Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Are We Attempting to Play God??

Genetic engineering: some call it "good" science and yet others state that it is nothing more than man trying to play "God."

Many scientist make the argument that with the advancements that are being made in the field of genetics, humankind would be crazy not to pursue the engineering of a more perfect, disease-free human.

Of course, those that strongly oppose this line of science basically state that age old saying, It's not nice to fool Mother Nature! - not to mention that their is such a great potential of abuse and long-term negative ramifications that we may not clearly understand at this time.

Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is examining a fertility procedure combines the genetic material of three people; all in the hopes of developing a child that would be free of certain defects.  Read the article that came out Tuesday, February 25th in the New York Times Health Section that discusses this issue.  After reading the article, jump right in and let's hear what you think about this week's blog question.

Blog Question:
Do you feel that the time has come for us to begin conducting genetic engineering on humans?  Do you feel that there are any true ethnic and moralistic issues that must be considered?  Just because we CAN do something, does it automatically mean that we SHOULD do something?

62 comments:

  1. Honestly, the time has not come to start conducting genetic engineering on humans. One problem comes up when i hear this, mutations. If we start creating "perfect humans", what happens to the creations that dont come out "perfect", do we just throw them out? That would be unethical to "throw out" a human being. With the experimentation of genetic engineering on humans, there are always going to appear, and if you are a caring human being, you cannot discard the mistakes and start over. This was an ethnic and moralistic issue, and another one could be that there is no such thing as perfect. If scientists do create this "perfect human" with no defects, this person will pass this "perfectness" on to their offspring which could eventually put doctors who specialize in dealing with birth defects out of business. i am not saying that having no defects is not good, but i'm just saying that it is not how this world was meant to be. We are supposed to be these "advanced animals" that evolve naturally over time, not some lab creations. Now this leads me to the third question, just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should do it. An example of this can be found in every day life, you have the ability to not do your homework, doesn't mean you should use that ability. It is unrealistic to create fetuses in a laboratory. Humans are natural beings and should be kept like how we have been living on this earth for thousands of years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian, i completely agree with your argument that is is intact way to early to start doing genetic engineering experiments on humans. This technology is still way to undeveloped and will only cause problems and complications. And what you stated about the perfect human not being possible is true, i believe perfection can only be achieved in a theoretical situation since no such thing exists here in reality.

      Delete
    2. As you stated, there are risks. Yes, unfortunately there are, but think of the prosperity for the future!!! What may seem like a loss now will not amount to how much we have evolved in the future. Our actions now will affect the many generations ahead of us. So i say, we should give them the gift of a healthier generation of human-beings.

      Delete
    3. I-an i agree with everything you wrote. There is no need to try to combine all different genes to create a human. This is also discriminating to people who have special need or birth defects, it shows them that people are trying to create new ways of creating a child without those diseases. How do you think these people would feel when they here about this? This is certainly an ethnic/moralistic issue. I don't agree with society going through such a huge jump at this point. This may be very reasonable later on, but for now we need to leave stuff to mother nature. This proposition has way to many problems and there is no need to adapt these styles. We dont need to start creating people in labs. Everyone is perfect in their own way.

      Delete
    4. I completely agree with what you had to say here; especially about "throwing out" a human being. You're absolutely right. Of course, with experimentation comes potential failure, which can greatly affect the human's life. I also agree that this technology is too undeveloped and premature to test on humans...If something went wrong, who knows how this can affect the life of the human being experimented on?

      Delete
    5. My blog would go hand-in-hand with yours, we had VERY similar thoughts. The world is not meant to be like this as you said. Remember when we read "The Giver" last year? Do you want the world to transform into something similar to the utopia in this book? We don't want "It" coming after us, do we? One small mutation which, let's say, is not found out until later on in the tested human's life, would then affect that person's baby. Just pondering about what can branch off from that blows my mind. We could create a world of mutant monsters...

      Delete
    6. Ian, to be honest I'd never thought of the consequences for those who were subject to these "modifications". HOWEVER, when you stated that humans should live as they have for thousands of years, then did you consider evolution? We've not been a stagnant species since our very creation. After all, whether it be mentally or physically, we've indeed grown.

