Analytic Entry on Current Events

Science and Technology has reached new heights in today's world. The Human Genome Project chemically decoded the entire human genome sequence through its research. With this amazing discovery came many differing opinions regarding its morality. In 2001, scientists in Oregon genetically engineered the first primate, a monkey named ANDi. This was a major scientific advancement in this field. With this kind of research, scientists are one step closer to being able to genetically engineer human beings. This concept frightens many individuals. Groups have formed attempting to ban this kind of research because of its ethical implications. They claim that altering humans’ genes goes against the true meaning of being human. God put every individual on this Earth for a specific reason, and it is everyone’s duty to live up to that. Manipulating genes entirely goes against this idea, for parents would have the ability to choose the appearance, intelligence, athletic ability, etc. that their child would possess. They would be playing the role of God and this concept troubles many. However, the opposing viewpoints ask that if God had a reason for the qualities all the humans possess, why would he give some of them awful diseases and disorders? Being able to alter their genes so that they live a healthy life only seems beneficial. The individuals who oppose this kind of research would then argue that human beings would turn into consumer products, something that is brought and picked out like a piece of candy. They believe that the only individuals who could afford this type of procedure would be those who are wealthy. The already present gap in society would expand and it would leave no room for alteration. Wealthy individuals would be destined for success, while the poor would not stand a chance. They would be unable to reach success because they do not possess the intelligence that the rich genetically do inside them. Despite the many complaints regarding this research, in 2008 the scientists at Cornell University in New York genetically engineered the first human embryo. Their incredible discovery will make it possible for humans to be genetically engineered in the near future. Previously humans could receive gene manipulation that affects blood and muscles cells for example, but those type of alterations will not get passed on to the next generation. This discovery will enable scientists to implant specific genes in individuals to be passed on to their offspring. Previously, the type of genetic engineering that was popular was called “gene doping.” In this process, athletes were able to get genes implanted in them from animals such as a rats’ quick twitch muscles to improve their overall speed. The morality of this is questioned as well because this would eliminate the notion that hard work brings success. As one researcher states, “it would produce excellence without effort, challenging the spirit of the Olympics and the meaning of sports competition” (Gregory M. Lamb. "Genetic Enhancement of Athletes Might Harm Sports”). Although this would benefit the athlete in his or her life, the genes would not be able to be passed on to their children because the genes would have been implanted in the athlete’s muscle cells. The incredible discovery in 2008 is going to make genetic engineering something that will last more than just one generation. The discoveries that scientists have made regarding the Human Genome Project are unbelievable without a doubt. They have reached new limits that no one thought was possible. However, this new limit is troubling to many, thus sides are being taken. The question becomes: is it more important to advance in the science field, or stay true to our morals?

Getting Closer...

On May 13th, 2008 at Cornell University in New York, the first human embryo was genetically engineered. The Cornell scientists took the gene for a fluorescent protein and put in into the single-celled human embryo they were testing. All three sets of chromosomes the embryo had were glowing after three days. The head scientist, Dr. Rosenwak explained that the division of the daughter cells after this time period means that the gene for the fluorescent protein would be able to be passed on to future generations. Technology has already made it possible for genes to be injected into humans blood or muscle cells primarily for medical purposes. However, this kind of genetic engineering only benefits the single individual at that time. Due to the location of the genes, they are unable to be transferred on to their offspring. This is the first time that genes are able to be passed on from generation to generation. This is a major step in being closer to be able to produce designer babies in the near future. Seven years prior to this experiment, the first genetically engineered monkey was reproduced. This current event can be found as one of my older posts labeled "Designer Babies Maybe?". However, since then no human has been able to have this procedure done, although scientists are extremely close to having the technology to be able to. Though, the researchers at Cornell University claim that this embryo was "abnormal," for it never had the potential to develop into a human baby. Instead, the experiment they were doing was solely for the purpose of stem cell research. It is argued that their claims are false because the scientists did not want to get in trouble for experimenting with a topic that is unethical in many individuals' eyes. These individuals feel that the scientists at Cornell University should have held a "public discussion" before they completed their work. Their research would make it possible for parents to choose their child's intelligence, appearance and athleticism before they are even born. This advancement questions what it means to be human. Would being able to choose your child's appearance take away the true meaning of a human? That is the question that scientists have to evaluate before they continue experimenting in this field.

Pollack, Andrew. "Engineering By Scientists On Embryo Stirs Criticism.(National Desk)." The New York Times. 157. 54309 (May 13, 2008): A14(L). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 8 Feb. 2010. http://find.galegroup.com..

