Alysha Frazier
Cassel Adrienne
Research Project
17 April 14
Genetic engineering in humans
A young couple lost their baby girl due to a genetic disease. The little
girl lived to be 3 years old and her parents couldn’t bear to have another child
knowing that there would be a possibility of their next child suffering too.
They wanted more children but were too afraid. Then some scientists reached out
to them and informed them about testing they were doing to supposedly remove
dangerous genes from the mother’s body that could cause disease in her
offspring. There was no guarantee that this procedure would work though. But,
the couple decided to go through with it anyway. She became pregnant and her
next child was totally healthy so it did end up working.
Some
parents want to undergo these procedures in order for their child to look a
certain way. Whether this is for disease prevention or to guarantee certain
characteristics, this is called “designer babies” or genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering is a technology that has not yet been fully developed but
is possible, it is emerging each day and many people are unaware of it but
there’s no avoiding it. It was nearly 3 decades ago when the very first test
tube baby was born; there
were all sorts of protests and people claiming science had gone
amok. Yet, society is still in the dark about this topic. The most
appealing use of genetic engineering is for the purpose of disease prevention
but there are many other ways that this is being put to use, some
controversial.
Depending
on your intentions, there are currently ways to artificially manipulate
inherited traits just not to a full extent as to where you could modify every
aspect of your child. There is vitro fertilization, pre-implantation genetic
selection and tissue matching. PGS is the practice by which an embryo is
microscopically inspected for traces of genetic disorders. “During IVF an egg from the mother is fertilized in the lab then
placed into the mother’s womb.” Though IVF is not perfect or guaranteed to work,
there have been many births as a result of it (Bliss 12). The process of tissue
matching is a little different than the others because it consists of testing
embryos for a tissue match specifically “with a sibling that has already
developed, or is in danger of developing a genetic disease or disorder.” As a
result, doctors use the healthy baby as a tissue donor for his or her sibling
(Baird).With all the success stories out there, it is amazing to witness how far
technology, scientists, and doctors have come in the area of disease prevention
and cures.
In
the article"Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options?” the author
Baird, Stephen L.
tells the story of Charlie Whitaker, a young boy who suffered from Diamond
Blackfan Anemia. This disease disabled Charlie from generating his own red
blood cells, which can be very fatal.
He was cured with the tissue matching procedure after having transplanted
cells from his baby brother who was created to save him
(Baird).
For
the most part, any parent out there suffering from the loss of a child knows
that there is no other kind of pain like it. Author Lynas Mark, tells the story
of his sister-in-law and her husband who lost their 4 month old firstborn child
to a genetic disease by the name of cystic fibrosis. It tore their world apart
and tests proved that both parents were carrying the deadly gene, leaving future
children at risk of suffering. To avoid a repeat, reproductive technology
provided a potential solution which was the process of creating embryos through
in vitro fertilization. Cells were screened for the disease, proceeding with
the process of implanting CF-free embryos. The procedure was successful, giving
the couple the opportunity to be parents to not only one but two happy, health,
CF-free children. All provided scenarios demonstrate how advancements in
medical technologies can be very life changing and
beneficial.
Generally speaking, everything has its ups and downs. Whose job
is it to make the decision as to whether the good outweighs the bad or vice
versa? Although the use of genetic engineering for disease prevention comes off
as a wonderful thing, there are also the people who use such technologies for much
more shallow reasons. In the early case that took place in 1996 when a couple by the
names of Monique and Scott Collins went through the process of having a designer
baby for the purpose of gender selection it generated a lot of media attention
and also brought about many concerns. The case “raised the issues of selection
for other traits such as eye color, hair color, athleticism, or height that are
not related to the health of the child.”Previous to the Collins case, the
council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs published a declaration in 1994 in
support of genetic engineering but strictly only for the purposes of preventing
and curing disease. Gender selection is not ethical. Proving that people are
general morally supportive when it’s for a good cause. Socially, people argue
that if the technology needed was to emerge and make it fully possible to design
your baby it would build a wall between those that are fortunate enough to
afford the service and those who are not; Creating division within society, with
the wealthier individuals having the opportunity to forgo the selection of
desirable traits in their children, while others who are further down in the
financial ranks would not have this equal opportunity. Resulting in not only
economic division but genetic divisions as well, “other bioethicists have argued
that parents have a right to prenatal autonomy, which grants them the right to
decide the fate of their children.” (Ly).
