I believe that there are a number of situations where genetic engineering could and should be used and is justifiable. The most pertinent example is the screening for diseases and genetic disorders. The benefits gained from this could be enormous, from an overall raise in quality of life at the individual and family level and an increase in hospital efficiency at a societal one. However, this thinking is only really pertinent based on your definition of life. If you define life as starting at conception, then you would most likely find the idea of screening and possibly discarding embryos abhorrent. Yet, if you have a definition of life that begins later in the developmental process, this may seem like a completely acceptable solution to a great societal ill, no pun intended. Personally, I think that in cases such as the removal of disease, it seems viable to remove diseases, but I recognize that it should never be taken as far as it has been in Huxley’s universe, with certain fetuses being soaked in alcohol to dumb them down. That is simply unacceptable. So to answer the question, yes there are times when genetic engineering can be acceptable.
I deem human genetic engineering to be acceptable within reason. The possibility to prevent an illness from affecting the lives of our children would be extraordinary. To have a family heart condition erased would provide such relief. However, this engineering should be kept within limits. There is no reason to choose features like gender, eye color, or even height for a child. If one is planning on having a child, they should be able to accept the child who they are without having specific features. The level that Huxley takes the engineering to is excessive. To have one batch of fetuses planned to become rocket-plane engineers and others to become chemical workers is absurd. This should never be the purpose of genetic engineering. It should be to help future generations. There should be no need to choose the professions of certain fetuses. I believe that genetic engineering should be able to greatly help society. Therefore, I believe it is justified.
Genetic engineering is acceptable depending on the circumstance. I believe removing genetic disorders and diseases would help advance our society, but I do not agree with ending lives in the process. In my opinion, life begins at conception and to remove that chance of life in immoral. If it were possible to remove diseases and disorders from fetuses and embryos without throwing its’ chance at life away, I would encourage research. But, at this point, I would say ending the life after conception would be morally wrong. I say at this point because I believe my opinion is subject to change. I can understand that some mothers choose not to give birth to children with diseases because they do not want those children to live difficult lives. What I would choose in that scenario, I don’t know. On the other hand, if it were possible to find a disease in an embryo after conception, and remove that disease without the loss of the child, I would encourage research.
For over two thousand years, we have let nature select the genes of children and we have evolved as a species based off a principle we like to refer to as survival of the fittest. Our society may have faults, but it still works. How can one argue with over two thousand years of evidence that proves that letting nature control human genes can lead to a not perfect, but still good society? Genetic engineering is basically humans trying to fix a system that isn’t broken and therefore is unnecessary and pretty risky. Humans taking control of natural selection could have major consequences. We do not understand the universe and nature and therefore are highly likely to hurt the system more than we help it. For this reason, any major genetic engineering is just an unnecessary risk. I agree, however, with the notion that genetic engineering to remove a disease or disorder from an embryo would be acceptable. This is true as long as we are not completely altering the majority of the genetic make up of a child. That is the only scenario where I see genetic engineering somewhat justified.
Many ethical issues surround human genetic engineering. Reading Huxley's novel has helped me realize that if genetic engineering is pushed to that extent, than it is indeed both unacceptable and unethical. The idea of having everyone so similar and so close to perfection is extraordinary, yet frightening at the same time. On the other hand, if human genetic engineering is used to help prevent genetic disorders, diseases, and other dire health conditions than in that case it becomes both useful and justified. In essence, with firm control over how genetic engineering and its uses develop over time it can be positive in an ethical sense. But as Huxley's book shows with time astonishing discoveries can turn into extreme and undeniably dangerous situations.
It’s hard to disagree with the fact that if genetic engineering could prevent a man or woman from having a genetic disorder, or from having a predisposition for a disease later in life, than they are entirely justified. However, it is a slippery slope that we start down- first we’re helping to ensure our kids aren’t born with a tendency for heart disease, but than what? Obviously Huxley takes the “then what?” to an extreme, but it is a warning that we should heed. Just as the Controller says everything is about “stability”, we attempt to manipulate our genes because we think that our manipulations will offer more stability to our world. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for the added “stability” to our world if it means ridding it of some of its most terrible diseases. But we must be very careful not to be lured into the false happiness of too much stability.
I do believe that genetic engineering may be acceptable in some aspects of human procreation such as preventing genetic disorders. Even so, I also believe that, this is an area in which we are too unfamilular with to be experimenting. Humans have been undergoing natural selection for thousands of years which has enabled us to pick away at the weak and create a managable social heiarchy. Though it would be nice to wake up knowing that you could give your newborn their healthiest start at life. We are unable to tell where this research would stop, and the possible consequences or genetic mutations that may follow.
Allow me to begin with the easier question... There are many scenarios, both real and hypothetical in which the use of human genetic engineering is justified. Take for example Norman's example of cystic fibrosis or Lenina's inoculation of embryos against typhoid and narcolepsy. It takes no stretch of the imagination to see how the use of this technology to prevent the onset of disease would improve the quality and length of a patient's life with few (if any) negative effects. Therefore HGE in this case is morally equivalent to the use of antibiotics or surgery. But HGE is controversial for a reason. The use of HGE for cosmetic purposes or to enhance the natural abilities of a child (assuming either is even possible) is more difficult to judge. However both uses do seem to harm others, albeit indirectly. If your parents cannot afford such expensive procedures, and some people have the ability to "improve" their offspring, haven't you been harmed relatively? Regardless of your beliefs on the "real" use of HGE, Huxley's straw man argument with predestined social stratification based on a relatively unscientific view of genetic screening is disturbing in the extreme. Zach B.
Personally, I do not believe that there is any circumstance in which human genetic engineering would be justifiable. It would ethically be wrong for humans to assume the role of God and determine the traits of an individual and design a child suitable to their liking. I understand that perhaps originally this technology could be used to do positive procedures such as eliminating diseases or other medical problems, yet I do not believe the use of the technology would stop there. Eventually, as human beings are inherently selfish, the technology would also be used for unnecessary physical enhancement such as choosing a suitable eye or hair color. This use of the technology not only undermines individuality, but also gives parents the ability to be selective in what type of child they will love, thus twisting the basic moral of loving others. This technology would give humans extreme power which would eventually be abused, as Huxley’s imagination in Brave New World shows. I believe therefore that human genetic engineering is morally wrong and would ultimately lead to more harm than good. -Sarah B.
I agree with Mel’s assertion that society has progressed thus far successfully without controlling human genes and to do so would be an unnecessary risk to our society’s wellbeing. Part of being human and living life is dealing with problems or difficult situations which we must face and display our true character through our actions. These situations provide us with a chance for growth and improvement. If we seek to use genetic engineering to make people and life perfect we risk losing not only individuality, but also eliminating any motivation for growth both individually and as a society. If all is predestined from birth, as in Brave New World, there leaves no role, importance, or appreciation of the unique abilities and passions of the individual, a concept on which the American culture thrives. Our American society particularly would suffer from this stabilized society of Huxley’s Brave New World as our capitalistic economy is successful due not to complete government stabilization and regulation, but the freedom of individual pursuits and ideas. I therefore agree with Mel that genetic engineering would be an unnecessary risk to our society that we should not be willing to take. -Sarah B.
I believe that human genetic engineering is an issue that has many ethical issues when debating if it is worth achieving or not. Up until now humans have found ways where we can help alleviate or get rid of diseases and injuries that hinder us throughout our life. We have found ways to reduce the effects of a common illness to virtually wiping out a disorder that could severely affect a person’s health, such as the vaccination of polio. However, as technology advances and we find more ways to solve our problems, how do we know when we have crossed the line between nature vs. nurture? Is completely wiping out a disease a good thing? I do not believe we know the effects that would take place if we started to override nature’s way of controlling a human’s destiny. In the case of Brave New World, the means of operation for the genetic engineering is horribly wrong and only achieves a certain group’s definition of social superiority. Completely overriding nature is wrong and unethical. However, I believe genetic engineering can be beneficial if it doesn’t harm one’s life throughout the process of helping another’s.
I disagree with Sarah on the fact that this technology could be perverted by those who wish to use it for their own selfish purposes. Obviously, there are those out there who would like to do that kind of thing, but with tight enough regulations, there would be no market for it. As an example, I point to nuclear power. This is a technology that can be used for both immense good and immense evil. According to Sarah's argument, Atomic power would have been taken to the extreme and used for something immoral so many times we would not be sitting here typing this. In fact, only twice in history has Atomic technology ever been used for destruction, and then even those were arguably just uses. So I still hold that it is unlikely this technology would be perverted by the immoral fringes of our society.
In Response to Thomas: I agree with Thomas that to give future generation the ability to live without the worries of heart disease would be beneficial to our society. I also agree that to go as far as to choose your child's features is ridiculous. The idea of predetermining your child's features would be like playing Sims. If we were to let that happen, what would be next? What if we ended up choosing their personality? I agree that Huxley takes it too far in determining future jobs and conditioning unborn fetuses to be prepared for a life that is predetermined. I feel like deciding a child’s occupation before they are born leaves no hope in the world. It would leave no possibility for the poor to become wealthy and it leaves no opportunities for people to discover their interests. While society would run smoothly, it would be like living in a world of robots. So, in summary, I agree with Thomas that genetic engineering is beneficial to society, but can easily be taken too far.
The most significant breach of ethics in genetic engineering is the ensuing lack of individuality that results from it. Human beings have the inherent right to blossom into being who they are, whatever that may be. Part of the beauty of this human experience is its imperfection and unpredictablity. Just as in a compeling story, life has its peaks and valleys. To attempt to eliminate those is not only unnatural, and – quite frankly – undesirable, even in a case where genetic manipulation could save the patient from a disease or disability. We are bettered by our challenges, no matter how grave they are, and thus to tamper with the natural course of life is undesirable.
Is it right for us to "create" our children? Is it ok to manipulate embryos to make exactly what is desired? I feel as though neither of these questions can be answered with reassuring "yes." As humans, we cannot expect perfection, and therefore cannot expect to have a perfect child. We have survived as a race for thousands of years without genetic engineering, so why change it? We have evolved with nature, and as we manipulate ourselves, it is hard for nature to keep up. Therefore, we must begin to manipulate nature itself, and things are no longer how they were meant to be. All in all, I feel as though there are no circumstances where genetic engineering can be seen as ethical. It is not right for humans to mess with what nature desires. Amy J
In Response to Nate and Thomas I want to agree with both and say that generic engineering in order to stop diseases is acceptable. And if I were a parent, I am sure that I would choose to keep my chid safe from diseases if given the opportunity. But I think that this given choice would be unethical and unjustifiable. Once again we would be messing with what nature wants. And not to bring religion into the picture, but I feel as though humans are not in the position to act as the higher being who controls all of this. I think of the affect the removal of diseases would have on the world. Yes, people would live longer, be able to work longer, and all together live a healthier life. But what would happen to the younger generations when the jobs that would be available to them are taken by those who are much older? And how would we deal with the population increase when people are living longer and more and more children are being born? We are not the ones who are meant to control those things, and doing so would destroy the balance we live with now.
First off, I hope that sometime during the course of this book I will be able to type something like “Nathan’s Response to Sarah’s Response to Mel’s Response to Tom’s Response to Carli’s Response…” and so on until I get to the required 100 words. A man can hope. Anyways…
I, like Sarah, do not have much faith in mankind to always use this sort of technology responsibly. I believe that people would be much more willing to use genetic engineering for their own private purposes than something like nuclear power. If a person decides to genetically engineer their child, they will only be directly affecting their child, which for many is ok. Our morals stop us from using nuclear power for destruction because it directly affects many other people. I believe that many people would end up on the “immoral fringes” of society if it meant the possibility of a better life for their own child.
Tim R. brings up a great point. Getting rid of diseases that may come affect us later in life is great. However, it is important to realize that we should not "be lured into false happiness of too much stability." (Tim R) If one was to create their perfect child, it takes away from the diverse world that we live in. Huxley’s world is very extreme. It doesn’t allow for the opportunity for different people to be creative with their lives. Huxley’s stability is so restrictive that even jobs are previously chosen before the child is born. These restrictions remove almost every individual freedom that anyone had. Again, the question essentially boils down to the use of the genetic engineering. For any reason to prevent an illness, the engineering is fantastic. As Zach B. notes, the engineering is just like the use of antibiotics or surgery. Clearly there is no harm in the use of medicine or surgery. However, for any superficial reason, there is just no ethical reason to make your child look differently than they would.
Genetic engineering of humans can be an extremely positive modification or an unimaginably destructive one depending on how it is regulated. There are of course the benefits like eliminating genetic disease and enhancing humans to make them more intelligent. However, personally I believe this science is unnecessary and unethical. I think it is immoral to want to hand select the genes of your unborn child since part of the excitement of becoming a parent is bringing a new child into the world who has their whole life ahead of them to become who they want to be. Their life is unpredictable and the ones who grow to love them learn to accept them for who they are. Humans, as a species, have survived the last thousands of years relying on natural selection and "survival of the fittest." I think we should leave it up to nature to decide our genetic makeup. No other species has the ability to evolve the way humans have through technology, and just because we have the ability to perform genetic engineering does not mean we should. We would probably take this technology so far that it becomes destructive and take it to the extremes like Huxley’s Brave New World.
I also feel, like Sarah stated, that using technology to the extremes of genetic engineering undermines individuality. I agree with her position on the ethics of genetic engineering and find it incredibly hypocritical that we are told to love someone for who they are when science is choosing the person you become. , Every human being has flaws and people must accept that. Once DNA is shaped by man nobody will want to choose the weak, inferior traits when they can choose the genes that make them become beautiful and immune to all illnesses. Without the flaws that make a person who they are there may no longer be any artistic creativity in the world and everyone may become predictable, identical, and most of all boring. The little things that make you who you are disappear because you are now so much like everyone else.
