “genetically unfit,” and that this sort of discrimination is similar to the sort that inspired the eugenics of the Third Reich.

A third argument is that genetic engineering will lead to vast social inequalities. This idea is expressed in the 1997 cult film Gattaca, which portrays a society where the rich enjoy genetic enhancements—perfect eyesight, improved height, higher intelligence—that the poor cannot afford. Therefore, the main character Vincent, a man from a poor background who aspires to be an astronaut, finds it difficult to achieve his goal because he is short-sighted and has a “weak heart.” This discrepancy is exacerbated by the fact that his brother, who is genetically-engineered, enjoys perfect health and is better able to achieve his dreams. To many, Gattaca is a dystopia where vast gaps between the haves and have-nots will become intolerable, due to the existence of not just material, but also genetic inequalities.

The critics are right that a world with genetic engineering will contain inequalities. On the other hand, it is arguable that a world without genetic engineering, like this one, is even more unequal. In Gattaca, a genetically “fit” majority of people can aspire to be astronauts, but an unfortunate “unfit” minority cannot. In the real world, the situation is the other way round: the majority of people don’t have the genes to become astronauts, and only a small minority with perfect eyesight and perfect physical fitness—the Neil Armstrong types—would qualify.

The only difference is that in the real world, we try to be polite about the unpleasant realities of life by insisting that the Average Joe has, at least theoretically, a Rocky-esque chance of becoming an astronaut. In that sense, our covert discrimination is much more polite than the overt discrimination of the Gattaca variety. But it seems that our world, where genetic privilege exists naturally among a tiny minority, could conceivably be less equal (and less socially mobile) than a world with genetic engineering, where genetic enhancements would be potentially available to the majority of people, giving them a chance to create better futures for themselves. Supporters of human genetic engineering thus ask the fair question: Are natural genetic inequalities, doled out randomly and sometimes unfairly by nature, more just than engineered ones, which might be earned through good old fashioned American values like hard work, determination, and effort?

“But,” the critics ask, “wouldn’t genetic engineering lead us to eugenics?” The pro-genetic engineering crowd thinks not. They suggest that genetic engineering, if done on a purely decentralized basis by free individuals and couples, will not involve any form of coercion. Unlike the Nazi eugenics program of the 1930s, which involved the forced, widespread killing of “unfit” peoples and disabled babies, the de facto effect of genetic engineering is to cure disabilities, not kill the disabled. This is a key moral difference. As pointed out by biologist Robert Sinsheimer, genetic engineering would “permit in principle the conversion of all the ‘unfit’ to the highest genetic level.” Too often, women choose to abort babies because pre-natal testing shows that they have Down syndrome or some other ailment. If anything, genetic engineering should be welcomed by pro-life groups because by converting otherwise-disabled babies into normal, healthy ones, it would reduce the number of abortions.

In addition, the world of Gattaca, for all its faults, features a world that, far from being defined along Hitler-esque racial lines, has in fact transcended racism. Being blond-haired and blue-eyed loses its racially elitist undertones because such traits are easily available on the genetic supermarket. Hair color, skin color, and eye color become a subjective matter of choice, no more significant than the color of one’s clothes. If anything, genetic engineering will probably encourage, not discourage, racial harmony and diversity.

It is true that genetic engineering may limit children’s autonomy to shape their own destinies. But it is equally true that all people’s destinies are already limited by their natural genetic makeup, a makeup that they are born with and cannot change. A short person, for example, would be unlikely to join the basketball team because his height makes it difficult for him to compete with his tall peers. An ugly person would be unable to achieve her dream of becoming a famous actress because the lead roles are reserved for the beautiful. A myopic kid who wears glasses will find it difficult to become a pilot. A student with an IQ of 75 will be unlikely to get into Harvard however hard he tries. In some way or another, our destinies are limited by the genes we are born with.