Ignoring Ethics

This article was written by Rushworth M. Kidder who is the president of the Institute for Global Ethics. He argues that society is developing all new sorts of technology and disregarding their "moral and ethical consequences." He tells the story of when he went to visit the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. There was an explosion in April 1986 and Kidder learns its cause. On the night of the accident, two electrical engineers were experimenting with equipment they were not authorized to be using. In order to do their experiment they had to override six alarm systems. The first system shouted "Stop, go no further, terribly dangerous." The men went on anyway and faced awful consequences. Kidder states that these men were intelligent humans but lacked the "sense of a conscience, the understanding of ethics." He later on states that the ethics in our society have only gotten worth throughout time. The prime example from the 21st century is that The Human Genome Project will cause a huge employment issue. Employers are told specifically at what age their potential employees will be sick and no longer able to work for their company, or it will tell them that their health insurance is going to increase so they will be responsible for that payment. Kidder feels that employers should have no record of their employee's genomes because it is "essentially a question of ethics." He blames this whole situation primarily on the school systems who spend their time teaching about the technology itself but forget to include why these new inventions are unethical. It is even recorded that sixty-five percent of high school students admitted that they would cheat on an important exam in order to pass it. Also a Louis Harris poll for the Girl Scouts asked 5,000 American students who they hold the greatest amount of trust in. Expecting the answer to be in sciences or media, they were wrong. They said the only person they trust is him or her self. Kidder does have hope however. He states that as our country gains knowledge, values can improved. The more experience this world has with life itself, the better individuals' values and ethics should become. This is exactly what Kidder's goal is by being president of the Institute for Global Ethics. Their aim is to "track value shifts as we move into the new century." Hopefully with their hard work and cooperation of the citizens in America, the nation will continue to progress and make ethical decisions.

Kidder, Rushworth M. "Ethics for the Twenty-First Century." Opposing Viewpoints: American Beyond 2001. Ed. Oliver W. Markley and Walter R. McCuan. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 7 Feb 2010. http://find.galegroup.com..

An Athletic Anarchy

The research the Human Genome Project has made is making it possible for athletes to "gene dope." This is the term for the enhancement of genes in order to increase one's athletic ability. Scientists are able to take the genes of animals and engineer them into humans' genes. Individuals have taken sides as to whether they believe this type of engineering should be illegal or not. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is strongly against gene-doping while many biochemists think it could benefit the sports world. One example of gene doping is borrowing the twitch muscles of a rat in order to help a sprinter increase his or her speed. Any gene taken from an animal would make a human faster and stronger. Animals were genetically built different than humans so by taking these genes the author of this article believes athletes would be becoming "superhuman." Athletics would become a "freak-show," where it would only be possible to compete in professional sports if individuals have undergone gene doping. It would eliminate all sorts of training and practicing because the most nonathletic human in the world could get this procedure done and they suddenly have all the skills they need. It would take away the virtue of hard work and would teach children that it's possible to be successful without doing anything to earn it. "It would produce excellence without effort, challenging the spirit of the Olympics and the meaning of sports competition." This is a type of steroid however it is overlooked because it is not technically a drug that is injected into the body. There are some positive benefits to gene doping which would include quick recovery or a decrease in sports injuries. Individuals whose genes have been enhanced would not be susceptible to injury. This kind of genetic engineering would also help repair injured muscles quickly and with little effort. In March of 2004, gene doping was tested on mice to observe and determine these benefits or detriments. The mice were injected with a gene that promotes growth and the mice underwent an unbelievable transformation. The scientists recorded up to a fifty percent muscle growth after the gene doping. When they exercised, the mice's muscle strength increased by thirty-five percent. Although gene doping evidently results in positive affects today, it is unknown what the future will hold. Since this is the first generation of this kind of genetic engineering, who knows what the long-term effects will be. Right now athletes see improvement in their skills so their desire for gene doping is high. It would be a revolution in the sports world. John Hoberman from the University of Texas at Austin said, "inevitably it's going to turn [sports] into a kind of circus--freak show."

Gregory M. Lamb. "Genetic Enhancement of Athletes Might Harm Sports." Contemporary Issues Companion: Genetic Engineering. Ed. Sylvia Engdahl. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 7 Feb. 2010. http://find.galegroup.com..

Designer Babies Maybe?

A few years ago on January 11th, in Oregon, the first genetically engineered primate was born. This experiment took place on a monkey which was named ANDi (to symbolize DNA backwards), in order to get one step closer to altering humans' genes. Above, the monkey with blue eyes and spikey hair looks no different then any other. However, his genetic makeup was made by "splicing a gene from a jellyfish into a rhesus monkey embryo, which was then fertilized and implanted into a surrogate mother." ANDi then carried the new gene due to this procedure. He is mankind's closest relative which means that this process will shortly be available to humans. This article was written a few years ago so I believe that some technology is capable of this procedure on humans today. Many individuals are excited about this and see numerous benefits from this. By altering genes they will be able to choose their children's' appearance, athletic ability, and even mental ability. It also increases disease resistance. Supporters claim that they will treat their children like they are human and born naturally. They say that if God is supposed to look after everyone why did he create humans with such awful medical diseases and disorders? On the contrary, non-supporters of genetic engineering have numerous arguments as well as to why this new technology is wrong and unethical. They say that by parents altering their unborn child's genes they are playing the role of God. They feel that God made everyone individual for a reason and it is not our duty to alter that. It takes away the meaning of a human being. They also argue that these babies will appear as products or consumer goods the way they were basically "ordered." Enhancing genes will not necessarily bring happiness. Many intelligent individuals are unhappy while there are individuals with Downs syndrome who live extremely happy lives even though they suffer from a disorder. Another valid point is that this kind of technology would only be affordable to the wealthy. The already present gap in society would increase because unfortunate families would be unable to get this genetic engineering done for their children. Jobs would only be available to the genetically engineered in the future because they would be the best candidates for any work. The article states how a great debate about this topic is necessary because as it becomes evident, there are many strong points on both sides.

Masci, D. (2001, May 18). Designer humans. CQ Researcher, 11, 425-440. 7 Feb. 2010. http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/.