Mankind has a fixation with knowledge and an insatiable curiosity. It seems highly likely that humans will explore human genetic engineering sometime in the relatively near future.While it could pose dramatic postive and negative consequences, the least of these are ethical. If the concern is that humans will possess too much power and control, then it looks highly illogical to look over the control they have already seized over plants, animals, and the Earth. Some look at this and see a slippery slope, but from a scientific perspective, it is more appropriate to view it as a progression. Humans have the right and obligation to pursue knowledge and therefore human genetic engineering is always justified. trevor t
When looking at genetic engineering or selection, I divide it into three categories, life bettering, life worsening, and cosmetic changes. Out of these, I believe that life bettering and cosmetic changes are reasonable uses of genetic engineering. Sure the cosmetic changes seem frivolous, but they harm no one, and while physical appearance can alter the way someone is treated in society, in principle it isn’t that much different from the way a name changes the way someone is treated. Changing a child’s appearance is merely an extrapolation of the parent’s right to name the child. That said, I do believe that there should be some restrictions on this. For instance, a sobriety test to make sure that the child isn’t given any cruel abnormalities. Dramatically life bettering changes are the only category that I see as justifying abortion. This is because they could prevent suffering for both the child and the parents induced by debilitating diseases like Edwards Syndrome. Doing this could also help remove such diseases from society, which would eliminate the need for such a choice in the future. I view BNW life worsening changes as bad in all cases because they are limiting fetus’ potential and predetermining its life.
I believe that the ethical issues that surround human genetic engineering are all due to each person's beliefs of where a human's life begins. Some people believe that a human's life begins as soon as the microscopic DNA are formed even as we are tiny cells, who have no human traits yet or personalities. Others believe that a person's life begins as soon as they open their eyes; when they are brought into the world. Some scenerios in which it would be justified would be stem cell research, or any other research that could save the lives of millions of people. The people that are so against stem cell research and say that it's "unethical" say that because they don't know what it's like to live with a disease like Parkinson's. The people that do have the disease, however, are the ones who are all for stem cell research because they want the pain to be taken away.
As a person who almost died at birth due to a birth defect, I strongly believe that using genetic engineering to prevent disease and defects is not only justifiable, but that it is immoral not to prevent the disease if one is capable of doing so. That being said, limits would need to be put on the extent that people are able to use genetic engineering. In as superficial of a society we live in, it is almost undeniable that irresponsible people would use genetic engineering for the wrong reasons such as changing the way their child would look. Max B.
your wish may come true Tim, Tim's response to Nathan's response to Sarah's response.
I agree with Tim and Sarah; I would never trust mankind to use their technology responsibly. But does this mean it's inherently bad? Plato argued that written language would lead to the eventual ruin of mankind. (yep, its a reference to "is Google Making Us Stupid?")There was truth to that statement, but there were innumerable, unforeseen positive outcomes of the choice for written language. Perhaps HGE is similar in this way. It can be much easier to see the downside of a new technology than to fathom the countless positive side effects of it.
Although there are many ethical issues surrounding human genetic engineering, I believe it is a crucial step for mankind. With the genetic engineering, we can wipe out most diseases from the gene pool. this would make our lives much easier. In the Brand New World, Huxler makes it seem lke they're making robots in a factory. He makes it seem more scary than it really is. Overall, I believe this would be the right step for mankind and will be embraced in the near future.
There is a fine line between using genetic engineering for eugenic purposes and for using genetic engineering for the health of humanity as a whole. The two main fears with genetic engineering are that it can cause unforseeable consequences by altering the normal course of natural selection and adaptation, and that it can be used at the expense of diversity and towards an opinion of the ideal human. When the randomness factor is removed from the expression of traits, and is subsequently put into the hands of a human, this expression will almost always be affected by the personal opinions of the person requesting the genetic modification or engineering, whether conciously or unconciously. A redeemable quality of genetic engineering, however, is that it has the potential to remove malformations of the genome which could lead to devastating genetically heritable conditions. Nevertheless, if genetic engineering is to ever be employed on a large scale, firm measures must be taken to insure that this modification is used only to correct health problems that could seriously affect the quality of life of the person whose genes are being modified.
Why? I'd like to see some evidence or reasoning that shows that the use of HGE for medically and morally valid purposes will ultimately result in its use for vain or unethical purposes. Without that, your argument is simply an invalid logical fallacy. Simply put, immortality is not necessitated by the use of antibiotics, so why would the elimination of individuality be inevitable as a result of the use of HGE?
In response to the "God-Players":
First off, we've been doing this for the past 4,000 years. What is selective breeding? Corn is no longer the plant it once was, largely in part to human intervention. Was our cultivation of crops morally wrong? Would it have been better to starve? The only difference between selective breeding and HGE is the speed of the process. Secondly, I dislike this argument, although I admit it is not disproven because of this, since it bases morality on the existence of some higher power (even if that power is Nature). It seems to me that something ought to be morally judged based what it does to others/ourselves/society and how it affects human dignity, rather than on reverence for some other being. There is a simple test to see if you agree with me: If God didn't exist, would your response be different?
As for you "individuality advocates":
Is the erosion of individuality inevitable if HGE or used, or is it simply possible. If it is possible, but not inevitable then there is some way of preventing said deterioration without abstaining from using HGE to cure diseases etc. Certainly saving lives is a worthy goal, especially if we don't eliminate individuality.
Zach B. (I know this is a far cry from 200 words... Sorry!)
I strongly agree with him and was about to put the same thing. Genetic Engineering should definitely be allowed but of course we would need limits. I believe this is where problems will arrive, however. People think in different ways and there's always people disagreeing on what should be legal and what shouldn't. There would have to be a meeting between the main leaders in the subject to make a good list of legal uses of genetic engineering.
I think there needs to be some restriction on genetic engineering. Granted there is much good that genetic engineering can do for humanity, but there is also much potential for misuse of this technology. We as a species must also think about altering a system that has been proven over billions of years. I think that the statement, "if it isn't broken, don't fix it", applies to some extent here. We must think about whether we should be tampering with the natural flow of adaptation. If we decide to do this, we must then prioritize for which problems and issues that genetic engineering and modification should be applied to.
I am slightly confused by Mel B’s post. It seems to me that eliminating genetic diseases is the way is which we would most interrupt natural selection. Changing superficial things like eye color have no real affect on the “fitness” of a person. Thus, it seemed like the stuff that was potentially the most dangerous was the stuff that Mel didn’t strongly object to. Also, I was wondering what consequences would come from removing genetic diseases. I couldn’t help but think “oh no, a world without Huntington’s, how will we ever survive”. Even if there were some unforeseen consequences like overpopulation, what’s to say that natural selection wouldn’t take care of them?
Also to the Sarah/Mackenzie posts, I fail to see the connection changing appearance and humanity losing all creativity. It seems to me that a person’s creativity is more a product of their mind than their appearance and the appearance of those around them. Also, who’s to say that we would all end the same? People’s view of the perfect person vary wildly depending on time, place, culture, socioeconomic status, and other factors. Compare Lara Croft to Judith, while admittedly not “perfect people” they were considered beautiful at the time, and they vary wildly. Andrew G
PS I’m sorry if I restated someone’s opinion, but its getting late and I’m too tired to read 23 entries
There are many ways genetic engineering can cross the line, but let's look at the positives. Many children are born with diseases/disorders that they will have their entire lives. Some diseases (i.e. hemophilia) cause people to constantly be in the hospital and others significantly decrease a person's lifespan to pre-puberty. Looking through the child's perspective first, is that really a way to live? Children with extreme diseases/disorders would experience life, but that life is short and spent in a hospital. Is it worth it? I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question. Now look at the parent's viewpoint: is it fair to make them pay thousands of dollars in medical expenses or to take care of their child when they are elderly (for example if the child has down syndrome)? The most ideal way would be to fix the genetic disease without destroying the embryo, but if that wasn't possible, I still think genetic engineering should be used, but only to remove diseases and disorders. "Brave New World" crosses the line by "dumbing down" embryos to fit them into a certain social class. Genetic engineering should only be used to improve life, not make it worse.
Although it is easy to see the benefits of genetic engineering, I agree with Sarah and Mel when they say that a human life is not to be tampered with and that society has functioned adequately without genetic engineering. Although I would like to see the eradication of multiple diseases in humans, I fear that as soon as we tamper with one aspect of human genetics, people will tamper with other aspects of human genetics and that this will eventually run rampant, thus allowing for people to create their own "designer" baby. I also fear that if genetic engineering does get out of hand to the point where everything is regulated like in the book, it will prevent mutations from occuring, thus preventing the human race from advancing as a species (which could eventually lead to our extinction) However, I am a proponent of stem cell research. The advancements being made in stem cell research are excellent (to the point where we don't even have to take into question the life of an embryo because we can conduct research without it) and I hope to see cures for several diseases and deformities arise in the near future.
I agree with Zach that if anyone is allowed to use genetic engineering, then only the rich will be able to afford it and improve the health of their children, which will in turn indirectly harm those who cannot afford it. However, I believe that this instead of making it inaccessible, means that as a society we must ensure that all embryos, even those belonging to parents who cannot afford genetic engineering, are altered to get rid of diseases. This would save enormous amounts of time, effort, and money. We would no longer have to waste resources researching how to cure a disease that can be stopped before it starts. If we are not wasting our time, then scientists can focus on curing other non-genetic diseases. This is the essential benefit that genetic engineering can provide. However, Huxley’s model of genetic engineering involves completely controlling society, not just taming diseases. As Sarah so adequately put it, it’s like humans taking over the role of God. Huxley’s taking away freedom of choice by creating a society where everyone’s fate is predetermined. And what is the point in living in a world where all your choices and passions are chosen for you?
I completely agree with Becky. Everyone’s ethical standards are different because not everyone can agree on when human life truly begins. I think we can all agree that “Brave New World” is anything but ethical, but once we start looking at the less extreme viewpoints, nothing seems black and white. However, based on the video we saw in class, the majority of us (80%) believe in continuing to do stem cell research, which is a form of genetic engineering. The majority of us want the continual research in stem cells to rid diseases such as Parkinson’s, which Becky explained. For people who will have or already have diseases such as Parkinson’s, genetic engineering would allow there lives to be so much easier and normal. As long as genetic engineering remains at fixing diseases and disorders, I’m all for it.
My direct answer to the second prompt question is that yes, there are circumstances under which genetic engineering ought to be allowed, namely to weed out genetic conditions that are severely detrimental to the health and well-being of a potential individual. As I understand, current processes like CVS and amniocentesis already test for conditions, but those can only be done a good number of weeks into gestation. If a condition like Down syndrome that makes the life of both the individual and the parent much more painful is found, the parents are often given an option of terminating the pregnancy. If prenatal screening can be done only a few days post-conception or even before that, would it not be less of a dilemma of whether to carry the pregnancy full term or not, if the cells are much closer to or not even at the “where-does-life-begin” line? Granted, if there are people who are of an opinion that would have them have the baby regardless of any conditions, then let them be, it’s their choice. This case of HGE is purely optional and for those who would wish to avoid genetic conditions.
Norman brought up a point that kind of makes me uncomfortable (not holding it against you though haha). When prenatal screening is done and something such as Down Syndrome is found, what do you do? Yes, Down Syndrome is a terrible thing to have and a struggle for the child with it as well as their parents, but for the parents to terminate the pregnancy just seems wrong to me. To me, that almost seems like a parent saying "I can't love my baby if he/she has Down Syndrome or some other lifelong illness," and that disturbs me thinking of parents doing this, because I know it DOES happen. Yes, genetic screening can help prevent such things, but in the society that Huxley created/ if this were to truly become regular practice in our everyday life- we'd be making "the perfect human" over and over...losing the things that make us unique and making it a competition for who has the "newest, latest and greatest child."
I agree that being able to distinguish the difference between what the use for genetic engineering can be difficult to find. I also believe that looking at it in a deeper perspective, the division of using genetic engineering for a personal goal from a goal that a society defines as desirable can overlap over each other. How do we know what the effects of genetic engineering would be, and who exactly would the process affect after genetic engineering is achieved? As mentioned by many already here on this blog, a major concern is where do we draw the limit to where genetic engineering can reach? One person’s belief may not be on the same level and it maybe even to extreme or too mild. I agree with Rajiv on the idea that eliminating diseases and other hindrances would be a great goal to achieve with genetic engineering. But I am almost certain that there are people who believe that removing health issues would already be too drastic and invading into nature’s course of plotting our destiny. Because of this issue, genetic engineering is an ethical issue that will prove difficult to find a common agreement on.
I question Norman's comment, that prenatal screening only days after conception would help parents make the decision of whether or not to abort their babies. Although I believe that women have the right to choose whether or not to abort their babies, I don't think that a woman can decide to abort her child because it has a genetic defect (that isn't life threatening). This would leave genetic engineering as a very viable option, thus allowing for the birth of healthy babies who can lead normal lives. However, making this option available to every family (Mel's argument) makes me wonder what would happen if we were to live in a society where there is that much control over human lives. Genetic engineering may become so common that we eventually think it is okay to tamper with embryos to the point where there aren't any pressing reasons to do so. I also think that regulation of genetic engineering so that it is accessible to everyone could lead to a sort of communistic society in which multiple aspects of are lives are under control. It is for this reason that genetic engineering is not a good idea. We can not begin to change the DNA of our children until we are certain that we as a society will not let human genetic engineering get out of hand.
Some of the issues surrounding genetic engineering are whether or not stem cell research is ethical, as well as how long after conception does life begin. I personally don't believe that genetical engineering can be justified. Who has the right to change the way a person is being born into this world? There have been plenty of times where doctors have said that a child will be born with some life-hindering illness or some sort of disorder, and when the baby is born it turns out to be just fine. I don't think we as humans should be messing with fellow humans' genes as it doesn't seem to be our place. If we had control over our genetic make up, we'd all be the same, genetically perfect people...and therefore making society one big cloneof itself.
I think that human genetic engineering should have no boundaries. Realistically, when this issue comes up, there will always be a push to move forward, and, more likely than not, that push will win. We need to remove the religious aspect to see clearly. That means removing the phrase "playing God." Who is to say that we are not the higher power? Why can't we screen people for diseases? I think that nearly everyone would choose to save him or herself if the technology was available. If you wouldn't save yourself, would you save someone close to you? On a different note, altering genes is not all that different from influencing children in their early years. Teaching someone a good work ethic really isn't that different from implanting it into his or her genes. Overall, I think that human genetic engineering should be fully allowed. -Nikhil H.
In response to a couple of people, I think that saying that genetic engineering will prevent human being from advancing is a little bit ridiculous. What if genetic engineering is how we are meant to advance? Even so, if mutations did occur to advance us, they would likely not be removed because they are not looked for. I may be wrong, but i think that screening for diseases will not eliminate all other genes, just those diseases. In that case, mutations can still occur and will still be able to advance the human race. I think that no matter what we try to do, once genetic engineering becomes fully available, it will be impossible to stop it.
