Genetic Engineering Proponents Arguments – Essay Example

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Genetic Engineering Proponents’ Arguments" Is a great example of a Science Essay. Also known as genetic modification, genetic engineering refers to the process of adding DNA to an organism using biotechnology with a goal to augment desirable new traits that are already unavailable in that organism (Brown 2015). There are many arguments for and against genetic engineering with different people commenting on it for character enhancement among children while those against it have emphatically questioned the technology’ s ethics and morality. This is an issue that for many years, has disturbed conservatives and liberals equally.

Michael Sandel is among those against this technology for its insensitivity to ethics and moral values. He has written a book, The Case against Perfection; Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering, expressing his concerns. To this effect, this assignment will explore the arguments of the pro-genetic engineering group as well as those of Michael Sandel’ s so as to determine whether genetic engineering exhibits a lack of virtue and a strong desire to control life. Further discussion will illustrate whether or not genetic engineering is immoral. Genetic engineering proponents’ arguments To objectively state whether genetic engineering exhibits a lack of virtue as Sandel laments, it is noble to understand the motivation for pro-genetic engineering first.

The argument is that a world without this practice in itself breeds inequality. For instance, genetically fir persons can aspire to be astronauts while a genetically unfit person will not as they are limited by their natural characteristics (Hall 2016). In the real-world as they continue to argue, only a minority has what it takes (genetic configuration-perfect eyesight and physical fitness) for one to be an astronaut.

Therefore, genetic engineering will afford more people a chance to become astronauts through genetic re-configuration to suit the desired genes, more or less enabling them to realize their dreams. Further arguments by the pro-genetic engineering group are that people in the real world are only polite in describing an individual’ s unpleasant reality. They contend that conservatives of genetic engineering covertly discriminate in a much more polite way. For instance, one would say that this person (referring to a short person) will find it difficult to play basketball due to their height as compared to his competitors.

The point is that genetic engineering provides an opportunity to eliminate challenging genetic configurations to many people as compared to the natural genetic privilege. To validate their argument, the proponents pose a question as to whether natural genetic inequalities are erratically and fraudulently doled out by nature in an expansive manner as compared to the engineered ones that may be earned through hard work. The pro-genetic engineering group is again sure that with a basis that is purely decentralized and only comprising free personalities and couples, it is less likely to lead to eugenics as was observed with Nazi in the 1930s where disabled babies and unfit individuals were killed.

The argument is that they cure disabilities but the outstanding concern from their counterparts would be how they undertake the curing so-referred? Following the individual’ s free-will argument, pro-genetic engineering group in principle permits the conversion of all unfit genes to consider the highest genetic level. This, therefore, explains why women will abort babies once their prenatal tests reveal that they have Down syndrome or such other ailments.

Further justification for this biotechnological development is that it helps in converting babies who would otherwise be disabled into healthy and normal ones thus reducing abortion rates.

References

Brown, M., 2015. Genetics, science fiction, and the ethics of athletic enhancement. The routledge handbook of the philosophy of sport. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hall, M., 2016. The Bioethics of Enhancement: Transhumanism, Disability, and Biopolitics. Lexington Books.

Lanphier, E. and Urnov, F., 2015. Don't edit the human germ line. Nature, 519(7544), p.410.

Patra, S. and Andrew, A.A., 2015. Human, Social, and Environmental Impacts of Human Genetic Engineering. Biomedical Sciences.

Powell, R., 2015. The Disvalue of Genetic Diversity, or: How (Not) to Treat a Sandelian Ethos on Steroids. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15(6), pp.29-32.

Van Niekerk, A.A., 2014. Biomedical enhancement and the pursuit of mastery and perfection: a critique of the views of Michael Sandel. South African Journal of Philosophy= Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Wysbegeerte, 33(2), pp.155-165.

Yeager, A., 2016. The Ethics of CRISPR: Using Human Germline Gene Modification to Prevent Genetic Disease.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us