In this sense, it is arguable that genetic engineering might help to level the playing field. Genetic engineering could give people greater innate capacity to fulfill their dreams and pursue their own happiness. Rather than allow peoples’ choices to be limited by their genetic makeup, why not give each person the capability of becoming whatever he or she wants to, and let his or her eventual success be determined by effort, willpower, and perseverance? America has long represented the idea that people can shape their own destinies. To paraphrase Dr. King, why not have a society where people are judged not by the genes they inherit, but by the content of their character?

Looking at both sides, the genetic engineering controversy does raise questions that should be answered, not shouted down. Like all major scientific advances, it probably has some negative effects, and steps must be taken to ameliorate these outcomes. For example, measures should also be taken to ensure that genetic engineering’s benefits are, at least to some extent, available to the poor. As ethicists Maxwell Mehlman and Jeffrey Botkin suggest in their book Access to the Genome: The Challenge to Equality, the rich could be taxed on genetic enhancements, and the revenue from these taxes could be used to help pay for the genetic enhancement of the poor. To some extent, this will help to ameliorate the unequal effects of genetic engineering, allowing its benefits to be more equitably distributed. In addition, caution must be taken in other areas, such as ensuring that the sanctity of human life is respected at all times. In this respect, pro-life groups like Focus on the Family can take a leading role in ensuring that scientific advances do not come at the expense of moral ethics.

At the same time, we should not allow our fear of change to prevent our society from exploring this promising new field of science, one that promises so many medical and social benefits. A strategy that defines itself against the core idea of scientific progress cannot succeed. Instead of attempting to bury our heads in the sand, we should seek to harness genetic engineering for its positive benefits, even as we take careful steps to ameliorate its potential downsides.

•     General Information
•     Ethical and Religious Questions
•     Technical Information

"What is Genetic Engineering?" by Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher

"The Rest Of The Story Behind Genetic Engineering: An Interview with Brian Tokar" by Mark Oshinskie

"The Biotech Century - A Second Opinion : The Marriage of the Genetic Sciences and the Technologies Reshaping Our World" by Jeremy Rifkin

"PR for the 'Book of Life'" by Jackie Stevens

"Unraveling the DNA Myth: The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering" by Barry Commoner

"Rebellious Bodies Dim the Glow of `Natural' Biotech Drugs" by Andrew Pollack

"Klebsiella planticola--The Gene-Altered Monster That Almost Got Away" by Elaine Ingham

"Biohazards: The Next Generation?" by Brian Tokar

"Biotech at 25--Too Soon to Celebrate"

"Scientists Are Starting to Add Letters to Life's Alphabet" by Andrew Pollack

"Scientists Admit Frankencrops Pollution is Inevitable" by Brian Tokar

"Genetically-Modified Superweeds 'Not Uncommon'" by James Randerson

"Pharm Crops - A Food Accident Waiting to Happen"

"GM Potatoes Deter One Pest But Attract Another"

"Sterile Harvest: New Crop of Terminator Patents Threatens Food Sovereignty"

"Biotechnology in Crops: Issues for the Developing World" compiled by Laura Spinney

" GM Crop DNA Found in Human Gut Bugs" by Andy Coghlin

"Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?" By Arpad Pusztai, Ph.D.

"50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods" by Nathan Batalion

"Biotech--The Basics" by Rachel Massey

"GM corn set to stop man spreading his seed" by Robin McKie

"GM Trials to Find Medicine Raise New Ethical Fears; Human Gene Crop Fury" by John Ingham and Toby Moore

"NASA's Earth plants could invade Mars" by David Perlman

USDA Says Yes to Terminator

GENETIC ENGINEERING AND BIOWARFARE

"The Demon in the Freezer" by Richard Preston

"Ebola Virus Could Be Synthesised" by Sylvia Pag�n Westphal

"Scientists Create a Live Polio Virus" by Andrew Pollack

"Bioterror And Biosafety" by Vandana Shiva

"US Non-lethal Weapon Reports Suppressed" by Debora MacKenzie

"Single Gene Leap Led to Flea-Borne Transmission of Plague Bacterium" by Laurie K. Doepel

"A Terrifying Power" by Philip Cohen

"With Biotechnology, a Potential to Harm" by Andrew Pollack

"Scientists Fear Miracle of Biotech Could Also Breed a Monster "