I disagree with Nikhil on the point that there should be no boundaries on genetic engineering. Historically technological advancements in any field needs boundaries, so ethics stay intact with the research. Allowing no boundaries can only lead to pushing the research to the extent of Huxley's novel, where human genetic engineering has no boundaries. By placing boundaries on the way human genetic engineering is used, we can decrease the chances of dangerous action being taken within that field of study as well as a push on the ethical front. On the other hand, I agree with Nikhil on the point that using human genetic engineering will advance our societies overall knowledge, and that using it to cure diseases has no unethical arguments.
The biggest problem with genetic engineering in my eyes is that it gives humans too much control over another person's life. Giving one person the ability to choose what the outcome will be for another person with out that person having any say is wrong. Genetic engineering eliminates that person's freedom of choice. That is the downside. However, genetic engineering can be helpful. So yes I do beleave that genetic engineering can help in some cases. For example, you could genetically engineer a baby so that they do not have any birth defects. I believe that this would be benificail to society.
In response to NiKhil that genetic engineering should have no boundaries, I do agree. However, I think that this will come not because we should allow it to happen, but that scientist will always want to push the envelope and move forward. Somethings should just be left alone. In the end curiosity will kill the cat and humans will step upon something that they will regret discovering. It may not happen right away but with the right circumstances thing could out of control fast. So even though I do not like what Nikhil said, I do believe that he is right.
I believe genetic engineering can never be justified. If scientists enter that realm of science, there will be no boudaries and people will be creating designer babies. This will decrease genetic variability. In generations to come, a society of nearly identical peopel will be created. Inbreeding within this society will cause more genetic defects, causing a vicious cycle. -Swathi M.
I disagree with a lot of people on the fact that genetic engineering should be allowed to prevent genetic disorders. First of all, I think genetic disorders are necessary for human advancement. On an individual level, people become mentally stronger if they are put in strenuous situations. These types of people are very valuable in society. Also, if all genetic disorders were eliminated, what would pharmacists, doctors, and scientists do? A lot of people would lose jobs and societies would collapse. Again, I would defend my point that leaving the nature of man alone has worked for thousands of years and there is no need to change that now. -Swathi M.
In response to Nathan: I disagree with him because as I see it life is life no matter how small in number of cells its representation may be. Although an embryo may seem unintelligent, it will grow and develop into a human being with thoughts and feelings. Also, I think that genetic screening could get out of hand if we are not careful. Huxley presents an extreme of what could happen, but if one thing leads to another, who knows? We could evolve into accepting such an extreme. To avoid a "Brave New World" scenerio, we must avoid planting the seeds that would spout into a huge and grotesque weed.
I can definitely envision situations in which genetic engineering would be justified. Yes, there is a line that is being crossed in terms of interfering with the formation of human life, but we cannot just buy into the slippery slope fallacy that this will cause all sorts of intrusions. The key to preventing this will be to impose limits on the future uses of the technology before the practice goes into use to prevent abuse. We already use technology that is similar in means, such as in vitro fertilization, without having committed any crazy human rights abuse. Thus, I would say that this ambiguous line as to what kind of alterations are against moral judgment will not be crossed if the intention surrounding its use is clearly specified from the beginning.
If that is the case, all that is left is to determine what alterations are within moral reasoning. It seems to me that unnecessary death, pain, and suffering are beyond what is morally acceptable if we have the capability to prevent them. It is our moral duty to stop harm where it is happening, just as morality would compel us to save a dying baby on the side of the road. Thus, if we can use practices such as genetic screening to seed out babies who would die painful deaths within a few years of lie, it seems that the least painful, and thus most moral, solution would be to prevent their lives, especially at a step before abortion even becomes an issue.
In response to Sarah K. (and everyone else arguing that human life ought not be tampered with).
Everyone making this argument seems to be basing their reasoning on precedent: Humans have always had defects, it is not within our realm of power or obligation to fix them, etc. However, if we are really basing our analysis on precedent, alterations at the genetic level seem far from unreasonable. The behavior modifications in Ch. 2 of Brave New World seem extreme, but social conditioning is employed constantly to change the way children think from a very young age. At the time we enter Kindergarten, we are already filled with a sense of morality and society, and can "differentiate right from wrong" in the ways taught to us by our role models. We may also be disillusioned when faced with things actually horrifying due to the numbing effects of our social conditioning. If nature and nurture are so closely linked that nurture can affect behavior so profoundly, it is only logical that a society that accepts nurture manipulation would accept the same on a genetic level.
There very well could be certain circumstances in which genetic testing would be appropriate, although I personally would not partake in any genetic screening of sorts. One may argue that it could help eliminate fatal diseases and take away the risk of your child developing a disability, but I would have to agree with Swathi that those "defects" are necessary in society. If we all were born perfect, there would be nothing to fix. Through research and development we advance to hopefully fix a problem at hand so that we can then move on to the next. Taking away genetic diseases is not going to eliminate the world's problems. It may, in fact, cause more problems, just in a different form. Therefore, I do not support genetic screening.
In my mind, the only real justification for genetic engineering at this moment in time is curiosity. Could we prevent genetic conditions that decrease the quality of many people's lives? Could we make the lives of our children better? Could the field of genetic engineering benefit society as much as the field of medicine? At this point, we really don't know. There is a lot of opposition to genetic engineering, and it’s based on fear and distrust: fear of what scientists could do with such powerful knowledge, and distrust in those scientists to use that power ethically. I don’t think that this is reason to prohibit or interfere with genetic engineering research; if anything, the fact that there is a general awareness of the potential for genetic engineering to go wrong should reassure people that any advances will be made very cautiously and under the strict watch of many critical observers. Natalie B.
I say this in response to, and at the risk of offending, a lot of people, I don’t think that society will ever just drop the pursuit of understanding genetic engineering. Even if there is ever a general consensus that genetic engineering is unethical, it’s just a matter of time before somebody realizes the potential for benefit in genetic engineering again. I think that the people who say ‘genetic engineering could harm humankind too much, so we shouldn’t allow anyone to research (and at some point understand) it,’ and demand that the discussion be ended there are just discomforted by the idea of genetic engineering- because there is a level of comfort in not being in control, and that comes from being able to trust in nature or god or whatever it is to create all men equal.
Basically the overaching theme when it comes to the controversy of genetic engineering is how powerful humans CAN be in contrast with how powerful humans SHOULD be. Is there no glass ceiling to scientific progress and will creating an artificial ceiling for science be a detriment to humans in the long run? Arguments for each side tend to abandon logos in favor of ethos and pathos. Those who wish to stop genetic engineering call upon religion and human 'rights'. Human 'rights' are not a concrete law. They are rather a developed belief built as a result of the growth of ethical ideas over time. Those who wish to push forward with genetic engineering regard it as the final frontier for human development. A natural progression in our evolution, a completely organic process. Sure one can justify genetic engineering but this tends to indicate one's point of view rather than a logical truth that genetic engineering is justifiable. Justification is in the eye of the beholder. With the right financial backing and/or personal investment individuals can make the most horrid acts seem justified or the most benevolent acts seem terrible, justification lends itself more to rhetoric than to the issue itself. Regardless of whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' genetic engineering will continue to be a part of the development of biology in the 21st century.
In response to Swathi's argument that certain flaws are necessary in a society I have to thoroughly disagree. If we say that it is okay to not attempt improvement on a biological front who says where the line is drawn. If someone starts losing their sight will we stop providing them glasses or contacts to help improve their quality of life? You have to remember that "Brave New World" is just a single possibility of what the future of genetic engineering could hold. Just one outcome due to the advance of this technology. You can't stop others from progress, you can choose to not participate yourself but it is impossible from stopping others from improving what they perceive as the quality of life for themselves as well as their offspring. If we are considering government in this argument that you would also have to consider that prohibiting removing flaws from society would be disrupting the people's ability to "pursuit happiness" (see The Declaration of Independence).
The main ethical problem with genetic engineering is that it leads society down a very slippery slope that can not be stopped. People say that it will never get that bad but human nature is to always crave more and more control over the environment and everything in it. We always make the natural unnatural if we can. Once we start looking for diseases we would start changing embryos' physical appearances, and then eventually emotions. The part that makes humans so special is all the outcomes that can happen when creating a baby, but for some reason they turned out the way they are. If we take out the spontaneity of the situation we take out what really makes it special. Also people are not comfortable with touching that aspect of life. Sure it could stop many diseases, but at what cost to the human race? Rachel K.
In response to Natalie, I completely agree that people will never stop searching for the secrets of genetic engineering and i realize that some people just like the comfort not being in control brings, but i think that can be said to the opposite view as well. People who are obsessed with the idea of genetic engineering are people who need to be in control and lack the sense of comfort because they are not in control. I know it's a hard side to defend when we can really just say it's morally wrong or eery, but at what stage will humanity's search of control stop? There needs to be a line and it is much easier to control a line if the whole section is just blocked off. If you keep pushing the line back then people will start arguing that if that's okay why not something else, and then the line will be eliminated. We need to realize that starting this can lead to dreadful results. Rachel K.
The fundamental ethical question surrounding genetic engineering is whether or not humans should have the right to disrupt natures natural processes at the most personal level; our own cellular origins. I personally believe that language plays a large role in people's views on this issue, as well as ignorance of the technology and its uses. I believe that genetic engineering on the grand scale of things is completely unacceptable and will disrupt not only human societies but our environment as a whole. Being able to control our genetic programming is the ultimate form of control in our lives and to have that power is too risky. I'm somewhere in the middle though. Because people are aware of the technology it makes it much more difficult to get people to forget about it, and I feel inevitably we will try it out. Also, if I was in the position where I knew my future children had a predisposition for a genetic abnormality that would hinder their lives, I without a doubt would do whatever means possible to prevent that. John C.
Also, I wholeheartedly agree with what Sid said. Regardless of how sacred people may perceive themselves, when push comes to shove, people are going to do whats best for themselves. Society is founded upon the notion of collective progress for the individuals sake. Here lies the difficulty regarding genetic engineering then: some people who are aware of this breakthrough technology are beyond eager to see what it has to hold for their own personal gain. Society would crumble if it ever remained static and I feel that regardless of how some may feel, it might just inevitably be our next step into medicine, as lethal as that may be. I personally feel that progress must always be made but this is a dangerous technology that can so easily be taken too far. John C.
There are many ethical issues surrounding the idea of genetic engineering, however they all center around one essential question. When does life begin? If you believe that life begins at conception, then you would be more inclined to be against genetic engineering, believing that you are “disposing” of innocent lives. However if you believe that life begins at some random point during pregnancy, then the only reason they have to feel remorse at the idea of genetic engineering and the disposal of embryos would be that you are extinguishing a potential for life in that embryo. There are many other pros and cons of the argument about genetic engineering, but as long as people disagree about the timeline on the beginning of a life, there will always controversy.
I agree with the statement that with firm control over how genetic engineering is used and how it develops can be positive in an ethical sense. While genetic engineering has the potential to be a terrific asset to society, I feel that when the time comes society will not be able to draw the line on what is ethical and what isn’t. So many times we mistakenly think that we should progress (In all areas- technology, philosophies, etc.), simply for the sake of progress. However, this is not always a good thing. I think that Huxley’s book shows terrifically that there is such a thing progressing too far in a certain areas, whether it is genetic engineering, technology, or any other area.
I do not believe that there are any circumstances in which genetic engineering would be deemed acceptable. Genetic Engineering is an unnatural process, one which we do not fully know the limits or consequences of. It has a large amount of potential yet very few rules. I do not think that we should attempt to know and understand these unknowns. I feel that if the process is started and accepted, then it will snowball and ultimately turn the natural world into something unnatural, something that we were not created to live in. The inhabitants of the Brave New World had to be conditioned to live in their environment because it is unnatural. They would not have known how to live in it if they were not conditioned.
I think human genetic engineering is permissible in circumstances like disease prevention, or reducing the risks of disease in a child. I don't see a downside to reducing disease in society and improving the life of a child. But even disease prevention is a risky procedure, as it will most likely lead to even more dramatic "improvements" of embryos. Humans have a tendency to over use technology, driving just over the hill or texting their friend who's sitting across the room from them. While these instances may seem trivial, humans have applied the same over use with major technologies like nuclear weapons during the Cold War Era. I'm afraid that, if we start to use genetic engineering to reduce the likelihood of disease, we would eventually use it for other "improvements" like changing the height, eye color, or gender of a baby. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and a world of designer babies would be hell on Earth. I don't want to live in a world where my destiny is predetermined and manipulated by humans in a lab, where my worth is determined from my genetics. We would need strict laws against such use and development.
In response to Luke: I agree that genetic engineering has the potential, even the likelihood, to snowball. I too find it threatening that there are no rules set for genetic engineering. It's dangerous to leave that much power in the hands of humans with no laws or regulations to restrain use and preserve ethics. But I disagree with your statement, "we should not attempt to know and understand these unknowns." Yes genetic engineering has the potential to disrupt society, but I don't think that's a justified reason to halt all experimentation with the technology. I think we need to be very careful of its use. It should be limited, possibly prohibited, and the circumstances of experimentation are risky and questionable in themselves, but human life is essentially the pursuit of knowledge. How can learning more about our genetic make-up and our environment be a bad thing? Who knows where the research for genetic engineering could lead? Perhaps we will finally prove our origins or find a essential link to a new ancestor from evolution? The possible benefits are boundless and it's silly to limit our pursuit of knowledge for fear of the unknown.
I agree that if genetic engineering does have a place in our society, that rules and regulations need to be created and enforced. But my question is who gets to create them and who gets to enforce them. The potential consequences of genetic engineering are enormous. Who ever gets a hold of the regulation creation and enforcement positions will have great power and influence over the future of society. Is this responsibility and power too great for any human or group of humans to hold? I believe it is. What if these people mess up? Is there any turning back from genetic engineering? Are the rewards worth the great risks? I don't think so. There are many unknowns concerning genetic engineering. Because of this, it is almost impossible for us to get it right the first time around. And when we mess up, how will we fix it when we don't know anything about it?