Society’s
fears came true as Texas is home of the world’s first human embryo bank, which
is where anticipated parents can purchase embryos via mail order, with their
biological parents pre-specified for their desirable traits, blond hair and
blue eyes being the perfect example of this for the price of around the price
of $6,917. “The Abraham Centre of life even boasts that all its sperm donors
have doctorate degrees. Its director, Jennalee Ryan, is untroubled by the
ethical issues raised by her company.” Stating that they are assisting couples
and distributing good genes back into the universe. Compared to IVF which costs
about $12,400, this is a steal. But, which is more meaningful (Lynas).
When it comes to morals and religion there is a very visible
double standard, support one but not the other type of ordeal going on. We
have those few who just blatantly feel that the human life begins at
conception and the embryo should never be manipulated or interfered with.
Believing that people should leave it in God’s hands, which is understandable
until they decide to go against their word and faith. When it comes to using
genetic engineering for unimportant things such as altering physical appearance
of a child, there’s no justifying it. But, when it comes to disease prevention
people decide its ok to make an exception. In reality though, it’s all unnatural
no matter what the reasoning is. This is not true for everyone but, the concept
is pretty popular and depending on how genetic engineering is being applied to a
child it, studies show that it defiantly impacts peoples view on it.
You can pretty much easily differentiate between the two ways
the medical technologies are being put to use. Reproductive medical procedures
can have both good and bad applications, as stated previously. Even though
vulgar eugenics and racial wipeout are widely believed to have been put to a
halt with the Nazis, “the commodification of human reproduction could lead us
blindly down the same eventual path.” There is deep opposition to the advancing
trends. Even with the knowledge of both the good and bad side, expressing how
such procedures for the use of disease prevention and cure could be worse than
the actual disease itself. We are living in a society with technology becoming
one of the most powerful agents over human life, continuously abusing what it
truly means to be free and human. Lynas desires to witness a society in which
human beings stop making efforts to control nature, and accept all aspects of
life. Meaning we must be able to face diseases, difficulties, and death. Rather
than trying to prevent it. “Suffering may be bad, but the alternative may prove
to be far, far worse (Lynas).
With
that being said, is government regulation necessary? Yes, absolutely.
Many people view this technology as immoral but we must face the fact
that it very much has the potential of entering doctors office’s as a common
practice in society. You have to consider the possibility of this getting out of
control, meaning parents purchasing genes that will specifically give their
child a gift or advantage over other children and it all just becoming a
competition to keep up. Leaving people feeling as if they have no choice but to
engineer or have their children suffer “on the lower end of the social
spectrum”. Regulations need to be pushed and implemented in order to ensure that
people do not feel the pressure to automatically conform (Catalano).
“There
is no worldwide approved ideal of biological perfection and to make deliberate
changes in the genes that people will pass on to their descendants would force
us as a society to agree on what is to be considered “good” and “bad” genes.”
Control is necessary to prevent people from correcting perfectly healthy
babies.
On
the alternative side, we have the people in society who accept all forms of
genetic engineering with open arms. Some individuals would rather use it to
their advantage than down size it. They see it “as the ability to take charge
of our own evolution, to transcend human limitations, and to improve ourselves
as a species.” Believing that “it is time to acknowledge our technological
capabilities and take responsibility for them.” Statements I completely
disagree with, I feel that it isn’t our job to try to manipulate the human body
especially knowing that the child could never have any say so in it. Wouldn’t
it be a bit strange living in a world where babies no longer resemble their
parents?
Fig. 1. This image featured on Mommyish.com emphasizes the
dangers and unnaturalness of designer babies. There must be some control. A
child’s characteristics should not be
purchased.
This
message is mainly directed towards the younger generations. New technologies, ideas, and creations are emerging each day and
younger generations will progressively have the advantage of utilizing new
technologies for reproductive decision making but they rarely ever have the
opportunity to let their voice be heard regarding the topic. Therefore,
accurately capturing their views is important but could be quite challenging.
Experimental studies showed that youth had similar tolerance levels of genetic
engineering as adults. Majority found it acceptable to use such procedures for
the purpose of preventing inherited diseases or conditions rather than
enhancing traits (Iredale).
As I stated in the beginning society is very
much in the dark about this topic. At first I was very unknowledgeable about the
prospect of designer babies and I wasn’t against nor for it, but in between
because of my religious views. I thought it was ok for disease prevention but
not anything else. My opinion has changed after doing my research. I’m
completely against it now. I realized either way you use genetic engineering if
one use is wrong than so is the other. All the information I gathered and
experiments I followed impacted my opinion
greatly.