Project Censored: Human Genome Project Opens the Door to Ethnically Specific Bioweapons

"U.S. Germ Warfare Research Pushes Treaty Limits" by Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg and William J. Broad

"Battlefield uses of biotech proposed in report to Army" by Carl T. Hall

GENETICALLY ENGINEERING HUMAN BEINGS

"Engineering Humans" by Rachel Massey

"The New Eugenics: The Case Against Genetically Modified Humans" by Marcy Darnovsky

"Scientists Raise Spectre of Gene-Modified Athletes" by James Randerson

"The Threshold Challenge of the New Human Genetic Technologies"

"Governing the Genome" by Ralph Brave

"The Human Genome Map: The Death of Genetic Determinism and Beyond" by Mae-Wan Ho

Boy's DNA implanted in rabbit eggs" By Roger Highfield

• Animal Profiles
• Amazing Places
• Conservation
• Endangered & Threatened Species
• Global Warming & Climate Change
• Food & Nutrition
• Home & Garden

• Earth Matters

Exploring the Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is the process of altering the genetic composition of plants, animals, and humans. The most practical application of genetic engineering is to create a more sustainable food system for the people of Earth, but there are other ways we can use it to our advantage as well.

Unfortunately, there are both pros and cons of genetic engineering. For every benefit, there is a list of concerns and potential problems we need to consider. There is a substantive argument on both sides of genetic engineering, and we’ll explore both ahead.

Positives of Genetic Engineering

Most people tend to focus on the negatives of genetic engineering, but there are some substantial positive we need to consider as well. Genetic engineering is a debate, and there are some good points on each side. You have to look at both the pros and cons of genetic engineering if you want to make an informed decision on the matter.

Extending Our Lives

Evolution takes thousands of years to adapt to our surroundings , but genetic engineering offers a quicker path forward. With the assistance of genetic engineering, we could force our bodies to adapt to the changing climate of our planet.

Additionally, we could tack-on some extra years to our lives by altering our cells, so our bodies don’t deteriorate as quickly as they currently do. The fountain of youth might be within our reach, and many look forward to advancements in the area of genetic engineering.

If we choose to go down this path, we’ll feel better as we age and be able to outlast some of the diseases that currently take us down. We still won’t be able to live forever, but genetic engineering shows promise in extending the prime of our lives.

Create New and Better Food

Food shortage is a massive problem in the world, especially with the growing population. We’re destroying natural habitats to make way for farmland, and overgrazing is causing current pastures to become dry and uninhabited.

The answer to this problem could come in the form of genetic engineering. If we can alter the composition of vegetables and animals, we can create new foods that might have more nutritional value than nature creates on its own.

We might even be able to advance to a point where foods give us medicines we need to combat widespread viruses and illnesses. Food is one of the most promising spaces when considering the prospect of genetic engineering.

Killing Hereditary Diseases

A lot of diseases depend on genetic predisposition. Some people are more likely to get cancer, Alzheimer’s and other diseases than their neighbor. With genetic engineering, we can get rid of these genetic predispositions once and for all.

There will likely still be some environmental concerns that will cause diseases, but if we start altering the genes of humans, we may become resistant to genetic abnormalities. Family history won’t mean anything when it comes to things like cancer, and we can start eliminating diseases that are completely based on genetics.

Making Every Child Healthy

There are already a handful of diseases and illnesses we can detect while a baby is still in the womb. We even can genetically engineer some diseases and illnesses out of a baby’s system before they’re born.

Finding out your baby has a disease can be devastating, and some parents make the difficult choice to spare their child possible pain. If you know that your baby might suffer and die a few months after they’re born, you have to decide whether or not you want to roll the dice.

In the future, we might be able to eliminate the chances of unhealthy babies. Diseases like Huntington’s offer a substantial chance that the carrier will pass it onto their child. If the child isn’t positive for the disease, they’ll still be a carrier and have to deal with the same dilemma when it comes time to have kids of their own.