There are plenty of obvious issues that surround genetic engineering, most of which question how ethical the idea is. Plenty of people are against it because it goes against their religion, and others feel that stem cell research is killing a potential person. Although I see the validity in these points, I cannot say that I agree with them. If mankind posesses the technology to use stem cells to cure diseases, then I see no reason why that technology shouldn't be used. However, if gene therepy is used in a similar way that it is in the World State, mankind could see serious problems. Mustapha Mond spoke of a society composed of all Alphas and how it failed becuase nobody wanted to do the menial labor suited for epsilons or deltas. If parents are allowed to make their children "perfect" mankind could face a similar situation. -Andy H.
In response to Amy, who responded to Nathan and Thomas.
I understand your point that by facilitating gene therapy, we may disturb nature's course for humanity. However, I think it is important to remember that because humans are organic, it is only natural for us to do whatever it takes to survive. If mankind was on the verge of extinction for whatever reason, but we had the technology to survive at the expense of some other species, it would only make sense for us to save ourselves. While this is an extreme scenario, the fundamental principle is the same: if we can do it, we should. -Andy H.
In response to Luke, the inhabitants were being conditioned in a way that we shy away from. Nevertheless, we are all being conditioned in someway throughout our childhood. Also, it is part of life for the world to change. It is bound to happen. Whether these changes are drastic or subtle, it will happen and fighting the change is pointless.
I think there are many ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering. One ethical concern is that there has been no solid scientific research to indicate that it would be a benefit or a detriment human society. We cannot be putting human lives at risk in the name of a theoretically based science. I don't think there would be any circumstances that would justify genetic engineering. Disease and other unwanted characteristics would be gone but those are a natural of balancing population growth. That would add to the world's overpopulation. Contrary to Aldous Huxley's belief that more people will create a stable society, I believe social stability is not in producing more people. It is in making use of the people that are reproduced naturally.
In response to Farah, taking away individuality would be very bad for humanity. What makes us different that makes us stronger. If we take away our differences, what is there for us to improve. The progress of mankind has been because of one individual or a group of them who thought and acted differently from other humans. They see a change that needs to be made and it happens. If everyone became exactly the same, we would never progress because we have no new characteristics or experiences to draw from. There would be no motivation for us to make changes.
Genetic engineering becomes an issue in its application. The technology itself could be beneficial in eradicating debilitating conditions. Down syndrome, which afflicts children, limits their life span as well as their mental capacity. As a result children born with Down syndrome will never be able to live life to its fullest. Applying genetic engineering to help eliminate birth defects as well as diseases are areas where the technology could be justified. In terms of ethical concerns, as with any technology there is always potential for abuse. The application of human genetic engineering in BNW is an example of abuse. Embryos were purposely being altered so that when they developed into humans they were functioning cognitively at lower levels.
In response to Scott I understand that there could be concerns with genetic engineering because little research has been done on it. It potentially could be harmful to humans, conversely it could be beneficial. If no one takes the initiative to experiment with genetic engineering then we will never know. In addition, genetic engineering wouldn’t necessarily lead to overpopulation. The purpose of genetic engineering would be to eradicate existing disease and disorders that affect infants while they are still in the womb. In that sense genetic engineering would be applied to help eliminate birth defects.
I don't think the biggest problem with human genetic engineering is ethical. It is more of a common sense problem. If we were to start messing with human genes we are messing with the only intelligent life that we know of in the entire universe. To me the risk of destroying everything that we are is not worth the reward of a couple of extra years at the end of a life. Genetics engineering could have implications that we cannot for see and therefore can not predict. We could be setting the human race up for destruction. If I had to pick an ethical dilemma I would say that we would be destroying the sanctity of life. Not in the sense that removing one embryo artificially is destroying life but in the sense that we are creating life so it in return becomes less valuable. In Brave New World, all the children are made by cloning. They have no real parents. They are raised by the government. Having parents is the primary force in how we develop. We would lose the unique qualities that make each individual special and worth while if we chose to move in the direction of Brave New World and have everyone be the same genetically as well as environmentally.
In response to Caroline F.'s comment I have to say I agree with her. To us the next step would be removing diseases, but after a few generations of performing these actions and having the be sucessful I believer that people will take the next logical step. This step would most likely be making there children smarter or more beautiful because that will reduce the suffering of the childd because the child would be more sucessful in work and in love. I think this will happen naturally if we start to take the matters of genetics into our own hands now. We are starting down a very scary path and I believe it is one that can be avoided. I don't think that merely laws can be created to prevent this from happening. One of the great thing about our country is that laws are flexible. If we start genetic engineering now the future will hold more advance versions of genetic engineering that will become uncontrollable. I know this seems like hyperbole, but it is the outcome that I see.
To me, most of the ethical issues with human genetic engineering seem to be along the lines of "we dont know what will happen, so we shouldnt mess with it". Of course, there is a possibility of a Brave New World like society, but there is also a possibility of a society free of diseases and other birth defects. Like any technology, genetic engineering has its risks. I would equate it to nuclear power plants. Some people hate nuclear power plants because of the risk that comes with them. Others love the efficiency of power production that comes along with them. What could happen with a nuclear power plant? It could meltdown, but there are hundreds of them in the world and so far only two have done so, none in the last twenty years. It seems to me that as nuclear power plant technology progresses, it becomes safer. I think it would be the same with genetic engineering. There will probably be many setbacks to it in the beginning, but as time goes on, the pros will begin to outnumber the cons.
I agree with everything you said, but I think that the Brave New World example of genetic engineering is a stark exaggeration of what could happen negatively. I just don't see any way in which that could happen. I think it does help to slow down the progress of Human Genetic Engineering, which is probably a good thing for safety. Its really a tortoise and hare kind of thing. The slower a science progresses, the more likely it is to have less set backs and it will eventually flourish more than if scientists were rush into it and try to make as many great discoveries as possible, flying by all the potential drawbacks of their discoveries.
I think the greatest issue behind genetic engineering for society centers around the ability for humans to "play God." It is a scary idea that a group of humans can completely manipulate another human. This goes back to the issue of how power should be allocated. Placing that kind of power in a person's hands is incredibly dangerous. We don't know how far it will be taken and what can be done with it if it's put in the wrong hands. While progress in genetic engineering is a result of scientists' work, the process is run by politicians. The power to decide where the limits of genetic engineering stand is placed in the hands of people who don't understand the science behind it. The question of who should hold the power will always be debated. And as long as religion stands, the idea of "Playing God" will never be fully accepted in society.
I don't think the nuclear power plant analogy is equivalent to the idea of genetic engineering. I agree that nuclear power plants can do great things as well as genetic engineering. But a nuclear power plant melting down doesn't quite relate. There are negative effects that a reliance on nuclear energy will create, things that we can't imagine. If humans mess with genetics, there may be consequences that have nothing to do with the human genome. With genetic engineering, we've reached completely new territory. The only way humans understand evolution is from natural trends of the past. If we take genetic engineering too far, who knows what animals and humans will evolve into. These are no longer natural trends, and we can't really rely on what we know about evolution.
I think that the main ethical issue surround human genetic engineering is the fact that some might think genetic engineering an act of playing god. By screening an embryo and then selecting one embryo over the other, some might think of genetic engineering as manipulation of a natural process that should not be tampered with. However, I see no reason that genetic engineering should be restricted as long as doctors' manipulation of the birth process is within reason. I think that some situations in which genetic engineering should be accepted would be in the detection and prevention of hereditary diseases. Prevention of diseases such as narcolepsy shouldn't be seen as an unethical process as humans do it every day through vaccines and medicine. Also, for those that claim that genetic engineering would give some children unfair advantages while poorer children wouldn't enjoy these advantages. However, socio-economic condition has always given children unfair advantages, whether a tutor at school, or parents that can afford to pay for cosmetic surgery or nicer clothes, and a better living situation in general.
I agree completely that both government and religion restrict the progress of scientific development, there are many debates as to whether this is good or bad, but that is beside the point. However, it cannot be said that these factors have completely restricted technological growth, the existence of many of our modern technologies is testimony to this. The importance of politicians in the growth of scientific devvelopment makes it so that the rate that technology grows at won't ever allow science to create abominable technologies, but at the same time the ignorance of some of our politicians might create false fears in the general populatioon, much like the Red Scare induced by Senator Joseph Mcarthy right after World War II.
There is no clear scientific evidence that genetic engineering would be a good or a bad idea. While I agree that genetic engineering could be used for multiple positive reasons, such as the end to diseases or the creation of genetically similar human beings (think of how easy it would be to be a doctor), ethically, I cannot agree that genetic engineering would benefit mankind. Biologically genetic engineering would be a blessing, but socially people would be too similar for their own good. We are not genetically all the same for a reason, and that is diversity. Efficiency is what is valued in Brave New World, but in our real world, diversity is valued. Through diversity people with remarkably different talents and gifts are produced, and it is these people who create scientific, artistic, and political progress. Sure it might be easier to modify people so that they can all follow the same set of orders to a T, but the real world needs people with initiative and the ability to freely think about how to make life better.
I completely agree with her thoughts on humans assuming the role of God. Even if human genetic engineering started off innocently, (only for medical use against disease etc.) humans are inherently selfish as Sarah said and would choose to manipulate the technology. It is interesting to think that with a biological technology such as this, parents could choose what they wanted their baby to physically be like. This indirectly reminds me of Hitler’s philosophy of ridding the world of the disabled or “undesirables”. As I stated previously, people are unique for a reason and randomly created at conception and nurtured throughout their lives to become the great thinkers such as Albert Einstein or Abraham Lincoln. What if the parents of Abraham Lincoln decided they had wanted a girl instead of a boy and chose to genetically modify their child in such a manner? What would our country look like today?
I would agree that we do not have a complete understanding of genetic engineering and the positive and or negative affects that may come out of it. Though what we do know is that we may create some stability within our race by eliminating or preventing certain disease that may act as a monetary burden on some, or a an un-releavable stress. Also, I dont believe that Huxley is trying to create stability by creating more people, but create stability by controling the people being created. By eliminating birth you are emliminating those child/mother bonds and taking the enfants to a new level of dependency on their conditioning.
In response to no one person in particular, but just from scanning most of the posts:
There seem to be far too many slippery slope type arguments, along the lines of “Evil human society will end up manipulating the technology for superbabies if we engineer out Down syndrome.” My point is similar to Joe’s, but rather than just nuclear energy, I would like to take the example of nuclear power as a whole, including the weapons. Unless the entire world’s been brainwashed or the world governments are conspiring in a massive cover-up, only two nuclear weapons have been detonated as an offensive weapon since their invention. A combination of tight regulation from governments and the IAEA has kept nuclear development for military purposes very low, and despite fears of terrorist theft or use, nothing spectacularly serious has happened. I see no reason why genetic engineering cannot simply remain at a minimal level while being tightly regulated. If humans are innately greedy, evil, or whatever other negative description is preferred, then surely something bad would have happened in the six decades since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we are to believe that this nuclear catastrophe, just like the production of superbabies, is just yet to inevitably occur, then that begs the question: How have we lost all faith in human society? -Norman L.
The field of genetic engineering is still one of pioneering scientists. We know very little about the extent it could be successfully taken to. But I still believe that it is an area that should be approached. The massive health benefits it could have outweigh any potential malicious side effects, in my opinion. As we have read in the many class essays on the subject of technology, fearing the changes a new technology can bring is a natural human reaction. But as was made clear in the essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid," fears about new technologies often prove irrational and overestimated. A cautious acceptance of new technologies can bring prosperity.
I agree with your argument that the "slippery slope" argument is a cynical response to the prompt. We have to trust that the people who create such a powerful technology will do so out of a desire to assist the world, not destroy it. In real life, there are no "super villains" who just want world destruction. Rather, those who would be leading this technological expansion would most likely have the best of intentions, and their intentions would almost certainly lead to a set of laws that would limit the technology to prevent it from doing harm. As a result of the creation of this technology by genial scientists, we can ensure the regulation of this technology will also be carried out intelligently.
Many people believe that genetic engineering will be able to save lives, but genetic engineering simply for the sake of choosing your child's gender or hair color is a completely different side of the spectrum. While I disagree with genetic engineering for all purposes, I can understand the medical side of it. Being able to create an organ for someone who needs a transplant is a great medical success. However, it seems completely unnecessary to engineer a person. For thousands of years, heredity has worked on its own without help from humans. We have caused enough problems in the world as it is without genetically engineering children. And if we do find cures for diseases and save lives through genetic engineering, we are simply adding to the problem of overpopulation. I do not think there are many scenarios where it is justified, because humans were not meant to engineer other humans.
While genetic engineering will save lives, it does not make sense to start creating people who are immune to diseases. No matter how many medical problems are fought off, there are still going to be more problems, many that are worse. And if genetic engineering was able to solve so many medical problems, the problem of overpopulation would only worsen. I don't think this is a fear of new technology, it just seems superfluous. I think we would be better off spending money on research on other fields where we can solve other problems in the world, and without creating more.
The Casino at Mohegan Sun Launches With VIP Program Guests 사천 출장샵 can 계룡 출장샵 receive a 동해 출장샵 special VIP welcome package in person. This means that all guests in the casino 광양 출장마사지 can enjoy a special VIP bonus 보령 출장안마 that's
Complete your reading of Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World as assigned in class. When you reach one of the stopping points, respond to the question for that section of the novel. For each of the essential questions, you should respond to each question in 100-200 words and to the comments of your classmates in separate posts of the same length. Since this is a Web Log, your comments will not be nested, so be sure to restate the question or response you are addressing. I expect 2 responses/question from each of you.
NOTES: I expect to read direct references to the novel and relevant discussion of pertinent ideas. Lastly, sign your posts with first name and last initial. Like this--John D.
"Wheels must turn steadily, but cannot turn untended. There must be men to tend them, men as steady as the wheels upon their axles, sane men, obedient men, stable in contentment."
I believe that there are a number of situations where genetic engineering could and should be used and is justifiable. The most pertinent example is the screening for diseases and genetic disorders. The benefits gained from this could be enormous, from an overall raise in quality of life at the individual and family level and an increase in hospital efficiency at a societal one. However, this thinking is only really pertinent based on your definition of life. If you define life as starting at conception, then you would most likely find the idea of screening and possibly discarding embryos abhorrent. Yet, if you have a definition of life that begins later in the developmental process, this may seem like a completely acceptable solution to a great societal ill, no pun intended. Personally, I think that in cases such as the removal of disease, it seems viable to remove diseases, but I recognize that it should never be taken as far as it has been in Huxley’s universe, with certain fetuses being soaked in alcohol to dumb them down. That is simply unacceptable. So to answer the question, yes there are times when genetic engineering can be acceptable.