Cassel Adrienne
Research Project
17 April 14
Genetic engineering in humans
A young couple lost their baby girl due to a genetic disease. The little
girl lived to be 3 years old and her parents couldn’t bear to have another child
knowing that there would be a possibility of their next child suffering too.
They wanted more children but were too afraid. Then some scientists reached out
to them and informed them about testing they were doing to supposedly remove
dangerous genes from the mother’s body that could cause disease in her
offspring. There was no guarantee that this procedure would work though. But,
the couple decided to go through with it anyway. She became pregnant and her
next child was totally healthy so it did end up working.
Some
parents want to undergo these procedures in order for their child to look a
certain way. Whether this is for disease prevention or to guarantee certain
characteristics, this is called “designer babies” or genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering is a technology that has not yet been fully developed but
is possible, it is emerging each day and many people are unaware of it but
there’s no avoiding it. It was nearly 3 decades ago when the very first test
tube baby was born; there
were all sorts of protests and people claiming science had gone
amok. Yet, society is still in the dark about this topic. The most
appealing use of genetic engineering is for the purpose of disease prevention
but there are many other ways that this is being put to use, some
controversial.
Depending
on your intentions, there are currently ways to artificially manipulate
inherited traits just not to a full extent as to where you could modify every
aspect of your child. There is vitro fertilization, pre-implantation genetic
selection and tissue matching. PGS is the practice by which an embryo is
microscopically inspected for traces of genetic disorders. “During IVF an egg from the mother is fertilized in the lab then
placed into the mother’s womb.” Though IVF is not perfect or guaranteed to work,
there have been many births as a result of it (Bliss 12). The process of tissue
matching is a little different than the others because it consists of testing
embryos for a tissue match specifically “with a sibling that has already
developed, or is in danger of developing a genetic disease or disorder.” As a
result, doctors use the healthy baby as a tissue donor for his or her sibling
(Baird).With all the success stories out there, it is amazing to witness how far
technology, scientists, and doctors have come in the area of disease prevention
and cures.
In
the article"Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options?” the author
Baird, Stephen L.
tells the story of Charlie Whitaker, a young boy who suffered from Diamond
Blackfan Anemia. This disease disabled Charlie from generating his own red
blood cells, which can be very fatal.
He was cured with the tissue matching procedure after having transplanted
cells from his baby brother who was created to save him
(Baird).
For
the most part, any parent out there suffering from the loss of a child knows
that there is no other kind of pain like it. Author Lynas Mark, tells the story
of his sister-in-law and her husband who lost their 4 month old firstborn child
to a genetic disease by the name of cystic fibrosis. It tore their world apart
and tests proved that both parents were carrying the deadly gene, leaving future
children at risk of suffering. To avoid a repeat, reproductive technology
provided a potential solution which was the process of creating embryos through
in vitro fertilization. Cells were screened for the disease, proceeding with
the process of implanting CF-free embryos. The procedure was successful, giving
the couple the opportunity to be parents to not only one but two happy, health,
CF-free children. All provided scenarios demonstrate how advancements in
medical technologies can be very life changing and
beneficial.
Generally speaking, everything has its ups and downs. Whose job
is it to make the decision as to whether the good outweighs the bad or vice
versa? Although the use of genetic engineering for disease prevention comes off
as a wonderful thing, there are also the people who use such technologies for much
more shallow reasons. In the early case that took place in 1996 when a couple by the
names of Monique and Scott Collins went through the process of having a designer
baby for the purpose of gender selection it generated a lot of media attention
and also brought about many concerns. The case “raised the issues of selection
for other traits such as eye color, hair color, athleticism, or height that are
not related to the health of the child.”Previous to the Collins case, the
council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs published a declaration in 1994 in
support of genetic engineering but strictly only for the purposes of preventing
and curing disease. Gender selection is not ethical. Proving that people are
general morally supportive when it’s for a good cause. Socially, people argue
that if the technology needed was to emerge and make it fully possible to design
your baby it would build a wall between those that are fortunate enough to
afford the service and those who are not; Creating division within society, with
the wealthier individuals having the opportunity to forgo the selection of
desirable traits in their children, while others who are further down in the
financial ranks would not have this equal opportunity. Resulting in not only
economic division but genetic divisions as well, “other bioethicists have argued
that parents have a right to prenatal autonomy, which grants them the right to
decide the fate of their children.” (Ly).