Genetic engineering has the potential to stop these threats in their tracks. Parents won’t have to worry about birthing a healthy son or daughter. Science will guarantee that every baby is happy and healthy when they come into this world.

Negatives of Genetic Engineering

Of course, genetic engineering isn’t entirely positive. There is an upside to the ability to genetically alter humans and animals , but only in ideal situations.

Our world isn’t perfect, and scientists make mistakes all the time. We can’t assume that genetic engineering will be available to the entirety of the human population, which is a flaw in itself.

The negatives of genetic engineering seem to outweigh the positives, especially since there is so much room for error. We don’t know what we’re tampering with, which opens the door to a host of potential problems.

The Ethical Dilemma

There are a couple of ethical problems with genetic engineering that we need to consider as a society. Those who subscribe to religion will see genetic engineering as blasphemy, for instance. We’d be “playing God,” in a sense. Anyone who believes in creation will be expressly against genetic engineering – especially in human children.

Those who are on the opposite side of the spectrum from religious people probably won’t love genetic engineering either. Genetically engineered food might work, but changing the genes of people will add to the overpopulation problem we’re currently experiencing.

Diseases are one of the most effective forms of population control . We don’t have the heart to eliminate other humans in the name of population control, so disease does it for us. If we eliminate diseases, humans will have virtually no threat left on this planet.

Living longer lives might be ideal, but it isn’t practical. If we extend the prime of our lives, we’re opening the door to having more children. Since all children would be in perfect health, we’ll see a population increase that could have devastating consequences.

Limiting Diversity

If genetic engineering becomes a reality, it will likely only be available to the richest members of society. They’ll be able to extend their lives, limit diseases, and make sure their children are always healthy when they’re born

When this happens, natural selection is completely obsolete. Instead, the wealthiest in society will thrive while the poor will die-out. Eventually, genetic diversity will completely disappear as genetically engineered children all express the most desirable characteristics

This problem also arises in nature if we decide to engineer plants and animals genetically. These organisms might start as food, but could introduce themselves to the wild and take over. They’ll decimate natural species, and eventually be the only thing left.

The Possibility of Mistakes

One of the biggest hurdles in genetic engineering is the possibility of errors or genetic defects, especially in humans. Scientists have a general understanding of what creates a functioning human, but they don’t yet have all the pieces to the puzzle.

When it comes down to changing humans at a cellular level , scientists don’t yet have the understanding of how small changes can affect the development of a growing baby. Changing genes could result in more damaging birth defects or even miscarriages.

Furthermore, tampering with diseases could end up creating a super-disease that is even harder to combat. There are too many variables in the human body for genetic engineering to work to the fullest potential. Even if it could, people will probably be too nervous to trust scientists tampering with the cells of their future children.

The Logical Extreme

Science still isn’t at a point where they can alter the genes of humans to prevent all diseases in unborn children, but it might be there soon. When that time comes, some might take genetic engineering to its logical extreme.

Our priority will be to create healthy children. Once we perfect this process, though, where to, we go? The next logical step is the ability to pick certain traits that our children will have. We might be able to select whether we have a boy or girl. Then, we can decide what eye color and hair color they have.

Pretty soon, we’re selecting every trait that our child has before they leave the womb. Nature will be virtually out of the question at this point, and people with enough money will design their babies from scratch.

Is Genetic Engineering Good or Bad?

Since the pros and cons of genetic engineering are compelling, it’s worth it to explore the possibility further. We still haven’t reached a place where scientists fully understand the opportunities genetic engineering presents, so they still have years of research on their hands.

In the end, though, no system of genetically altering humans, animals, or plants will be perfect. There is a massive potential for errors, and we likely won’t have equal opportunities if and when scientists ever crack the case.

Although the positives of genetic engineering are convincing, the negatives can be terrifying. If we ever get to the point where we can genetically alter humans, we need to consider the moral, ethical, and practical application of technology before going any further.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

How Can Resource Conservation Benefit the Environment? 18 Helpful Components of Practice

10 Animals That Hibernate

What Is Point Source Pollution: Identifying the Culprit

Leave a reply cancel reply.