ReplyDelete- Nathan F.
I deem human genetic engineering to be acceptable within reason. The possibility to prevent an illness from affecting the lives of our children would be extraordinary. To have a family heart condition erased would provide such relief. However, this engineering should be kept within limits. There is no reason to choose features like gender, eye color, or even height for a child. If one is planning on having a child, they should be able to accept the child who they are without having specific features. The level that Huxley takes the engineering to is excessive. To have one batch of fetuses planned to become rocket-plane engineers and others to become chemical workers is absurd. This should never be the purpose of genetic engineering. It should be to help future generations. There should be no need to choose the professions of certain fetuses. I believe that genetic engineering should be able to greatly help society. Therefore, I believe it is justified.
ReplyDeleteGenetic engineering is acceptable depending on the circumstance. I believe removing genetic disorders and diseases would help advance our society, but I do not agree with ending lives in the process. In my opinion, life begins at conception and to remove that chance of life in immoral. If it were possible to remove diseases and disorders from fetuses and embryos without throwing its’ chance at life away, I would encourage research. But, at this point, I would say ending the life after conception would be morally wrong. I say at this point because I believe my opinion is subject to change. I can understand that some mothers choose not to give birth to children with diseases because they do not want those children to live difficult lives. What I would choose in that scenario, I don’t know. On the other hand, if it were possible to find a disease in an embryo after conception, and remove that disease without the loss of the child, I would encourage research.
ReplyDelete-Carli L.
For over two thousand years, we have let nature select the genes of children and we have evolved as a species based off a principle we like to refer to as survival of the fittest. Our society may have faults, but it still works. How can one argue with over two thousand years of evidence that proves that letting nature control human genes can lead to a not perfect, but still good society? Genetic engineering is basically humans trying to fix a system that isn’t broken and therefore is unnecessary and pretty risky. Humans taking control of natural selection could have major consequences. We do not understand the universe and nature and therefore are highly likely to hurt the system more than we help it. For this reason, any major genetic engineering is just an unnecessary risk. I agree, however, with the notion that genetic engineering to remove a disease or disorder from an embryo would be acceptable. This is true as long as we are not completely altering the majority of the genetic make up of a child. That is the only scenario where I see genetic engineering somewhat justified.
ReplyDelete- Mel B.
Many ethical issues surround human genetic engineering. Reading Huxley's novel has helped me realize that if genetic engineering is pushed to that extent, than it is indeed both unacceptable and unethical. The idea of having everyone so similar and so close to perfection is extraordinary, yet frightening at the same time. On the other hand, if human genetic engineering is used to help prevent genetic disorders, diseases, and other dire health conditions than in that case it becomes both useful and justified. In essence, with firm control over how genetic engineering and its uses develop over time it can be positive in an ethical sense. But as Huxley's book shows with time astonishing discoveries can turn into extreme and undeniably dangerous situations.
ReplyDeleteIt’s hard to disagree with the fact that if genetic engineering could prevent a man or woman from having a genetic disorder, or from having a predisposition for a disease later in life, than they are entirely justified. However, it is a slippery slope that we start down- first we’re helping to ensure our kids aren’t born with a tendency for heart disease, but than what? Obviously Huxley takes the “then what?” to an extreme, but it is a warning that we should heed. Just as the Controller says everything is about “stability”, we attempt to manipulate our genes because we think that our manipulations will offer more stability to our world. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for the added “stability” to our world if it means ridding it of some of its most terrible diseases. But we must be very careful not to be lured into the false happiness of too much stability.
ReplyDeleteTim R.
I do believe that genetic engineering may be acceptable in some aspects of human procreation such as preventing genetic disorders. Even so, I also believe that, this is an area in which we are too unfamilular with to be experimenting. Humans have been undergoing natural selection for thousands of years which has enabled us to pick away at the weak and create a managable social heiarchy. Though it would be nice to wake up knowing that you could give your newborn their healthiest start at life. We are unable to tell where this research would stop, and the possible consequences or genetic mutations that may follow.
ReplyDeleteKaili W.
Allow me to begin with the easier question... There are many scenarios, both real and hypothetical in which the use of human genetic engineering is justified. Take for example Norman's example of cystic fibrosis or Lenina's inoculation of embryos against typhoid and narcolepsy. It takes no stretch of the imagination to see how the use of this technology to prevent the onset of disease would improve the quality and length of a patient's life with few (if any) negative effects. Therefore HGE in this case is morally equivalent to the use of antibiotics or surgery. But HGE is controversial for a reason. The use of HGE for cosmetic purposes or to enhance the natural abilities of a child (assuming either is even possible) is more difficult to judge. However both uses do seem to harm others, albeit indirectly. If your parents cannot afford such expensive procedures, and some people have the ability to "improve" their offspring, haven't you been harmed relatively? Regardless of your beliefs on the "real" use of HGE, Huxley's straw man argument with predestined social stratification based on a relatively unscientific view of genetic screening is disturbing in the extreme. Zach B.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not believe that there is any circumstance in which human genetic engineering would be justifiable. It would ethically be wrong for humans to assume the role of God and determine the traits of an individual and design a child suitable to their liking. I understand that perhaps originally this technology could be used to do positive procedures such as eliminating diseases or other medical problems, yet I do not believe the use of the technology would stop there. Eventually, as human beings are inherently selfish, the technology would also be used for unnecessary physical enhancement such as choosing a suitable eye or hair color. This use of the technology not only undermines individuality, but also gives parents the ability to be selective in what type of child they will love, thus twisting the basic moral of loving others. This technology would give humans extreme power which would eventually be abused, as Huxley’s imagination in Brave New World shows. I believe therefore that human genetic engineering is morally wrong and would ultimately lead to more harm than good.
ReplyDelete-Sarah B.
Response to Mel B:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mel’s assertion that society has progressed thus far successfully without controlling human genes and to do so would be an unnecessary risk to our society’s wellbeing. Part of being human and living life is dealing with problems or difficult situations which we must face and display our true character through our actions. These situations provide us with a chance for growth and improvement. If we seek to use genetic engineering to make people and life perfect we risk losing not only individuality, but also eliminating any motivation for growth both individually and as a society. If all is predestined from birth, as in Brave New World, there leaves no role, importance, or appreciation of the unique abilities and passions of the individual, a concept on which the American culture thrives. Our American society particularly would suffer from this stabilized society of Huxley’s Brave New World as our capitalistic economy is successful due not to complete government stabilization and regulation, but the freedom of individual pursuits and ideas. I therefore agree with Mel that genetic engineering would be an unnecessary risk to our society that we should not be willing to take.
-Sarah B.
I believe that human genetic engineering is an issue that has many ethical issues when debating if it is worth achieving or not. Up until now humans have found ways where we can help alleviate or get rid of diseases and injuries that hinder us throughout our life. We have found ways to reduce the effects of a common illness to virtually wiping out a disorder that could severely affect a person’s health, such as the vaccination of polio. However, as technology advances and we find more ways to solve our problems, how do we know when we have crossed the line between nature vs. nurture? Is completely wiping out a disease a good thing? I do not believe we know the effects that would take place if we started to override nature’s way of controlling a human’s destiny. In the case of Brave New World, the means of operation for the genetic engineering is horribly wrong and only achieves a certain group’s definition of social superiority. Completely overriding nature is wrong and unethical. However, I believe genetic engineering can be beneficial if it doesn’t harm one’s life throughout the process of helping another’s.
ReplyDelete- Connor B
I disagree with Sarah on the fact that this technology could be perverted by those who wish to use it for their own selfish purposes. Obviously, there are those out there who would like to do that kind of thing, but with tight enough regulations, there would be no market for it. As an example, I point to nuclear power. This is a technology that can be used for both immense good and immense evil. According to Sarah's argument, Atomic power would have been taken to the extreme and used for something immoral so many times we would not be sitting here typing this. In fact, only twice in history has Atomic technology ever been used for destruction, and then even those were arguably just uses. So I still hold that it is unlikely this technology would be perverted by the immoral fringes of our society.
ReplyDelete- Nathan F.
In Response to Thomas:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Thomas that to give future generation the ability to live without the worries of heart disease would be beneficial to our society. I also agree that to go as far as to choose your child's features is ridiculous. The idea of predetermining your child's features would be like playing Sims. If we were to let that happen, what would be next? What if we ended up choosing their personality? I agree that Huxley takes it too far in determining future jobs and conditioning unborn fetuses to be prepared for a life that is predetermined. I feel like deciding a child’s occupation before they are born leaves no hope in the world. It would leave no possibility for the poor to become wealthy and it leaves no opportunities for people to discover their interests. While society would run smoothly, it would be like living in a world of robots. So, in summary, I agree with Thomas that genetic engineering is beneficial to society, but can easily be taken too far.
-Carli L.
The most significant breach of ethics in genetic engineering is the ensuing lack of individuality that results from it. Human beings have the inherent right to blossom into being who they are, whatever that may be. Part of the beauty of this human experience is its imperfection and unpredictablity. Just as in a compeling story, life has its peaks and valleys. To attempt to eliminate those is not only unnatural, and – quite frankly – undesirable, even in a case where genetic manipulation could save the patient from a disease or disability. We are bettered by our challenges, no matter how grave they are, and thus to tamper with the natural course of life is undesirable.
ReplyDelete-Jeff M.
Is it right for us to "create" our children? Is it ok to manipulate embryos to make exactly what is desired? I feel as though neither of these questions can be answered with reassuring "yes." As humans, we cannot expect perfection, and therefore cannot expect to have a perfect child. We have survived as a race for thousands of years without genetic engineering, so why change it? We have evolved with nature, and as we manipulate ourselves, it is hard for nature to keep up. Therefore, we must begin to manipulate nature itself, and things are no longer how they were meant to be. All in all, I feel as though there are no circumstances where genetic engineering can be seen as ethical. It is not right for humans to mess with what nature desires.
ReplyDeleteAmy J
In Response to Nate and Thomas
ReplyDeleteI want to agree with both and say that generic engineering in order to stop diseases is acceptable. And if I were a parent, I am sure that I would choose to keep my chid safe from diseases if given the opportunity. But I think that this given choice would be unethical and unjustifiable. Once again we would be messing with what nature wants. And not to bring religion into the picture, but I feel as though humans are not in the position to act as the higher being who controls all of this. I think of the affect the removal of diseases would have on the world. Yes, people would live longer, be able to work longer, and all together live a healthier life. But what would happen to the younger generations when the jobs that would be available to them are taken by those who are much older? And how would we deal with the population increase when people are living longer and more and more children are being born? We are not the ones who are meant to control those things, and doing so would destroy the balance we live with now.
Nathan’s Response to Sarah’s Response:
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I hope that sometime during the course of this book I will be able to type something like “Nathan’s Response to Sarah’s Response to Mel’s Response to Tom’s Response to Carli’s Response…” and so on until I get to the required 100 words. A man can hope. Anyways…
I, like Sarah, do not have much faith in mankind to always use this sort of technology responsibly. I believe that people would be much more willing to use genetic engineering for their own private purposes than something like nuclear power. If a person decides to genetically engineer their child, they will only be directly affecting their child, which for many is ok. Our morals stop us from using nuclear power for destruction because it directly affects many other people. I believe that many people would end up on the “immoral fringes” of society if it meant the possibility of a better life for their own child.
Tim R.
Tim R. brings up a great point. Getting rid of diseases that may come affect us later in life is great. However, it is important to realize that we should not "be lured into false happiness of too much stability." (Tim R) If one was to create their perfect child, it takes away from the diverse world that we live in. Huxley’s world is very extreme. It doesn’t allow for the opportunity for different people to be creative with their lives. Huxley’s stability is so restrictive that even jobs are previously chosen before the child is born. These restrictions remove almost every individual freedom that anyone had. Again, the question essentially boils down to the use of the genetic engineering. For any reason to prevent an illness, the engineering is fantastic. As Zach B. notes, the engineering is just like the use of antibiotics or surgery. Clearly there is no harm in the use of medicine or surgery. However, for any superficial reason, there is just no ethical reason to make your child look differently than they would.
ReplyDeleteGenetic engineering of humans can be an extremely positive modification or an unimaginably destructive one depending on how it is regulated. There are of course the benefits like eliminating genetic disease and enhancing humans to make them more intelligent. However, personally I believe this science is unnecessary and unethical. I think it is immoral to want to hand select the genes of your unborn child since part of the excitement of becoming a parent is bringing a new child into the world who has their whole life ahead of them to become who they want to be. Their life is unpredictable and the ones who grow to love them learn to accept them for who they are. Humans, as a species, have survived the last thousands of years relying on natural selection and "survival of the fittest." I think we should leave it up to nature to decide our genetic makeup. No other species has the ability to evolve the way humans have through technology, and just because we have the ability to perform genetic engineering does not mean we should. We would probably take this technology so far that it becomes destructive and take it to the extremes like Huxley’s Brave New World.
ReplyDeleteMacKenzie L.
In response to Sarah Bach
ReplyDeleteI also feel, like Sarah stated, that using technology to the extremes of genetic engineering undermines individuality. I agree with her position on the ethics of genetic engineering and find it incredibly hypocritical that we are told to love someone for who they are when science is choosing the person you become. , Every human being has flaws and people must accept that. Once DNA is shaped by man nobody will want to choose the weak, inferior traits when they can choose the genes that make them become beautiful and immune to all illnesses. Without the flaws that make a person who they are there may no longer be any artistic creativity in the world and everyone may become predictable, identical, and most of all boring. The little things that make you who you are disappear because you are now so much like everyone else.
MacKenzie L.
Mankind has a fixation with knowledge and an insatiable curiosity. It seems highly likely that humans will explore human genetic engineering sometime in the relatively near future.While it could pose dramatic postive and negative consequences, the least of these are ethical. If the concern is that humans will possess too much power and control, then it looks highly illogical to look over the control they have already seized over plants, animals, and the Earth. Some look at this and see a slippery slope, but from a scientific perspective, it is more appropriate to view it as a progression. Humans have the right and obligation to pursue knowledge and therefore human genetic engineering is always justified.