      Delete
  2. I believe that just because we can do something does not necessarily mean we have to do it. Although we have advanced to a point where this type of research is possible i believe we still have a ways to go before we can even consider doing this on a human life. We are still inexperienced in this field and we require a lot more research, before we can seriously consider this. There is also the issue of "is it morally and ethically right". Throughout time the conflict with advances in some fields of science is that the information gathering requires the use of a human as a test subject. This of coarse is rejected by the general populous and i have to agree with it this for this topic. I do not believe that it is morally right to experiment on a human without perfectly knowing all the different effects it could possible cause. Genetic engineering is in deed a great resource that we as humans can one day use to combat illness and expand our lifetimes. This is sort of like playing God according to some religious fanatics out there, but i believe that the difference is that we are not trying to defy death, it is an attempt to extend the our life span by several yard. Will we ever completely cheat death?... I believe we can't however expanding how long we live is something in our power. This is something that could ultimately prove to be very beneficial to the Human race as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree; even if we are inexperienced, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least try. There is no possible way to know what the outcome will be if we don't give it a shot. Now's a better time than any to try experimenting on our own species, if we plan to migrate to another planet within the near future.

      Delete
    2. Thomas although your points due hold validity i must say are you willing to risk humans lives right now not knowing what sort of effects this can have on them or wait a few decades and research this topic even more. Believe me when i say a lot of human lives will be lost just to scratch the surface of this concept. I would rather wait and gain more knowledge before preforming experiments of any kind.

      Delete
    3. David i agree with the beginning of your blog. Somethings need to be left alone and this is a prime example. Mother Nature always knows what she is doing (According to Ms. McKenna). This is none of our business to go into. God creates humans as he wants to, at least that is what i believe and it wouldn't be right to interfere. Why should we create a human in a lab!!!!?? That sentence just makes me shiver. This proposition has way to many problems and there is no need to adapt these styles. We dont need to start creating people in labs. Everyone is perfect in their own way. I kind of disagree and agree with Thomas. I don't think we should ever try this on humans since again, it says we are trying to create a human that is perfect. Every human is perfect in their on way and their is no point of creating a Utopia. We need to learn and evolve as a whole learning our mistakes through life.

      Delete
    4. You proposed many points in your blog that I had different opinions on. First off, I agree that just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should. The process of genetic engineering is being leaped into and I feel it should still be thoroughly perfected. Although I do agree with that, I believe that genetic engineering shouldn't be adapted because not only does it contain scientific faults, it's "playing god" and the way mankind was created for a reason. Also, you mentioned in your blog about experimentation. Genetic engineering was tested on monkeys but I feel that this contains inaccuracy since monkeys are not composed of the same aspects as us humans.

      Delete
    5. Hello David, two things. First, I liked how you humanized man desire to live longer. I feel that it is a common misconception that ALL humans want to to live forever. Lastly, (regarding your religious fanatics portion) it is my personal belief that human genetic engineering (when used for the right purposes) in fact, pays tribute to God (much like one of the most famous philosophers of The Age Of Reason).

      Delete
    6. I know this is gonna be counted as late, but i agree with you. Like what sai said, i believe that probably not every human wants to or has the desire to live longer. But what i don't agree with is that it will be benificial to the human race. I know having a perfect human would be wonderful, but than if everyone is perfect there is no variety, unless we are basing perfect on a cellular level, than that's i different story. Anyway, i agree and disagree with you.

      Delete
  3. Hmm. Morality and curiosity do no mix with each other well... However, I must say in my honest opinion, I have always supported science no matter how risky or immoral it was. [As long as it was to benefit man-kind]. I remember a few months ago I remember reading an article stating that scientists in a foreign country were trying to create babies while eliminating the need for a male producer. At first, I was skeptical as to why this would even be needed, but science has its own reasons. (If I can find the article I was post a link later).
    I feel it isn't the question "has the time has come for us to begin conducting genetic engineering on humans?", but rather "where are we conducting genetic engineering on humans." Most experiments tested on animals have one way or another most likely been tested [possibly illegally] on another human being. Whether taken in against their own free-will, or paid off by the rich, science has ways of getting results.
    As for SHOULD WE, yes I completely agree. Think about the past; how would we know medicine like Penicillin would work? We had to test it out on human beings, no? Same applies to nowadays standards as well. All the scientists need to do, is find someone who is willing enough to sacrifice for science. There are plenty of people who are willing to do so.
    Ethnic, and morality DO pose a threat to the further advancement in this technology. If abortion is controversial topic in current day society, then I am sure that genetically modifying babies would also be controversial. Some would say it goes against the natural order of things [mother nature], or even against the works of God. But, why wouldn't we want to become healthier, and stronger? We are already the dominant species of the planet, so why stop here? We are planning to move to Mars in the near future to extend our lives as a species, so why not try to perfect ourselves as a species. We could eventually eliminate all kinds of new diseases and illnesses until we reject every harmful microorganism known to the universe.
    Just because we can do something does NOT mean that we should. But, like the saying "if your best friend jumped off a bridge, would you?"; I take logic into perspective. f we could blow up Jupiter [for example], we would choose not to because of our logic. If we could possibly create a healthier breed of the human species, would we? I feel if we use our logic, then yes we should.
    I think our society is ready for a bold, new step. We have evolved so much as a species within the last 2 centuries that it is unimaginable to what else we could discover. I say we should not hinder the progress of science. We SHOULD continue with this mitochondrial experiment, so we can perfect our species even more than we already have. After reading a quote from Matthew Arnold, "The pursuit of perfection, then, is the pursuit of sweetness and light† He who works for sweetness and light united, works to make reason and the will of God prevail."; it gives good reason to WANT to perfect our world. Perfecting is not immoral, it is just simply a step ahead. - Thomas Hindle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas, although you had a very intriguing argument, I would have to disagree with you. Yes, science has greatly contributed to our world, no denying that, but there have been so many risk factors involved with them all, especially this one in particular. The positive percentages or outcomes of this newfound idea are quite unstable at the moment. You stated,” Some would say it goes against the natural order of things [mother nature], or even against the works of God. But, why wouldn't we want to become healthier, and stronger? We are already the dominant species of the planet, so why stop here?” Well, yes, I do believe that this is ultimately going against the natural balance of nature and the construction of the human being. It should be natural, a creation of God, not an experiment in a science laboratory. And answering you’re questioning on how come we would not want to become stronger and healthier, well, since we are the dominant species already, why would we want to create so many more humans, which cannot die of disease, that have the power to overpopulate our planet and create an abundance of new environmental problems?