• How You Can Help
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy

• Research Paper
• Book Report
• Book Review
• Movie Review
• Dissertation
• Thesis Proposal
• Research Proposal
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation Introduction
• Dissertation Review
• Dissertat. Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• Admission Essay
• Scholarship Essay
• Personal Statement
• Proofreading
• Speech Presentation
• Math Problem
• Article Critique
• Annotated Bibliography
• Reaction Paper
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Statistics Project
• Multiple Choice Questions
• Resume Writing
• Other (Not Listed)

Genetic Engineering and Its Dangers (Research Paper Sample)

Genetic engineering and the paper discusses the disadvantages of genetic engineering

Genetic Engineering and Its Dangers Student Name Institution affiliation Course name and code Instructor’s name Due date Genetic engineering is a scientific method of altering the nature and structure of an organism’s gene using the method of cell transformation. When an organism’s genes are altered it affects its characteristics (Angerson, 2000). Genetic engineering results in desirable effects and can sometimes result in undesirable effects. It has been a debate for a while now about whether genetic engineering should be used or not. Religions view genetic engineering as competition with God and do not allow it’s used for whatsoever reason (Epstein, 2001). The ethical views behind the use of genetic engineering could result in and for seen problems. Dangers that could result from the use of genetic engineering are discussed below. Genetic engineering is associated with genetic anomalies. Genetic change of an organism could result in unknown abnormities that 

Other Topics:

• Importance of Coral Reefs Description: Corals are invertebrate animals that belong to a group known as Cnidaria. They are found in tropical ocean water; for instance, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia ̶ it is 1500 miles long. Some corals are hermatypic, or "hard" corals that extract calcium carbonate from the seawater. ... 1 page/≈275 words | 2 Sources | APA | Biological & Biomedical Sciences | Research Paper |
• Mechanism: The Process of Evolution Description: The population evolves while individual species do not evolve. A population refers to a total number of an organism of the same species that can interbreed. The population evolves since they have a collection of genes known as gene pools. As changes in the gene pool occur, the population will evolve.... 2 pages/≈550 words | 3 Sources | APA | Biological & Biomedical Sciences | Research Paper |
• HIV Epidemiology: Causes, Symptoms, Transmission, and Treatment Description: Since the discovery of HIV in the 1980s, it has continued to be one of the most significant public health problems in many countries. Over the decades, over 1 million victims in the US alone have been infected, while an estimated 14 percent remain unaware of their status (Young et al.,2017). ... 4 pages/≈1100 words | 6 Sources | APA | Biological & Biomedical Sciences | Research Paper |
• Exchange your samples for free Unlocks.
• 24/7 Support

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

14.4: Genetic Engineering - Risks, Benefits, and Perceptions

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 77491

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

• Summarize the mechanisms, risks, and potential benefits of gene therapy
• Identify ethical issues involving gene therapy and the regulatory agencies that provide oversight for clinical trials
• Compare somatic-cell and germ-line gene therapy

Many types of genetic engineering have yielded clear benefits with few apparent risks. Few would question, for example, the value of our now abundant supply of human insulin produced by genetically engineered bacteria. However, many emerging applications of genetic engineering are much more controversial, often because their potential benefits are pitted against significant risks, real or perceived. This is certainly the case for gene therapy, a clinical application of genetic engineering that may one day provide a cure for many diseases but is still largely an experimental approach to treatment.

Mechanisms and Risks of Gene Therapy

Human diseases that result from genetic mutations are often difficult to treat with drugs or other traditional forms of therapy because the signs and symptoms of disease result from abnormalities in a patient’s genome. For example, a patient may have a genetic mutation that prevents the expression of a specific protein required for the normal function of a particular cell type. This is the case in patients with Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID), a genetic disease that impairs the function of certain white blood cells essential to the immune system.

Gene therapy attempts to correct genetic abnormalities by introducing a nonmutated, functional gene into the patient’s genome. The nonmutated gene encodes a functional protein that the patient would otherwise be unable to produce. Viral vectors such as adenovirus are sometimes used to introduce the functional gene; part of the viral genome is removed and replaced with the desired gene (Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)). More advanced forms of gene therapy attempt to correct the mutation at the original site in the genome, such as is the case with treatment of SCID.