ReplyDeletetrevor t
When looking at genetic engineering or selection, I divide it into three categories, life bettering, life worsening, and cosmetic changes. Out of these, I believe that life bettering and cosmetic changes are reasonable uses of genetic engineering. Sure the cosmetic changes seem frivolous, but they harm no one, and while physical appearance can alter the way someone is treated in society, in principle it isn’t that much different from the way a name changes the way someone is treated. Changing a child’s appearance is merely an extrapolation of the parent’s right to name the child. That said, I do believe that there should be some restrictions on this. For instance, a sobriety test to make sure that the child isn’t given any cruel abnormalities. Dramatically life bettering changes are the only category that I see as justifying abortion. This is because they could prevent suffering for both the child and the parents induced by debilitating diseases like Edwards Syndrome. Doing this could also help remove such diseases from society, which would eliminate the need for such a choice in the future. I view BNW life worsening changes as bad in all cases because they are limiting fetus’ potential and predetermining its life.
ReplyDeleteAndrew G.
I believe that the ethical issues that surround human genetic engineering are all due to each person's beliefs of where a human's life begins. Some people believe that a human's life begins as soon as the microscopic DNA are formed even as we are tiny cells, who have no human traits yet or personalities. Others believe that a person's life begins as soon as they open their eyes; when they are brought into the world.
ReplyDeleteSome scenerios in which it would be justified would be stem cell research, or any other research that could save the lives of millions of people. The people that are so against stem cell research and say that it's "unethical" say that because they don't know what it's like to live with a disease like Parkinson's. The people that do have the disease, however, are the ones who are all for stem cell research because they want the pain to be taken away.
Becky A.
As a person who almost died at birth due to a birth defect, I strongly believe that using genetic engineering to prevent disease and defects is not only justifiable, but that it is immoral not to prevent the disease if one is capable of doing so. That being said, limits would need to be put on the extent that people are able to use genetic engineering. In as superficial of a society we live in, it is almost undeniable that irresponsible people would use genetic engineering for the wrong reasons such as changing the way their child would look.
ReplyDeleteMax B.
your wish may come true Tim,
ReplyDeleteTim's response to Nathan's response to Sarah's response.
I agree with Tim and Sarah; I would never trust mankind to use their technology responsibly. But does this mean it's inherently bad? Plato argued that written language would lead to the eventual ruin of mankind. (yep, its a reference to "is Google Making Us Stupid?")There was truth to that statement, but there were innumerable, unforeseen positive outcomes of the choice for written language. Perhaps HGE is similar in this way. It can be much easier to see the downside of a new technology than to fathom the countless positive side effects of it.
Although there are many ethical issues surrounding human genetic engineering, I believe it is a crucial step for mankind. With the genetic engineering, we can wipe out most diseases from the gene pool. this would make our lives much easier. In the Brand New World, Huxler makes it seem lke they're making robots in a factory. He makes it seem more scary than it really is. Overall, I believe this would be the right step for mankind and will be embraced in the near future.
ReplyDeleteMike M.
There is a fine line between using genetic engineering for eugenic purposes and for using genetic engineering for the health of humanity as a whole. The two main fears with genetic engineering are that it can cause unforseeable consequences by altering the normal course of natural selection and adaptation, and that it can be used at the expense of diversity and towards an opinion of the ideal human. When the randomness factor is removed from the expression of traits, and is subsequently put into the hands of a human, this expression will almost always be affected by the personal opinions of the person requesting the genetic modification or engineering, whether conciously or unconciously. A redeemable quality of genetic engineering, however, is that it has the potential to remove malformations of the genome which could lead to devastating genetically heritable conditions. Nevertheless, if genetic engineering is to ever be employed on a large scale, firm measures must be taken to insure that this modification is used only to correct health problems that could seriously affect the quality of life of the person whose genes are being modified.
ReplyDeleteRajiv R
Response to all the "slippery slopers":
ReplyDeleteWhy? I'd like to see some evidence or reasoning that shows that the use of HGE for medically and morally valid purposes will ultimately result in its use for vain or unethical purposes. Without that, your argument is simply an invalid logical fallacy. Simply put, immortality is not necessitated by the use of antibiotics, so why would the elimination of individuality be inevitable as a result of the use of HGE?
In response to the "God-Players":
First off, we've been doing this for the past 4,000 years. What is selective breeding? Corn is no longer the plant it once was, largely in part to human intervention. Was our cultivation of crops morally wrong? Would it have been better to starve? The only difference between selective breeding and HGE is the speed of the process. Secondly, I dislike this argument, although I admit it is not disproven because of this, since it bases morality on the existence of some higher power (even if that power is Nature). It seems to me that something ought to be morally judged based what it does to others/ourselves/society and how it affects human dignity, rather than on reverence for some other being. There is a simple test to see if you agree with me: If God didn't exist, would your response be different?
As for you "individuality advocates":
Is the erosion of individuality inevitable if HGE or used, or is it simply possible. If it is possible, but not inevitable then there is some way of preventing said deterioration without abstaining from using HGE to cure diseases etc. Certainly saving lives is a worthy goal, especially if we don't eliminate individuality.
Zach B. (I know this is a far cry from 200 words... Sorry!)
Response to Max
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with him and was about to put the same thing. Genetic Engineering should definitely be allowed but of course we would need limits. I believe this is where problems will arrive, however. People think in different ways and there's always people disagreeing on what should be legal and what shouldn't. There would have to be a meeting between the main leaders in the subject to make a good list of legal uses of genetic engineering.
Mike M.
In Response to Mikem33...
ReplyDeleteI think there needs to be some restriction on genetic engineering. Granted there is much good that genetic engineering can do for humanity, but there is also much potential for misuse of this technology. We as a species must also think about altering a system that has been proven over billions of years. I think that the statement, "if it isn't broken, don't fix it", applies to some extent here. We must think about whether we should be tampering with the natural flow of adaptation. If we decide to do this, we must then prioritize for which problems and issues that genetic engineering and modification should be applied to.
I am slightly confused by Mel B’s post. It seems to me that eliminating genetic diseases is the way is which we would most interrupt natural selection. Changing superficial things like eye color have no real affect on the “fitness” of a person. Thus, it seemed like the stuff that was potentially the most dangerous was the stuff that Mel didn’t strongly object to. Also, I was wondering what consequences would come from removing genetic diseases. I couldn’t help but think “oh no, a world without Huntington’s, how will we ever survive”. Even if there were some unforeseen consequences like overpopulation, what’s to say that natural selection wouldn’t take care of them?
ReplyDeleteAlso to the Sarah/Mackenzie posts, I fail to see the connection changing appearance and humanity losing all creativity. It seems to me that a person’s creativity is more a product of their mind than their appearance and the appearance of those around them. Also, who’s to say that we would all end the same? People’s view of the perfect person vary wildly depending on time, place, culture, socioeconomic status, and other factors. Compare Lara Croft to Judith, while admittedly not “perfect people” they were considered beautiful at the time, and they vary wildly.
Andrew G
PS I’m sorry if I restated someone’s opinion, but its getting late and I’m too tired to read 23 entries
There are many ways genetic engineering can cross the line, but let's look at the positives. Many children are born with diseases/disorders that they will have their entire lives. Some diseases (i.e. hemophilia) cause people to constantly be in the hospital and others significantly decrease a person's lifespan to pre-puberty. Looking through the child's perspective first, is that really a way to live? Children with extreme diseases/disorders would experience life, but that life is short and spent in a hospital. Is it worth it? I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question. Now look at the parent's viewpoint: is it fair to make them pay thousands of dollars in medical expenses or to take care of their child when they are elderly (for example if the child has down syndrome)? The most ideal way would be to fix the genetic disease without destroying the embryo, but if that wasn't possible, I still think genetic engineering should be used, but only to remove diseases and disorders. "Brave New World" crosses the line by "dumbing down" embryos to fit them into a certain social class. Genetic engineering should only be used to improve life, not make it worse.
ReplyDeleteJulia H.
Although it is easy to see the benefits of genetic engineering, I agree with Sarah and Mel when they say that a human life is not to be tampered with and that society has functioned adequately without genetic engineering. Although I would like to see the eradication of multiple diseases in humans, I fear that as soon as we tamper with one aspect of human genetics, people will tamper with other aspects of human genetics and that this will eventually run rampant, thus allowing for people to create their own "designer" baby.
ReplyDeleteI also fear that if genetic engineering does get out of hand to the point where everything is regulated like in the book, it will prevent mutations from occuring, thus preventing the human race from advancing as a species (which could eventually lead to our extinction)
However, I am a proponent of stem cell research. The advancements being made in stem cell research are excellent (to the point where we don't even have to take into question the life of an embryo because we can conduct research without it) and I hope to see cures for several diseases and deformities arise in the near future.
Sarah K.
I agree with Zach that if anyone is allowed to use genetic engineering, then only the rich will be able to afford it and improve the health of their children, which will in turn indirectly harm those who cannot afford it. However, I believe that this instead of making it inaccessible, means that as a society we must ensure that all embryos, even those belonging to parents who cannot afford genetic engineering, are altered to get rid of diseases. This would save enormous amounts of time, effort, and money. We would no longer have to waste resources researching how to cure a disease that can be stopped before it starts. If we are not wasting our time, then scientists can focus on curing other non-genetic diseases. This is the essential benefit that genetic engineering can provide. However, Huxley’s model of genetic engineering involves completely controlling society, not just taming diseases. As Sarah so adequately put it, it’s like humans taking over the role of God. Huxley’s taking away freedom of choice by creating a society where everyone’s fate is predetermined. And what is the point in living in a world where all your choices and passions are chosen for you?
ReplyDelete- Mel B.
I completely agree with Becky. Everyone’s ethical standards are different because not everyone can agree on when human life truly begins. I think we can all agree that “Brave New World” is anything but ethical, but once we start looking at the less extreme viewpoints, nothing seems black and white. However, based on the video we saw in class, the majority of us (80%) believe in continuing to do stem cell research, which is a form of genetic engineering. The majority of us want the continual research in stem cells to rid diseases such as Parkinson’s, which Becky explained. For people who will have or already have diseases such as Parkinson’s, genetic engineering would allow there lives to be so much easier and normal. As long as genetic engineering remains at fixing diseases and disorders, I’m all for it.
ReplyDeleteJulia H.
My direct answer to the second prompt question is that yes, there are circumstances under which genetic engineering ought to be allowed, namely to weed out genetic conditions that are severely detrimental to the health and well-being of a potential individual. As I understand, current processes like CVS and amniocentesis already test for conditions, but those can only be done a good number of weeks into gestation. If a condition like Down syndrome that makes the life of both the individual and the parent much more painful is found, the parents are often given an option of terminating the pregnancy. If prenatal screening can be done only a few days post-conception or even before that, would it not be less of a dilemma of whether to carry the pregnancy full term or not, if the cells are much closer to or not even at the “where-does-life-begin” line? Granted, if there are people who are of an opinion that would have them have the baby regardless of any conditions, then let them be, it’s their choice. This case of HGE is purely optional and for those who would wish to avoid genetic conditions.
ReplyDeleteNorman brought up a point that kind of makes me uncomfortable (not holding it against you though haha). When prenatal screening is done and something such as Down Syndrome is found, what do you do? Yes, Down Syndrome is a terrible thing to have and a struggle for the child with it as well as their parents, but for the parents to terminate the pregnancy just seems wrong to me. To me, that almost seems like a parent saying "I can't love my baby if he/she has Down Syndrome or some other lifelong illness," and that disturbs me thinking of parents doing this, because I know it DOES happen. Yes, genetic screening can help prevent such things, but in the society that Huxley created/ if this were to truly become regular practice in our everyday life- we'd be making "the perfect human" over and over...losing the things that make us unique and making it a competition for who has the "newest, latest and greatest child."
ReplyDelete-David L.
In response to Rajiv R...
ReplyDeleteI agree that being able to distinguish the difference between what the use for genetic engineering can be difficult to find. I also believe that looking at it in a deeper perspective, the division of using genetic engineering for a personal goal from a goal that a society defines as desirable can overlap over each other. How do we know what the effects of genetic engineering would be, and who exactly would the process affect after genetic engineering is achieved? As mentioned by many already here on this blog, a major concern is where do we draw the limit to where genetic engineering can reach? One person’s belief may not be on the same level and it maybe even to extreme or too mild. I agree with Rajiv on the idea that eliminating diseases and other hindrances would be a great goal to achieve with genetic engineering. But I am almost certain that there are people who believe that removing health issues would already be too drastic and invading into nature’s course of plotting our destiny. Because of this issue, genetic engineering is an ethical issue that will prove difficult to find a common agreement on.
- Connor B.
In response to...a lot of people
ReplyDeleteI question Norman's comment, that prenatal screening only days after conception would help parents make the decision of whether or not to abort their babies. Although I believe that women have the right to choose whether or not to abort their babies, I don't think that a woman can decide to abort her child because it has a genetic defect (that isn't life threatening). This would leave genetic engineering as a very viable option, thus allowing for the birth of healthy babies who can lead normal lives. However, making this option available to every family (Mel's argument) makes me wonder what would happen if we were to live in a society where there is that much control over human lives. Genetic engineering may become so common that we eventually think it is okay to tamper with embryos to the point where there aren't any pressing reasons to do so. I also think that regulation of genetic engineering so that it is accessible to everyone could lead to a sort of communistic society in which multiple aspects of are lives are under control. It is for this reason that genetic engineering is not a good idea. We can not begin to change the DNA of our children until we are certain that we as a society will not let human genetic engineering get out of hand.
Sarah K.
Some of the issues surrounding genetic engineering are whether or not stem cell research is ethical, as well as how long after conception does life begin. I personally don't believe that genetical engineering can be justified. Who has the right to change the way a person is being born into this world? There have been plenty of times where doctors have said that a child will be born with some life-hindering illness or some sort of disorder, and when the baby is born it turns out to be just fine. I don't think we as humans should be messing with fellow humans' genes as it doesn't seem to be our place. If we had control over our genetic make up, we'd all be the same, genetically perfect people...and therefore making society one big cloneof itself.
ReplyDeleteI think that human genetic engineering should have no boundaries. Realistically, when this issue comes up, there will always be a push to move forward, and, more likely than not, that push will win. We need to remove the religious aspect to see clearly. That means removing the phrase "playing God." Who is to say that we are not the higher power? Why can't we screen people for diseases? I think that nearly everyone would choose to save him or herself if the technology was available. If you wouldn't save yourself, would you save someone close to you? On a different note, altering genes is not all that different from influencing children in their early years. Teaching someone a good work ethic really isn't that different from implanting it into his or her genes. Overall, I think that human genetic engineering should be fully allowed.