Society’s
fears came true as Texas is home of the world’s first human embryo bank, which
is where anticipated parents can purchase embryos via mail order, with their
biological parents pre-specified for their desirable traits, blond hair and
blue eyes being the perfect example of this for the price of around the price
of $6,917. “The Abraham Centre of life even boasts that all its sperm donors
have doctorate degrees. Its director, Jennalee Ryan, is untroubled by the
ethical issues raised by her company.” Stating that they are assisting couples
and distributing good genes back into the universe. Compared to IVF which costs
about $12,400, this is a steal. But, which is more meaningful (Lynas).
When it comes to morals and religion there is a very visible
double standard, support one but not the other type of ordeal going on. We
have those few who just blatantly feel that the human life begins at
conception and the embryo should never be manipulated or interfered with.
Believing that people should leave it in God’s hands, which is understandable
until they decide to go against their word and faith. When it comes to using
genetic engineering for unimportant things such as altering physical appearance
of a child, there’s no justifying it. But, when it comes to disease prevention
people decide its ok to make an exception. In reality though, it’s all unnatural
no matter what the reasoning is. This is not true for everyone but, the concept
is pretty popular and depending on how genetic engineering is being applied to a
child it, studies show that it defiantly impacts peoples view on it.
You can pretty much easily differentiate between the two ways
the medical technologies are being put to use. Reproductive medical procedures
can have both good and bad applications, as stated previously. Even though
vulgar eugenics and racial wipeout are widely believed to have been put to a
halt with the Nazis, “the commodification of human reproduction could lead us
blindly down the same eventual path.” There is deep opposition to the advancing
trends. Even with the knowledge of both the good and bad side, expressing how
such procedures for the use of disease prevention and cure could be worse than
the actual disease itself. We are living in a society with technology becoming
one of the most powerful agents over human life, continuously abusing what it
truly means to be free and human. Lynas desires to witness a society in which
human beings stop making efforts to control nature, and accept all aspects of
life. Meaning we must be able to face diseases, difficulties, and death. Rather
than trying to prevent it. “Suffering may be bad, but the alternative may prove
to be far, far worse (Lynas).
With
that being said, is government regulation necessary? Yes, absolutely.
Many people view this technology as immoral but we must face the fact
that it very much has the potential of entering doctors office’s as a common
practice in society. You have to consider the possibility of this getting out of
control, meaning parents purchasing genes that will specifically give their
child a gift or advantage over other children and it all just becoming a
competition to keep up. Leaving people feeling as if they have no choice but to
engineer or have their children suffer “on the lower end of the social
spectrum”. Regulations need to be pushed and implemented in order to ensure that
people do not feel the pressure to automatically conform (Catalano).
“There
is no worldwide approved ideal of biological perfection and to make deliberate
changes in the genes that people will pass on to their descendants would force
us as a society to agree on what is to be considered “good” and “bad” genes.”
Control is necessary to prevent people from correcting perfectly healthy
babies.
On
the alternative side, we have the people in society who accept all forms of
genetic engineering with open arms. Some individuals would rather use it to
their advantage than down size it. They see it “as the ability to take charge
of our own evolution, to transcend human limitations, and to improve ourselves
as a species.” Believing that “it is time to acknowledge our technological
capabilities and take responsibility for them.” Statements I completely
disagree with, I feel that it isn’t our job to try to manipulate the human body
especially knowing that the child could never have any say so in it. Wouldn’t
it be a bit strange living in a world where babies no longer resemble their
parents?
Fig. 1. This image featured on Mommyish.com emphasizes the
dangers and unnaturalness of designer babies. There must be some control. A
child’s characteristics should not be
purchased.
This
message is mainly directed towards the younger generations. New technologies, ideas, and creations are emerging each day and
younger generations will progressively have the advantage of utilizing new
technologies for reproductive decision making but they rarely ever have the
opportunity to let their voice be heard regarding the topic. Therefore,
accurately capturing their views is important but could be quite challenging.
Experimental studies showed that youth had similar tolerance levels of genetic
engineering as adults. Majority found it acceptable to use such procedures for
the purpose of preventing inherited diseases or conditions rather than
enhancing traits (Iredale).
As I stated in the beginning society is very
much in the dark about this topic. At first I was very unknowledgeable about the
prospect of designer babies and I wasn’t against nor for it, but in between
because of my religious views. I thought it was ok for disease prevention but
not anything else. My opinion has changed after doing my research. I’m
completely against it now. I realized either way you use genetic engineering if
one use is wrong than so is the other. All the information I gathered and
experiments I followed impacted my opinion
greatly.