      Delete
    2. Your opinion is definitely an unpopular one but you made great points to back up your argument. These points that you mentioned had not crossed my mind at first. Although you do make a good argument, I still disagree with you. My viewpoint goes back to moralistic issues. I just find it to be so weird to be honest to create babies using this form of engineering and "manufacturing." Of course, humans would be born without defects and diseases but it's life! It really is not necessary to go about and create children on our own just because of these issues. Producing babies is a natural human process. This is one thing that we shouldn't make high-tech, industrialized and mondernized. This is a natural process and we really should not interfere with it.

      Delete
  4. You make a compelling case here however you are ignoring the fact that this is still new and alien. Although you say there is no time like the present don't you believe it would be in everyone's best interest in learning more about genetics and other parts of this field before making any rash decisions and rushing into experiments not having a solid background on the subject. However your case was well thought out and it caused me to rethink my view point, still i grasp firmly onto my beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In my opinion, although this new concept is absolutely fascinating in every aspect, is that it is completely absurd and immoral. Let’s start off with the concept of “perfect babies”. Even though there is a possibility of a “perfect” baby to be obtained, with THREE people to be exact; which is rather a whole new topic, there is definitely the likelihood, rather the 99.99% percent chance of “defective” children. On top of that, what does that make the rest of the world? We were born with flaws, which makes us who we are. Like the blog topic stated, God has created each and every one of us they way we should be, and tampering with his creations won’t get us anywhere. If cloning is thought to be an insane idea, why not the concept of genetically “perfect” human beings, which greatly ties into the whole cloning deal. Although new technology is all the rage these days, and every scientist in the world is in a race to discover the next big thing, I don’t think this should be one of them. Considering there would be three parents involved in this genetic engineering process, the structure of family morals would be completely altered or destroyed. The procedure of which a baby is conceived should only involve two parents, not a laboratory “constructing” a baby to be engineered into the perfect human being with the genetic makeup of three people. Just the thought of the idea of scientists actually thinking this is safe and moral enough to conduct, baffles me. I mean, we definitely have the equipment, or technology, and knowledge to attempt at something like this, however this is blowing it out of proportion. Who would want “perfect” humans roaming this earth? That terrifies me, to be honest. The whole concept of this would un-employ doctors everywhere and the population would sky-rocket, considering the millions of diseases that could kill someone would no longer pose much of a threat. While science itself has made remarkably tremendous beneficial discoveries, and I would be curious about this new procedure, I think at the moment the research is a greatly underdone, with the risk of lack of safety. We are getting ahead of ourselves and I think we should be patient while more tests are run on animals and the procedure is approved. I am not saying that we should carry this out, because like my arguments, I do feel it is ridiculous, however, it is potentially hard to not let curiosity get the best of you. However, I definitely stick to my belief against this whole controversial idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mentioned something in your blog post, that I forgot to mention in mine. Family morals... Hmmm. 2 parents are the ideal family. I suppose that a third parent would break away from the "natural" family; but in my opinion sacrifices have to be made for human-kind to move forward in evolution. - Thomas Hindle

      Delete
    2. Anshul, you brought up some very good points in your blog post. You stated, "The procedure of which a baby is conceived should only involve two parents, not a laboratory “constructing” a baby to be engineered into the perfect human being with the genetic makeup of three people." and this is 100% right (in my opinion). We should not be toying with human genetics, because no one is perfect- and we shouldn't strive to be. All in all, I completely agreed with everything you said. It is just unnatural to conduct genetic engineering on humans in order to achieve "perfection".

