Modern technology and science has created a complex issue with eugenics and gene therapy. Eugenics is defined as physically removing or replacing cells in an embryo or germ cells. Rapid advancements in genetics and embryology, has lead society scrambling to find the morality and the consequences of eugenics. The two types of genetic intervention are modifying germ cells or somatic cells. Germ cells are sex cells that affect traits and heredity of certain characteristics. Somatic cell alteration can give or take away traits, but are not intended to affect sex cells. Marc Lappe goes into detail about how germ cells are specifically morally wrong due to the fact that germ cell engineering affects future generations. I agree with that Marc Lappe that germ cell intervention affects the future generations, but also in somatic changes there are possibilities of changes in the germ cells. I think that somatic and germ cell changes should be treated the same due to the fact that the differences are a matter of when you are changing the genes. The controversy of eugenics arises from the idea of altering the natural process of birth and natural selection and using embryos to experiment eugenics. People also fear that being able to change genotypes and phenotypes will lead to discrimination and abuse of the eugenics. Currently, eugenics is not perfected and experiments with animals have shown that complications do occur. On the other side eugenics provide tremendous hope to people that have afflicting diseases and disabling traits. I will examine both sides in depth and try to give plausible solutions.
The Research paper on Embryonic Stem Cell Research How Does It Affect You
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: How does it affect you? Embryonic stem cell research is widely controversial in the scientific world. Issues on the ethics of Embryonic Stem (ES) cell research have created pandemonium in our society. The different views on this subject are well researched and supportive. The facts presented have the capability to support or possibly change the public's perspective. ...
The pro-eugenic people point to the unbound medical benefits of eugenics. In the future, doctors and geneticists will be able to diagnose diseases early in the developmental stages and will be able to correct the disease before birth. Would you not give medicine and treatments to someone if available? It would be morally wrong to not treat a person if there was a working treatment for any reason. The argument can be made that an afflicted embryo has the same right to be treated, if possible. For example if an embryo is diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and the gene that cures M.S. is known and the procedure is safe it would be wrong not to treat this embryo. There has always been controversy with new medical advancement. It is argued that eugenics is not natural and that it alters the gene pool. To me all of medicine is unnatural. Medicine is a man-made entity. Medical advancements are supposed let people live more comfortably and have a prolonged life. Any type of medical help should be allowed and morally accepted. Eugenics does not directly affect anyone else besides the afflicted embryo and the parents. The pro-eugenics argue that eugenics is a form of parenting and that we do not have the right to tell people how to raise their children. A parent has total responsibility to a child and has the ability to make decisions for the child. Therefore a parent has the right to use genetics to help their child as they see fit. There also is an argument that eugenics will lead to a discrimination of disabled persons and that it will lead to parents striving to make the perfect genetic child. Movies like GATACA depict a world where all people look the same and there is genetic prejudice. Also people are reminded of the atrocities of the Nazis and their genetic ideals. Modern eugenics has nothing to do with these past actions. Eugenics gives hope to people that have disabilities that they can be cured and also future generations that can be cured.
The arguments against eugenics are many and the anti-eugenics do bring up some interesting and valid points. One of their arguments is that eugenics and changing somatic or germ cells will affect future generations not just the person treated. Do we have the right to affect people not yet born? Lappe states that it would be ethically questionable to affect future generations with uncertain consequences. Another argument is that eugenics disturbs the natural genetic order and messing with our genes can lead to disastrous outcomes. By making everyone’s genetic makeup similar to prevent disease we will shrink the gene pool that will lead to more genetic problems. Another argument against eugenics is that by having the ability to manipulate genes and traits, people are not going to be ready or deserve to have this power. The idea of playing God is very real. By having genetic maps people have taken nature out of reproduction and taken it into their own hands. The Nazi’s have shown that people might not see that their actions are wrong and use eugenics in a wrong way. By having genetic maps and curing certain traits where does one draw the line. Is eugenics for only diseases or should cosmetic traits also be treated? One can easily imagine that in the future there will be discrimination against people with certain genetic traits. For example insurance agencies would be able to look at one’s genetic map and decide if you are eligible for coverage by seeing if you are pre-disposed for a disease. The main argument against eugenics seems to be the use of human embryos in experiments. The use of embryos ties into abortion and the use of potential life to carry out experiments. Abortion is an issue that has no clear solution and can be argued well on both sides. How can we use an embryo in an experiment knowing that it had potential for life?
The Term Paper on An End To Genetic Diseases
The United States has a very diverse heritage. There is no 'American' race. Americans are the blending of many cultures throughout many generations. With this blending of cultures comes a blending of genes. In the past, genes have not been well understood. They were not understood until Mendel did experiments on plants to find out why different plants of the same species had different ...
I believe that eugenics is viable and ethical way to treat people in the future. Of course currently eugenics has many problems and more experiments needs to be done to perfect the process. Once gene therapy and gene replacement is perfected there is no reason that is should be carried out. Doctors and scientist have the job to treat and help people. Eugenics is just another form of treatment. By catching the disease at the genetic level doctors can treat a disease before the person is even born. Everyday surgeons and doctors make sure that patients are relieved of their pain and find ways to treat their disabilities. I see no difference in trying to treat an embryo and defective genes while you can. On the issue of abortion I see that abortion really has no effect on eugenics. As long as abortion is legal and there are discarded embryos, scientist should have the right to use these embryos for science. Abortion is a complex issue that seems to have no clear-cut answer on morality. Still as long as people are aborting embryos, the embryos should not be wasted. Looking at eugenics with utilitarism, eugenics outweighs all other possible problems. The possible benefits far outweigh any current consequences.
The Essay on Medical Genetic Applications Diseases And Treat
Genetic research is a new and upcoming field and until recently was just practiced strictly on a scientific level. In 2000, the complete decoding of the human genome was finished and the full sequence was recorded this last month. In May, Duke University paired with a genetic pioneer J. Craig Venture and Venter's Rockville based Center for the Advancement of Genomics. The collaboration will use ...
Once eugenics is perfected and the entire genetic code is decoded millions of people will benefit. We will be able to wipe out genetic diseases like viral and bacterial infections. Also to people whom say that eugenics will lead to genetic discrimination and development of a superior race are overreacting. There is already racial discrimination and we have handled it the best we can. People are not as ignorant as they were 50 years ago. Looking at all the evidence and ideals I can construct some plausible solutions. For one, the embryos that are used for experimentation can only be from discarded embryos. Experimentation needs to continue so that one-day they will have the ability to cure afflicting diseases. One plausible ideal is to have eugenics and gene therapy a very selective process. The only way to be eligible for eugenics for your own embryo is you have already a child with a disease. This is because there is a possibility that even if you carry a gene for a disease that gene has a chance not getting passed on.
But if you have one afflicted child it has been proven that you have possibility of having an afflicted child. You then should be eligible for eugenics to make sure your next child is not born with the same disease. Also by then they will know what gene causes the disease and will have effective ways to treat the disease in the first child. This way eugenics is less likely abused for cosmetic reasons and other traits that do not afflict the child. Eugenics should be held for treating disease and nothing else. I hope that in the future eugenics will be a viable way to treat people and that eugenics becomes widely accepted.
The Essay on Tay Sachs Disease Child Enzyme
Tay-Sachs Tay-Sachs disease is a genetic disorder that occurs in children. This disease causes their central nervous system to breakdown, which in turn is the basis for their death. The disease is named for Warren Tay and Bernard Sachs. Tay-Sachs disease is caused by the absence of an enzyme called Hexosamindase A, which is referred to as Hex-A. The lack of this enzyme causes many metabolic ...