ReplyDelete-Nikhil H.
In response to a couple of people, I think that saying that genetic engineering will prevent human being from advancing is a little bit ridiculous. What if genetic engineering is how we are meant to advance? Even so, if mutations did occur to advance us, they would likely not be removed because they are not looked for. I may be wrong, but i think that screening for diseases will not eliminate all other genes, just those diseases. In that case, mutations can still occur and will still be able to advance the human race. I think that no matter what we try to do, once genetic engineering becomes fully available, it will be impossible to stop it.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Nikhil on the point that there should be no boundaries on genetic engineering. Historically technological advancements in any field needs boundaries, so ethics stay intact with the research. Allowing no boundaries can only lead to pushing the research to the extent of Huxley's novel, where human genetic engineering has no boundaries. By placing boundaries on the way human genetic engineering is used, we can decrease the chances of dangerous action being taken within that field of study as well as a push on the ethical front. On the other hand, I agree with Nikhil on the point that using human genetic engineering will advance our societies overall knowledge, and that using it to cure diseases has no unethical arguments.
ReplyDeleteObaida D.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem with genetic engineering in my eyes is that it gives humans too much control over another person's life. Giving one person the ability to choose what the outcome will be for another person with out that person having any say is wrong. Genetic engineering eliminates that person's freedom of choice. That is the downside. However, genetic engineering can be helpful. So yes I do beleave that genetic engineering can help in some cases. For example, you could genetically engineer a baby so that they do not have any birth defects. I believe that this would be benificail to society.
ReplyDeleteIn response to NiKhil that genetic engineering should have no boundaries, I do agree. However, I think that this will come not because we should allow it to happen, but that scientist will always want to push the envelope and move forward. Somethings should just be left alone. In the end curiosity will kill the cat and humans will step upon something that they will regret discovering. It may not happen right away but with the right circumstances thing could out of control fast. So even though I do not like what Nikhil said, I do believe that he is right.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe genetic engineering can never be justified. If scientists enter that realm of science, there will be no boudaries and people will be creating designer babies. This will decrease genetic variability. In generations to come, a society of nearly identical peopel will be created. Inbreeding within this society will cause more genetic defects, causing a vicious cycle.
ReplyDelete-Swathi M.
I disagree with a lot of people on the fact that genetic engineering should be allowed to prevent genetic disorders. First of all, I think genetic disorders are necessary for human advancement. On an individual level, people become mentally stronger if they are put in strenuous situations. These types of people are very valuable in society. Also, if all genetic disorders were eliminated, what would pharmacists, doctors, and scientists do? A lot of people would lose jobs and societies would collapse. Again, I would defend my point that leaving the nature of man alone has worked for thousands of years and there is no need to change that now.
ReplyDelete-Swathi M.
In response to Nathan:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with him because as I see it life is life no matter how small in number of cells its representation may be. Although an embryo may seem unintelligent, it will grow and develop into a human being with thoughts and feelings. Also, I think that genetic screening could get out of hand if we are not careful. Huxley presents an extreme of what could happen, but if one thing leads to another, who knows? We could evolve into accepting such an extreme. To avoid a "Brave New World" scenerio, we must avoid planting the seeds that would spout into a huge and grotesque weed.
-Jeff M.
I can definitely envision situations in which genetic engineering would be justified. Yes, there is a line that is being crossed in terms of interfering with the formation of human life, but we cannot just buy into the slippery slope fallacy that this will cause all sorts of intrusions. The key to preventing this will be to impose limits on the future uses of the technology before the practice goes into use to prevent abuse. We already use technology that is similar in means, such as in vitro fertilization, without having committed any crazy human rights abuse. Thus, I would say that this ambiguous line as to what kind of alterations are against moral judgment will not be crossed if the intention surrounding its use is clearly specified from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, all that is left is to determine what alterations are within moral reasoning. It seems to me that unnecessary death, pain, and suffering are beyond what is morally acceptable if we have the capability to prevent them. It is our moral duty to stop harm where it is happening, just as morality would compel us to save a dying baby on the side of the road. Thus, if we can use practices such as genetic screening to seed out babies who would die painful deaths within a few years of lie, it seems that the least painful, and thus most moral, solution would be to prevent their lives, especially at a step before abortion even becomes an issue.
-Natasha T.
In response to Sarah K. (and everyone else arguing that human life ought not be tampered with).
ReplyDeleteEveryone making this argument seems to be basing their reasoning on precedent: Humans have always had defects, it is not within our realm of power or obligation to fix them, etc. However, if we are really basing our analysis on precedent, alterations at the genetic level seem far from unreasonable. The behavior modifications in Ch. 2 of Brave New World seem extreme, but social conditioning is employed constantly to change the way children think from a very young age. At the time we enter Kindergarten, we are already filled with a sense of morality and society, and can "differentiate right from wrong" in the ways taught to us by our role models. We may also be disillusioned when faced with things actually horrifying due to the numbing effects of our social conditioning. If nature and nurture are so closely linked that nurture can affect behavior so profoundly, it is only logical that a society that accepts nurture manipulation would accept the same on a genetic level.
There very well could be certain circumstances in which genetic testing would be appropriate, although I personally would not partake in any genetic screening of sorts. One may argue that it could help eliminate fatal diseases and take away the risk of your child developing a disability, but I would have to agree with Swathi that those "defects" are necessary in society. If we all were born perfect, there would be nothing to fix. Through research and development we advance to hopefully fix a problem at hand so that we can then move on to the next. Taking away genetic diseases is not going to eliminate the world's problems. It may, in fact, cause more problems, just in a different form. Therefore, I do not support genetic screening.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, the only real justification for genetic engineering at this moment in time is curiosity. Could we prevent genetic conditions that decrease the quality of many people's lives? Could we make the lives of our children better? Could the field of genetic engineering benefit society as much as the field of medicine? At this point, we really don't know.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of opposition to genetic engineering, and it’s based on fear and distrust: fear of what scientists could do with such powerful knowledge, and distrust in those scientists to use that power ethically.
I don’t think that this is reason to prohibit or interfere with genetic engineering research; if anything, the fact that there is a general awareness of the potential for genetic engineering to go wrong should reassure people that any advances will be made very cautiously and under the strict watch of many critical observers.
Natalie B.
I say this in response to, and at the risk of offending, a lot of people,
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that society will ever just drop the pursuit of understanding genetic engineering. Even if there is ever a general consensus that genetic engineering is unethical, it’s just a matter of time before somebody realizes the potential for benefit in genetic engineering again.
I think that the people who say ‘genetic engineering could harm humankind too much, so we shouldn’t allow anyone to research (and at some point understand) it,’ and demand that the discussion be ended there are just discomforted by the idea of genetic engineering- because there is a level of comfort in not being in control, and that comes from being able to trust in nature or god or whatever it is to create all men equal.
Basically the overaching theme when it comes to the controversy of genetic engineering is how powerful humans CAN be in contrast with how powerful humans SHOULD be. Is there no glass ceiling to scientific progress and will creating an artificial ceiling for science be a detriment to humans in the long run?
ReplyDeleteArguments for each side tend to abandon logos in favor of ethos and pathos. Those who wish to stop genetic engineering call upon religion and human 'rights'. Human 'rights' are not a concrete law. They are rather a developed belief built as a result of the growth of ethical ideas over time. Those who wish to push forward with genetic engineering regard it as the final frontier for human development. A natural progression in our evolution, a completely organic process.
Sure one can justify genetic engineering but this tends to indicate one's point of view rather than a logical truth that genetic engineering is justifiable. Justification is in the eye of the beholder. With the right financial backing and/or personal investment individuals can make the most horrid acts seem justified or the most benevolent acts seem terrible, justification lends itself more to rhetoric than to the issue itself. Regardless of whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' genetic engineering will continue to be a part of the development of biology in the 21st century.
In response to Swathi's argument that certain flaws are necessary in a society I have to thoroughly disagree. If we say that it is okay to not attempt improvement on a biological front who says where the line is drawn. If someone starts losing their sight will we stop providing them glasses or contacts to help improve their quality of life? You have to remember that "Brave New World" is just a single possibility of what the future of genetic engineering could hold. Just one outcome due to the advance of this technology. You can't stop others from progress, you can choose to not participate yourself but it is impossible from stopping others from improving what they perceive as the quality of life for themselves as well as their offspring. If we are considering government in this argument that you would also have to consider that prohibiting removing flaws from society would be disrupting the people's ability to "pursuit happiness" (see The Declaration of Independence).
ReplyDeleteThe main ethical problem with genetic engineering is that it leads society down a very slippery slope that can not be stopped. People say that it will never get that bad but human nature is to always crave more and more control over the environment and everything in it. We always make the natural unnatural if we can. Once we start looking for diseases we would start changing embryos' physical appearances, and then eventually emotions. The part that makes humans so special is all the outcomes that can happen when creating a baby, but for some reason they turned out the way they are. If we take out the spontaneity of the situation we take out what really makes it special. Also people are not comfortable with touching that aspect of life. Sure it could stop many diseases, but at what cost to the human race?
ReplyDeleteRachel K.
In response to Natalie, I completely agree that people will never stop searching for the secrets of genetic engineering and i realize that some people just like the comfort not being in control brings, but i think that can be said to the opposite view as well. People who are obsessed with the idea of genetic engineering are people who need to be in control and lack the sense of comfort because they are not in control. I know it's a hard side to defend when we can really just say it's morally wrong or eery, but at what stage will humanity's search of control stop? There needs to be a line and it is much easier to control a line if the whole section is just blocked off. If you keep pushing the line back then people will start arguing that if that's okay why not something else, and then the line will be eliminated. We need to realize that starting this can lead to dreadful results.
ReplyDeleteRachel K.
The fundamental ethical question surrounding genetic engineering is whether or not humans should have the right to disrupt natures natural processes at the most personal level; our own cellular origins. I personally believe that language plays a large role in people's views on this issue, as well as ignorance of the technology and its uses. I believe that genetic engineering on the grand scale of things is completely unacceptable and will disrupt not only human societies but our environment as a whole. Being able to control our genetic programming is the ultimate form of control in our lives and to have that power is too risky. I'm somewhere in the middle though. Because people are aware of the technology it makes it much more difficult to get people to forget about it, and I feel inevitably we will try it out. Also, if I was in the position where I knew my future children had a predisposition for a genetic abnormality that would hinder their lives, I without a doubt would do whatever means possible to prevent that.
ReplyDeleteJohn C.
Also, I wholeheartedly agree with what Sid said. Regardless of how sacred people may perceive themselves, when push comes to shove, people are going to do whats best for themselves. Society is founded upon the notion of collective progress for the individuals sake. Here lies the difficulty regarding genetic engineering then: some people who are aware of this breakthrough technology are beyond eager to see what it has to hold for their own personal gain. Society would crumble if it ever remained static and I feel that regardless of how some may feel, it might just inevitably be our next step into medicine, as lethal as that may be. I personally feel that progress must always be made but this is a dangerous technology that can so easily be taken too far.
ReplyDeleteJohn C.
There are many ethical issues surrounding the idea of genetic engineering, however they all center around one essential question. When does life begin? If you believe that life begins at conception, then you would be more inclined to be against genetic engineering, believing that you are “disposing” of innocent lives. However if you believe that life begins at some random point during pregnancy, then the only reason they have to feel remorse at the idea of genetic engineering and the disposal of embryos would be that you are extinguishing a potential for life in that embryo. There are many other pros and cons of the argument about genetic engineering, but as long as people disagree about the timeline on the beginning of a life, there will always controversy.
ReplyDeleteMeg G.
In response to Obaida
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement that with firm control over how genetic engineering is used and how it develops can be positive in an ethical sense. While genetic engineering has the potential to be a terrific asset to society, I feel that when the time comes society will not be able to draw the line on what is ethical and what isn’t. So many times we mistakenly think that we should progress (In all areas- technology, philosophies, etc.), simply for the sake of progress. However, this is not always a good thing. I think that Huxley’s book shows terrifically that there is such a thing progressing too far in a certain areas, whether it is genetic engineering, technology, or any other area.
Meg G
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that there are any circumstances in which genetic engineering would be deemed acceptable. Genetic Engineering is an unnatural process, one which we do not fully know the limits or consequences of. It has a large amount of potential yet very few rules. I do not think that we should attempt to know and understand these unknowns. I feel that if the process is started and accepted, then it will snowball and ultimately turn the natural world into something unnatural, something that we were not created to live in. The inhabitants of the Brave New World had to be conditioned to live in their environment because it is unnatural. They would not have known how to live in it if they were not conditioned.
ReplyDeleteLuke M
I think human genetic engineering is permissible in circumstances like disease prevention, or reducing the risks of disease in a child. I don't see a downside to reducing disease in society and improving the life of a child. But even disease prevention is a risky procedure, as it will most likely lead to even more dramatic "improvements" of embryos. Humans have a tendency to over use technology, driving just over the hill or texting their friend who's sitting across the room from them. While these instances may seem trivial, humans have applied the same over use with major technologies like nuclear weapons during the Cold War Era. I'm afraid that, if we start to use genetic engineering to reduce the likelihood of disease, we would eventually use it for other "improvements" like changing the height, eye color, or gender of a baby. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and a world of designer babies would be hell on Earth. I don't want to live in a world where my destiny is predetermined and manipulated by humans in a lab, where my worth is determined from my genetics. We would need strict laws against such use and development.
ReplyDeleteCaroline F
In response to Luke:
ReplyDeleteI agree that genetic engineering has the potential, even the likelihood, to snowball. I too find it threatening that there are no rules set for genetic engineering. It's dangerous to leave that much power in the hands of humans with no laws or regulations to restrain use and preserve ethics. But I disagree with your statement, "we should not attempt to know and understand these unknowns." Yes genetic engineering has the potential to disrupt society, but I don't think that's a justified reason to halt all experimentation with the technology. I think we need to be very careful of its use. It should be limited, possibly prohibited, and the circumstances of experimentation are risky and questionable in themselves, but human life is essentially the pursuit of knowledge. How can learning more about our genetic make-up and our environment be a bad thing? Who knows where the research for genetic engineering could lead? Perhaps we will finally prove our origins or find a essential link to a new ancestor from evolution? The possible benefits are boundless and it's silly to limit our pursuit of knowledge for fear of the unknown.