So far, gene therapies have proven relatively ineffective, with the possible exceptions of treatments for cystic fibrosisand adenosine deaminase deficiency, a type of SCID. Other trials have shown the clear hazards of attempting genetic manipulation in complex multicellular organisms like humans. In some patients, the use of an adenovirus vector can trigger an unanticipated inflammatory response from the immune system, which may lead to organ failure. Moreover, because viruses can often target multiple cell types, the virus vector may infect cells not targeted for the therapy, damaging these other cells and possibly leading to illnesses such as cancer. Another potential risk is that the modified virus could revert to being infectious and cause disease in the patient. Lastly, there is a risk that the inserted gene could unintentionally inactivate another important gene in the patient’s genome, disrupting normal cell cycling and possibly leading to tumor formation and cancer. Because gene therapy involves so many risks, candidates for gene therapy need to be fully informed of these risks before providing informed consent to undergo the therapy.

Gene Therapy Gone Wrong

The risks of gene therapy were realized in the 1999 case of Jesse Gelsinger, an 18-year-old patient who received gene therapy as part of a clinical trial at the University of Pennsylvania. Jesse received gene therapy for a condition called ornithine transcarbamylase (OTC) deficiency, which leads to ammonia accumulation in the blood due to deficient ammonia processing. Four days after the treatment, Jesse died after a massive immune response to the adenovirus vector. 1

Until that point, researchers had not really considered an immune response to the vector to be a legitimate risk, but on investigation, it appears that the researchers had some evidence suggesting that this was a possible outcome. Prior to Jesse’s treatment, several other human patients had suffered side effects of the treatment, and three monkeys used in a trial had died as a result of inflammation and clotting disorders. Despite this information, it appears that neither Jesse nor his family were made aware of these outcomes when they consented to the therapy. Jesse’s death was the first patient death due to a gene therapy treatment and resulted in the immediate halting of the clinical trial in which he was involved, the subsequent halting of all other gene therapy trials at the University of Pennsylvania, and the investigation of all other gene therapy trials in the United States. As a result, the regulation and oversight of gene therapy overall was reexamined, resulting in new regulatory protocols that are still in place today.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

• Explain how gene therapy works in theory.
• Identify some risks of gene therapy.

Oversight of Gene Therapy

Presently, there is significant oversight of gene therapy clinical trials. At the federal level, three agencies regulate gene therapy in parallel: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP), and the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Along with several local agencies, these federal agencies interact with the institutional review board to ensure that protocols are in place to protect patient safety during clinical trials. Compliance with these protocols is enforced mostly on the local level in cooperation with the federal agencies. Gene therapies are currently under the most extensive federal and local review compared to other types of therapies, which are more typically only under the review of the FDA. Some researchers believe that these extensive regulations actually inhibit progress in gene therapy research. In 2013, the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) called upon the NIH to relax its review of gene therapy trials in most cases. 2 However, ensuring patient safety continues to be of utmost concern.

Ethical Concerns

Beyond the health risks of gene therapy, the ability to genetically modify humans poses a number of ethical issues related to the limits of such “therapy.” While current research is focused on gene therapy for genetic diseases, scientists might one day apply these methods to manipulate other genetic traits not perceived as desirable. This raises questions such as:

Exercise \(\PageIndex{2}\)

• Which genetic traits are worthy of being “corrected”?
• Should gene therapy be used for cosmetic reasons or to enhance human abilities?
• Should genetic manipulation be used to impart desirable traits to the unborn?
• Is everyone entitled to gene therapy, or could the cost of gene therapy create new forms of social inequality?
• Who should be responsible for regulating and policing inappropriate use of gene therapies?

