Politics of Genetic Engineering
It is clear and without reasonable doubt that technology has really shaped the world we are living today. Advancements which have been seen over the past two decades in technology are both bountiful and endless in numerous aspects of life. Many are advancements which have been registered in scientific field, and specifically in genetic engineering (Blank, 81). The advancements in genetic engineering technology have created the possibility of almost surpassing the natural human beings and entering into a realm of some human beings who have been enhanced genetically, a regime in which the fate of human beings is at hand. Discussions on genetic engineering impacts to humanity have however remained controversial; let’s have a look on two examples before embarking on what several researchers have expressed their opinions on the matter (Blank, 81).
Many people who have been in United Kingdom for a while must be aware of the outbreak of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also commonly referred to as a mad cow disease. A decade after the disease had been identified in the year 1986, British representatives in cattle industry explained that BSE was a disease equivalent to Scrapie, which was common in goats and sheep but assumed as harmless to human beings. Some few control measures were taken on the disease although its infectivity was just ignored and remained on food supply (Blank, 81).
After a while however, it was revealed that the disease could be transmitted to human beings in a brain wasting form also referred to as variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. It caused 177 deaths through June 2014. According to research, if the necessary precautions had been taken and the pathogen eradicated genetically from cattle, it would have cost $33 million. Ignorance to the control measures because genetic engineering was seen as unethical however led to a cost of more than $33 million, not to mention massive losses incurred on the commercial sector and loss of lives (Blank, 81).
The second case, a case scenario of Army aiming at increasing the hearing capabilities of its soldiers; After making consultation with genetic engineers to confirm whether it is feasible, the engineers realizes that taking a hearing gene from a dolphin and insert it into the genetic makeup of a human being increases the hearing abilities four times. Pleased with the results motivated the Army to take 5000 couples willing to raise genetically engineered children and whose destiny will be soldiers through vitro fertilization. On being born, the children show no complications and eventually enters the Army on due time. They all exhibit enhanced hearing abilities just as the research had showed in their line of duty but what is little known is that they will develop liver cancer which eventually will kill them before attaining an age of forty years. Now, what seemed to be an enhancement of the inborn genetic makeup leads to a huge calamity of deaths of over 5,000 soldiers. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Can genetic engineering be considered as ethical or unethical therefore? This has been a controversial issue over the last one decade. Whether genetic engineering is ethical or unethical depends on several factors. This paper presents the opinions of six reviewed sources on genetic engineering
Annotated Bibliography
Roco, Mihail C., and William Sims Bainbridge. “Overview converging technologies for improving human performance.” Converging technologies for improving human performance. Springer, Dordrecht, 2013. 1-27.
Roco and his colleague in this study took a stand that genetic engineering improved the lives of human beings and therefore, without any reasonable doubt they pointed out that it was ethical. For instance, in their research they demonstrated how through genetic engineering some diseases could be cured completely. They gave a good example of Cystic Fibrosis which could be cured genetically; obviously this was a good thing as it reduced infant deaths and hence creating a greater chance of survival. In the course of study, they mentioned that something should be justified as ethical if it led to greater overall happiness in the society. And for sure, genetic engineering did that especially considering the fact that through it; some of the inherited diseases were wiped out. According to Roco and his colleague, the benefits genetic engineering brought to the society outweighed its disadvantages hence they termed it as ethical.
However, it is clear that Roco and his colleague limited the scope of their study and this automatically led to biased conclusion. They did not consider the long term effect of genetic engineering when used as means of treating diseases. For instance, contrally opinions have indicated that it causes cancer after sometime. Roco and his colleague were supposed to have put that into consideration before arriving at their firm conclusion that genetic engineering is ethically justified. This research is useful in my opinion because for one, it has given some insights concerning the benefits of genetic engineering such as curing diseases. It is also an awakening call to all the researchers on this field that for their study conclusions to be valid, they ought to thoroughly widen their research scope to avoid biasness.
O’Toole, Austin J., and George A. Kanoti. “GENETIC ENGINEERING: ITS ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS.” Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science. Pennsylvania Academy of Science, 2015.
O’Toole and his fellow scholar George in this study focused on trends of Genetic engineering on agricultural sector. They emphasized on Agriculture as one field which has greatly embraced the benefits of genetic engineering. According to their study, genetic engineering led to improvement in genetic fitness of various plant species. Some of the common benefits they pointed out were increased efficiency of the photosynthesis in plants, increased resistance of plants to salinity, viruses, drought and reducing plants need for nitrogen fertilizer. The research concluded that genetic engineering was ethical.