Caroline F
In response to Erik
ReplyDeleteI agree that if genetic engineering does have a place in our society, that rules and regulations need to be created and enforced. But my question is who gets to create them and who gets to enforce them. The potential consequences of genetic engineering are enormous. Who ever gets a hold of the regulation creation and enforcement positions will have great power and influence over the future of society. Is this responsibility and power too great for any human or group of humans to hold? I believe it is. What if these people mess up? Is there any turning back from genetic engineering? Are the rewards worth the great risks? I don't think so. There are many unknowns concerning genetic engineering. Because of this, it is almost impossible for us to get it right the first time around. And when we mess up, how will we fix it when we don't know anything about it?
Luke M
There are plenty of obvious issues that surround genetic engineering, most of which question how ethical the idea is. Plenty of people are against it because it goes against their religion, and others feel that stem cell research is killing a potential person. Although I see the validity in these points, I cannot say that I agree with them. If mankind posesses the technology to use stem cells to cure diseases, then I see no reason why that technology shouldn't be used. However, if gene therepy is used in a similar way that it is in the World State, mankind could see serious problems. Mustapha Mond spoke of a society composed of all Alphas and how it failed becuase nobody wanted to do the menial labor suited for epsilons or deltas. If parents are allowed to make their children "perfect" mankind could face a similar situation.
ReplyDelete-Andy H.
In response to Amy, who responded to Nathan and Thomas.
ReplyDeleteI understand your point that by facilitating gene therapy, we may disturb nature's course for humanity. However, I think it is important to remember that because humans are organic, it is only natural for us to do whatever it takes to survive. If mankind was on the verge of extinction for whatever reason, but we had the technology to survive at the expense of some other species, it would only make sense for us to save ourselves. While this is an extreme scenario, the fundamental principle is the same: if we can do it, we should.
-Andy H.
In response to Luke, the inhabitants were being conditioned in a way that we shy away from. Nevertheless, we are all being conditioned in someway throughout our childhood.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it is part of life for the world to change. It is bound to happen. Whether these changes are drastic or subtle, it will happen and fighting the change is pointless.
Becky A.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think there are many ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering. One ethical concern is that there has been no solid scientific research to indicate that it would be a benefit or a detriment human society. We cannot be putting human lives at risk in the name of a theoretically based science. I don't think there would be any circumstances that would justify genetic engineering. Disease and other unwanted characteristics would be gone but those are a natural of balancing population growth. That would add to the world's overpopulation. Contrary to Aldous Huxley's belief that more people will create a stable society, I believe social stability is not in producing more people. It is in making use of the people that are reproduced naturally.
ReplyDeleteScott K
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Farah, taking away individuality would be very bad for humanity. What makes us different that makes us stronger. If we take away our differences, what is there for us to improve. The progress of mankind has been because of one individual or a group of them who thought and acted differently from other humans. They see a change that needs to be made and it happens. If everyone became exactly the same, we would never progress because we have no new characteristics or experiences to draw from. There would be no motivation for us to make changes.
ReplyDeleteScott K.
Genetic engineering becomes an issue in its application. The technology itself could be beneficial in eradicating debilitating conditions. Down syndrome, which afflicts children, limits their life span as well as their mental capacity. As a result children born with Down syndrome will never be able to live life to its fullest. Applying genetic engineering to help eliminate birth defects as well as diseases are areas where the technology could be justified. In terms of ethical concerns, as with any technology there is always potential for abuse. The application of human genetic engineering in BNW is an example of abuse. Embryos were purposely being altered so that when they developed into humans they were functioning cognitively at lower levels.
ReplyDeleteLauren S.
In response to Scott
ReplyDeleteI understand that there could be concerns with genetic engineering because little research has been done on it. It potentially could be harmful to humans, conversely it could be beneficial. If no one takes the initiative to experiment with genetic engineering then we will never know.
In addition, genetic engineering wouldn’t necessarily lead to overpopulation. The purpose of genetic engineering would be to eradicate existing disease and disorders that affect infants while they are still in the womb. In that sense genetic engineering would be applied to help eliminate birth defects.
Lauren S.
I don't think the biggest problem with human genetic engineering is ethical. It is more of a common sense problem. If we were to start messing with human genes we are messing with the only intelligent life that we know of in the entire universe. To me the risk of destroying everything that we are is not worth the reward of a couple of extra years at the end of a life. Genetics engineering could have implications that we cannot for see and therefore can not predict. We could be setting the human race up for destruction. If I had to pick an ethical dilemma I would say that we would be destroying the sanctity of life. Not in the sense that removing one embryo artificially is destroying life but in the sense that we are creating life so it in return becomes less valuable. In Brave New World, all the children are made by cloning. They have no real parents. They are raised by the government. Having parents is the primary force in how we develop. We would lose the unique qualities that make each individual special and worth while if we chose to move in the direction of Brave New World and have everyone be the same genetically as well as environmentally.
ReplyDelete-Becca W.
In response to Caroline F.'s comment I have to say I agree with her. To us the next step would be removing diseases, but after a few generations of performing these actions and having the be sucessful I believer that people will take the next logical step. This step would most likely be making there children smarter or more beautiful because that will reduce the suffering of the childd because the child would be more sucessful in work and in love. I think this will happen naturally if we start to take the matters of genetics into our own hands now. We are starting down a very scary path and I believe it is one that can be avoided. I don't think that merely laws can be created to prevent this from happening. One of the great thing about our country is that laws are flexible. If we start genetic engineering now the future will hold more advance versions of genetic engineering that will become uncontrollable. I know this seems like hyperbole, but it is the outcome that I see.
ReplyDelete-Becca W.
To me, most of the ethical issues with human genetic engineering seem to be along the lines of "we dont know what will happen, so we shouldnt mess with it". Of course, there is a possibility of a Brave New World like society, but there is also a possibility of a society free of diseases and other birth defects. Like any technology, genetic engineering has its risks. I would equate it to nuclear power plants. Some people hate nuclear power plants because of the risk that comes with them. Others love the efficiency of power production that comes along with them. What could happen with a nuclear power plant? It could meltdown, but there are hundreds of them in the world and so far only two have done so, none in the last twenty years. It seems to me that as nuclear power plant technology progresses, it becomes safer. I think it would be the same with genetic engineering. There will probably be many setbacks to it in the beginning, but as time goes on, the pros will begin to outnumber the cons.
ReplyDelete-Joe Gasior
In response to Lauren:
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said, but I think that the Brave New World example of genetic engineering is a stark exaggeration of what could happen negatively. I just don't see any way in which that could happen. I think it does help to slow down the progress of Human Genetic Engineering, which is probably a good thing for safety. Its really a tortoise and hare kind of thing. The slower a science progresses, the more likely it is to have less set backs and it will eventually flourish more than if scientists were rush into it and try to make as many great discoveries as possible, flying by all the potential drawbacks of their discoveries.
I think the greatest issue behind genetic engineering for society centers around the ability for humans to "play God." It is a scary idea that a group of humans can completely manipulate another human. This goes back to the issue of how power should be allocated. Placing that kind of power in a person's hands is incredibly dangerous. We don't know how far it will be taken and what can be done with it if it's put in the wrong hands. While progress in genetic engineering is a result of scientists' work, the process is run by politicians. The power to decide where the limits of genetic engineering stand is placed in the hands of people who don't understand the science behind it. The question of who should hold the power will always be debated. And as long as religion stands, the idea of "Playing God" will never be fully accepted in society.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Joe:
ReplyDeleteI don't think the nuclear power plant analogy is equivalent to the idea of genetic engineering. I agree that nuclear power plants can do great things as well as genetic engineering. But a nuclear power plant melting down doesn't quite relate. There are negative effects that a reliance on nuclear energy will create, things that we can't imagine. If humans mess with genetics, there may be consequences that have nothing to do with the human genome. With genetic engineering, we've reached completely new territory. The only way humans understand evolution is from natural trends of the past. If we take genetic engineering too far, who knows what animals and humans will evolve into. These are no longer natural trends, and we can't really rely on what we know about evolution.
I think that the main ethical issue surround human genetic engineering is the fact that some might think genetic engineering an act of playing god. By screening an embryo and then selecting one embryo over the other, some might think of genetic engineering as manipulation of a natural process that should not be tampered with. However, I see no reason that genetic engineering should be restricted as long as doctors' manipulation of the birth process is within reason. I think that some situations in which genetic engineering should be accepted would be in the detection and prevention of hereditary diseases. Prevention of diseases such as narcolepsy shouldn't be seen as an unethical process as humans do it every day through vaccines and medicine. Also, for those that claim that genetic engineering would give some children unfair advantages while poorer children wouldn't enjoy these advantages. However, socio-economic condition has always given children unfair advantages, whether a tutor at school, or parents that can afford to pay for cosmetic surgery or nicer clothes, and a better living situation in general.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tanya M...
ReplyDeleteI agree completely that both government and religion restrict the progress of scientific development, there are many debates as to whether this is good or bad, but that is beside the point. However, it cannot be said that these factors have completely restricted technological growth, the existence of many of our modern technologies is testimony to this. The importance of politicians in the growth of scientific devvelopment makes it so that the rate that technology grows at won't ever allow science to create abominable technologies, but at the same time the ignorance of some of our politicians might create false fears in the general populatioon, much like the Red Scare induced by Senator Joseph Mcarthy right after World War II.
There is no clear scientific evidence that genetic engineering would be a good or a bad idea. While I agree that genetic engineering could be used for multiple positive reasons, such as the end to diseases or the creation of genetically similar human beings (think of how easy it would be to be a doctor), ethically, I cannot agree that genetic engineering would benefit mankind. Biologically genetic engineering would be a blessing, but socially people would be too similar for their own good. We are not genetically all the same for a reason, and that is diversity. Efficiency is what is valued in Brave New World, but in our real world, diversity is valued. Through diversity people with remarkably different talents and gifts are produced, and it is these people who create scientific, artistic, and political progress. Sure it might be easier to modify people so that they can all follow the same set of orders to a T, but the real world needs people with initiative and the ability to freely think about how to make life better.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sarah B.:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with her thoughts on humans assuming the role of God. Even if human genetic engineering started off innocently, (only for medical use against disease etc.) humans are inherently selfish as Sarah said and would choose to manipulate the technology. It is interesting to think that with a biological technology such as this, parents could choose what they wanted their baby to physically be like. This indirectly reminds me of Hitler’s philosophy of ridding the world of the disabled or “undesirables”. As I stated previously, people are unique for a reason and randomly created at conception and nurtured throughout their lives to become the great thinkers such as Albert Einstein or Abraham Lincoln. What if the parents of Abraham Lincoln decided they had wanted a girl instead of a boy and chose to genetically modify their child in such a manner? What would our country look like today?
In response to scott.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that we do not have a complete understanding of genetic engineering and the positive and or negative affects that may come out of it. Though what we do know is that we may create some stability within our race by eliminating or preventing certain disease that may act as a monetary burden on some, or a an un-releavable stress. Also, I dont believe that Huxley is trying to create stability by creating more people, but create stability by controling the people being created. By eliminating birth you are emliminating those child/mother bonds and taking the enfants to a new level of dependency on their conditioning.
-Kaili W.
In response to no one person in particular, but just from scanning most of the posts:
ReplyDeleteThere seem to be far too many slippery slope type arguments, along the lines of “Evil human society will end up manipulating the technology for superbabies if we engineer out Down syndrome.” My point is similar to Joe’s, but rather than just nuclear energy, I would like to take the example of nuclear power as a whole, including the weapons. Unless the entire world’s been brainwashed or the world governments are conspiring in a massive cover-up, only two nuclear weapons have been detonated as an offensive weapon since their invention. A combination of tight regulation from governments and the IAEA has kept nuclear development for military purposes very low, and despite fears of terrorist theft or use, nothing spectacularly serious has happened. I see no reason why genetic engineering cannot simply remain at a minimal level while being tightly regulated. If humans are innately greedy, evil, or whatever other negative description is preferred, then surely something bad would have happened in the six decades since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we are to believe that this nuclear catastrophe, just like the production of superbabies, is just yet to inevitably occur, then that begs the question: How have we lost all faith in human society?
-Norman L.
The field of genetic engineering is still one of pioneering scientists. We know very little about the extent it could be successfully taken to. But I still believe that it is an area that should be approached. The massive health benefits it could have outweigh any potential malicious side effects, in my opinion. As we have read in the many class essays on the subject of technology, fearing the changes a new technology can bring is a natural human reaction. But as was made clear in the essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid," fears about new technologies often prove irrational and overestimated. A cautious acceptance of new technologies can bring prosperity.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Norman L.:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that the "slippery slope" argument is a cynical response to the prompt. We have to trust that the people who create such a powerful technology will do so out of a desire to assist the world, not destroy it. In real life, there are no "super villains" who just want world destruction. Rather, those who would be leading this technological expansion would most likely have the best of intentions, and their intentions would almost certainly lead to a set of laws that would limit the technology to prevent it from doing harm. As a result of the creation of this technology by genial scientists, we can ensure the regulation of this technology will also be carried out intelligently.
Many people believe that genetic engineering will be able to save lives, but genetic engineering simply for the sake of choosing your child's gender or hair color is a completely different side of the spectrum. While I disagree with genetic engineering for all purposes, I can understand the medical side of it. Being able to create an organ for someone who needs a transplant is a great medical success. However, it seems completely unnecessary to engineer a person. For thousands of years, heredity has worked on its own without help from humans. We have caused enough problems in the world as it is without genetically engineering children. And if we do find cures for diseases and save lives through genetic engineering, we are simply adding to the problem of overpopulation. I do not think there are many scenarios where it is justified, because humans were not meant to engineer other humans.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Andrew...
ReplyDeleteWhile genetic engineering will save lives, it does not make sense to start creating people who are immune to diseases. No matter how many medical problems are fought off, there are still going to be more problems, many that are worse. And if genetic engineering was able to solve so many medical problems, the problem of overpopulation would only worsen. I don't think this is a fear of new technology, it just seems superfluous. I think we would be better off spending money on research on other fields where we can solve other problems in the world, and without creating more.
The Casino at Mohegan Sun Launches With VIP Program
ReplyDeleteGuests 사천 출장샵 can 계룡 출장샵 receive a 동해 출장샵 special VIP welcome package in person. This means that all guests in the casino 광양 출장마사지 can enjoy a special VIP bonus 보령 출장안마 that's