The ability to alter reproductive cells using gene therapy could also generate new ethical dilemmas. To date, the various types of gene therapies have been targeted to somatic cells, the non-reproductive cells within the body. Because somatic cell traits are not inherited, any genetic changes accomplished by somatic-cell gene therapy would not be passed on to offspring. However, should scientists successfully introduce new genes to germ cells (eggs or sperm), the resulting traits could be passed on to offspring. This approach, called germ-line gene therapy, could potentially be used to combat heritable diseases, but it could also lead to unintended consequences for future generations. Moreover, there is the question of informed consent, because those impacted by germ-line gene therapy are unborn and therefore unable to choose whether they receive the therapy. For these reasons, the U.S. government does not currently fund research projects investigating germ-line gene therapies in humans.

Risky Gene Therapies

While there are currently no gene therapies on the market in the United States, many are in the pipeline and it is likely that some will eventually be approved. With recent advances in gene therapies targeting p53, a gene whose somatic cell mutations have been implicated in over 50% of human cancers, 3 cancer treatments through gene therapies could become much more widespread once they reach the commercial market.

Bringing any new therapy to market poses ethical questions that pit the expected benefits against the risks. How quickly should new therapies be brought to the market? How can we ensure that new therapies have been sufficiently tested for safety and effectiveness before they are marketed to the public? The process by which new therapies are developed and approved complicates such questions, as those involved in the approval process are often under significant pressure to get a new therapy approved even in the face of significant risks.

To receive FDA approval for a new therapy, researchers must collect significant laboratory data from animal trials and submit an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Following a 30-day waiting period during which the FDA reviews the IND, clinical trials involving human subjects may begin. If the FDA perceives a problem prior to or during the clinical trial, the FDA can order a “clinical hold” until any problems are addressed. During clinical trials, researchers collect and analyze data on the therapy’s effectiveness and safety, including any side effects observed. Once the therapy meets FDA standards for effectiveness and safety, the developers can submit a New Drug Application (NDA) that details how the therapy will be manufactured, packaged, monitored, and administered.

Because new gene therapies are frequently the result of many years (even decades) of laboratory and clinical research, they require a significant financial investment. By the time a therapy has reached the clinical trials stage, the financial stakes are high for pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders. This creates potential conflicts of interest that can sometimes affect the objective judgment of researchers, their funders, and even trial participants. The Jesse Gelsinger case (see Case in Point: Gene Therapy Gone Wrong ) is a classic example. Faced with a life-threatening disease and no reasonable treatments available, it is easy to see why a patient might be eager to participate in a clinical trial no matter the risks. It is also easy to see how a researcher might view the short-term risks for a small group of study participants as a small price to pay for the potential benefits of a game-changing new treatment.

Gelsinger’s death led to increased scrutiny of gene therapy, and subsequent negative outcomes of gene therapy have resulted in the temporary halting of clinical trials pending further investigation. For example, when children in France treated with gene therapy for SCID began to develop leukemia several years after treatment, the FDA temporarily stopped clinical trials of similar types of gene therapy occurring in the United States. 4 Cases like these highlight the need for researchers and health professionals not only to value human well-being and patients’ rights over profitability, but also to maintain scientific objectivity when evaluating the risks and benefits of new therapies.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{3}\)

• Why is gene therapy research so tightly regulated?
• What is the main ethical concern associated with germ-line gene therapy?

Key Concepts and Summary

• While gene therapy shows great promise for the treatment of genetic diseases, there are also significant risks involved.
• There is considerable federal and local regulation of the development of gene therapies by pharmaceutical companies for use in humans.
• Before gene therapy use can increase dramatically, there are many ethical issues that need to be addressed by the medical and research communities, politicians, and society at large.
• 1 Barbara Sibbald. “Death but One Unintended Consequence of Gene-Therapy Trial.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 164 no. 11 (2001): 1612–1612.
• 2 Kerry Grens. “Report: Ease Gene Therapy Reviews.” The Scientist , December 9, 2013. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...erapy-Reviews/ . Accessed May 27, 2016.
• 3 Zhen Wang and Yi Sun. “Targeting p53 for Novel Anticancer Therapy.” Translational Oncology 3 , no. 1 (2010): 1–12.
• 4 Erika Check. “Gene Therapy: A Tragic Setback.” Nature 420 no. 6912 (2002): 116–118.