The only limitation towards this research was that, O’Toole and George limited their study only on plants. They could have also stretched to consider animals and human beings as well. Covering the other two and weighing the advantages across the three when compared to disadvantages would have produced results reliable for arriving at a firm conclusion. This research forms the basis for genetic engineering impacts on plants. According to this research, genetic engineering has showed several benefits on plants without side effects. This research should be incorporated on findings on animals before a conclusion can be arrived at in regard to whether genetic engineering is ethical or unethical.
Bostrom, Nick. “Human genetic enhancements: a transhumanist perspective.” The Journal of Value Inquiry 37.4 (2013): 493-506.
In this journal Bostrom emphasized on cloning, a technology under genetic engineering which involved taking genes from one individual and genetically engineer them into another person’s genes. Through this process, they took cultured cells of an organism and implanted them into unfertilized eggs of another organism and electroshock the two to fuse. The new embryo was then implanted into a surrogate mother. This resulted to two genetically identical individuals of different ages. They considered cloning to be beneficial especially in a case where a couple had only on child and then they develop a problem of infertility. Cloning could help them have other children. Additionally, through cloning, if a couple happened to lose a child after birth, they could still have their baby back by cloning them. Considering that ethics is all about doing what makes life happier, they termed genetic engineering as ethical.
However, this research did not consider the outcome of cloning before arriving at the conclusion that cloning is ethical. For instance, the cloned child was not going to have a genetic mother or father but rather will have a single nuclear donor. If a man cloned himself, the resultant child will be more of a new category of relationship to him. This makes this process almost unethical justified. this research is an awakening call to all the researchers on this field that for their study conclusions to be valid, they ought to thoroughly widen their research scope to avoid biasness.
Frewer, Lynn J., and Richard Shepherd. “Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology.” Agriculture and Human Values 12.1 (2015): 48-57.
In this study, Frewer and Richard emphasized much on the health risks which were associated with genetic engineering. For instance, they pointed out that foods made from genetically engineered crops where inherently unsafe. According to the study, taking foods from genetically engineered crops could lead to diseases such as cancer and allergy. In consideration to these diseases caused by genetic engineering, they pointed out that it was unethical.
This study however did not provide the evidence that refined products from genetically engineered crops such as oils, starch and sugar are different from foods from conventionally bred crops. This qualifies the research to be biased. The research acts as a basis for more research as it has provided a hint that food from genetically engineering crops can have some health impacts.
Balzer, Philipp, Klaus Peter Rippe, and Peter Schaber. “Two concepts of dignity for humans and non-human organisms in the context of genetic engineering.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13.1 (2014): 7-27.
In this journal, Balzer and his co-researchers based their argument on religious point of view. They pointed out that, although through it diseases could be cured. There was no limit on the far this engineering could go. They termed human beings as beings with no right to “play God”. This is considering that a journey of miles starts with just a single step. Starting to remove embryos with Cystic Fibrosis would pave a way to determining the embryos eyes and hair color. Arguably, they considered it not right for people to try competing with God as it would violate the sanctity of life in general. The research however should have provided evidence from holy books like Quran or the bible where genetic engineering had been forbidden rather that associating it with religion yet without firm evidence
Lynn J., Chaya Howard, and Richard Shepherd. “Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 22.1 (2017): 98-124.
In this study, Lynn and his co-researcher Richard generally emphasized on the hazards associated with human developmental gene modification. Gene modification had been proposed as a way of disease prevention and enhancement of capacity. The research discussed the hazards of this modification in terms of body cell modification. Changes which were impacted on an individual’s DNA could be passed to future generations. This was unethical since it led to suffering of future generations out of mistakes which they committed not.
This research suffers from a limitation of not providing clear evidence on its conclusions. It did not make an effort of proving and validating its findings on a practical form. However, it is a basis for future investigations in regard to hazards which can result from genetic engineering on future generations
Work cited
Blank, Robert H. “Politics and Genetic Engineering.” Politics and the Life Sciences 11.1 (2012): 81-85.
Roco, Mihail C., and William Sims Bainbridge. “Overview converging technologies for improving human performance.” Converging technologies for improving human performance. Springer, Dordrecht, 2013. 1-27.
O’Toole, Austin J., and George A. Kanoti. “GENETIC ENGINEERING: ITS ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS.” Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science. Pennsylvania Academy of Science, 2015.
Lynn J., Chaya Howard, and Richard Shepherd. “Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 22.1 (2017): 98-124.
Balzer, Philipp, Klaus Peter Rippe, and Peter Schaber. “Two concepts of dignity for humans and non-human organisms in the context of genetic engineering.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13.1 (2014): 7-27.
Frewer, Lynn J., and Richard Shepherd. “Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology.” Agriculture and Human Values 12.1 (2015): 48-57.
Bostrom, Nick. “Human genetic enhancements: a transhumanist perspective.” The Journal of Value Inquiry 37.4 (2013): 493-506.