1.Do the benefits of genetic engineering outweigh the dangers? (Genetically Modified Organisms – GMOs)

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Support ideas with relevant, specific examples

Examples make your writing easier to understand by illustrating points more effectively.

Examples, if used properly, not only help you get higher marks for ‘Task Response’ but also for ‘Coherence’.

When giving examples it is best to put them after your main idea or topic sentence. They can be used in the middle of supporting sentences or they can be used to start a new sentence. There is no rule for where exactly to give examples in essays, logically they would come after your main idea/topic sentence or just after a supporting sentence.

Linking words for giving examples:

• for example
• for instance
• to illustrate this
• to give a clear example
• to illustrate
• take, for example

Discover more tips in The Ultimate Guide to Get a Target Band Score of 7+ » — a book that's free for 🚀 Premium users.

• genetic engineering
• drought-resistant
• food scarcity
• unforeseen health effects
• nutritional value
• malnutrition
• ecological impact
• native species
• biodiversity
• chemical pesticides
• environmental health benefits
• ethical considerations
• genetic manipulation
• designer organisms
• monopolization
• agricultural industry
• small-scale farmers
• medical breakthroughs
• gene therapy
• genetic disorders
• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

Nowadays, most countries can improve the standard of living through economic development, but some social values are lost as a result. Do you think the advantages of this phenomenon outweigh the disadvantages?

There is an increasing trend around the world of married couples deciding not to have children. discuss the advantages and disadvantages for couples who decide to do this., a big salary is much more important than job satisfaction. do you agree or disagree, many of the world’s cities are currently facing a serious housing shortage. what are some of the reasons for this shortage, and what solutions can you suggest give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience., in recent years, more and more people are choosing to read e-books rather than paper books. do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Genetic Engineering — Balancing Benefits and Ethics of Genetic Engineering

Balancing Benefits and Ethics of Genetic Engineering

• Categories: Engineering Genetic Engineering

About this sample

Words: 636 |

Published: Feb 7, 2024

Words: 636 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1261 words

1 pages / 408 words

3 pages / 1416 words

2 pages / 822 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is the process of altering the genetic makeup of an organism by adding, deleting or changing its DNA. The process involves the manipulation of genes and their transfer from one organism to another, thereby [...]

Genetic engineering is the manipulation of an organism's genetic material to produce desirable traits. It has been used in various fields such as agriculture, medicine, and environmental conservation. Genetic engineering has [...]

In Gattaca's dystopia, the dangers of a society obsessed with genetic perfection are exposed. The film challenges viewers to reflect on the implications of genetic determinism, the erosion of personal identity, and the ethical [...]

Genetics is the most interesting part of science because it explains how certain traits are passed down by parents to their offspring. Gregor Mendel is considered the pioneer in explaining this theory of the genetics within [...]

Genetic Engineering is a powerful and potentially very dangerous too. To change the sequence of nucleotides of the DNA that code for the structure of a complex living organism, can have extremely ill effects although the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

IELTS Mentor "IELTS Preparation & Sample Answer"

• Skip to content
• Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

• IELTS Sample

IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

Ielts writing task 2 sample 1079 - genetic engineering is an important issue, ielts writing task 2/ ielts essay:, genetic engineering is an important issue in modern society. some people think that it will improve people's lives in many ways. others feel that it may be a threat to life on earth..

• IELTS Essay

IELTS Materials

• IELTS Bar Graph
• IELTS Line Graph
• IELTS Table Chart
• IELTS Flow Chart
• IELTS Pie Chart
• IELTS Letter Writing
• Academic Reading

Useful Links

• IELTS Secrets
• Band Score Calculator
• Exam Specific Tips
• Useful Websites
• IELTS Preparation Tips
• Academic Reading Tips
• Academic Writing Tips
• GT Writing Tips
• Listening Tips
• Speaking Tips
• IELTS Grammar Review
• IELTS Vocabulary
• IELTS Cue Cards
• IELTS Life Skills
• Letter Types

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Copyright Notice
• HTML Sitemap