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In my opinion, conducting genetic engineering on humans to create babies is an absurd idea. To think that scientists actually are investing time and money into research for genetic engineering blows my mind. I am looking at this blog topic more in an ethical and moralistic point of view. The only pro of this concept is obviously babies produced without birth defects. Is mankind really willing to go to such great extents just to create a perfect child? Diseases and birth defects are certainly terrible issues that affect many families all throughout the world. It would be great to see our children disease free and without birth defects. However, in reality, there is no perfect human being and that is the way it always has been. Diseases and birth defects are a natural part of life (of course, they are the parts of life that we are “afraid” to face, but it’s life). I would certainly agree with the saying “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature” and that is exactly what humans are doing with the genetic engineering. Creating babies is a natural process that should not be interfered with. The modern human population is becoming more advanced than we need to be. Just because we are making new discoveries and we are able to conduct genetic engineering, it certainly should not be something that should be done with humans. To me, if babies were made this way, it would be very superficial and “fake.” Now, not only does genetic engineering have its moral and ethical issues, science plays a huge part as well. This is still a new and foreign process for us and there definitely be mistakes that could possibly be fatal to human life. If this process is being considered and people are willing to put aside moralistic issues, many more years of research should be put in to this before more people begin to use this process. Genetic engineering should be perfected completely in order for it to work smoothly. All in all, the cons of moralistic and scientific issues and hazards regarding genetic engineering outweigh the pros. Humans should be continued to be born the way they have been. It is one thing to advance technology, but humans are a part of nature that should not be treated as if they are objects being manufactured in a lab.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The potential cons of genetic engineering, as you stated, DEFINITELY outweigh the cons. It shocks me that scientists are eager to go this far to achieve perfection...as I've said before, perfection does not exist and we should not go to such extremes to try to create a perfect child. Like you said, "Creating babies is a natural process that should not be interfered with". Can you even imagine creating babies in a lab? Of course, It would be amazing to prevent birth defects; but I feel that this idea is far too premature to try, and it's just unnatural. So, having said that, you expressed your opinion here very well and I completely and utterly agree with everything you stated.

      Delete
    2. Kushali, all in all, I definitely agree with you. We have similar viewpoints in believing that genetically engineering a human is morally absurd. I like how you stated, “Diseases and birth defects are a natural part of life (of course, they are the parts of life that we are “afraid” to face, but it’s life).” I agree that it is normal for humans to have multiple flaws and we have to embrace them in order to continue with our lives. If we constructed “perfect” beings, there wouldn’t be much point in embracing your flaws, because they are a big part in defining who we are. We may be afraid of diseases and defects, but they allow for advancements and further enhance our knowledge. There are definitely more cons than pros in this situation because they are so many risks and possible problems we will have to face.

      Delete
    3. Kush, in total, I agree with you. We should embrace our flaws and like being different. As you mentioned, we'd be 'fake' if we were all the same. Our life would be extremely dull and unexciting.

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I believe there is no need for creating a "perfect human" by using genetic engineering on humans. I believe the only time these types of activities should be done is when we have a huge disease threatening all of society. Otherwise, humanity should be left as it is. Sure, we can continue learning more and more about genetics and biology, but there is absolutely no need to try to combine all different genes to create a human. This is also discriminating to people who have special need or birth defects, it shows them that people are trying to create new ways of creating a child without those diseases. How do you think these people would feel when they here about this? This is certainly an ethnic/moralistic issue. Also, the article states that since the idea worked with monkeys it is time to test on humans. What if the proposition fails?? What will the outcome of this be?? These will create even more controversy than there already is. In this society we need to learn to be who we are. There is no need of acting like anyone else or being a "perfect" human. Scientists need to understand there is no such thing. This has problems written all over it!! The world, in my eyes, is not meant to be perfect. We continue to have problems and I believe there is no need of solving them. We need to learn a lot of lessons in life and a utopia is just not possible. Not only is it impossible it is unreasonable. Society has evolved over time and it will continue to do so, but there is no need of creating humans in a lab or trying to replicate a "perfect society". Just because we can do something certainly doesn't mean we should do it!! For example, if you can take someones money or steal something without anyone seeing certainly shouldn't mean we should do it. There are millions of examples where this holds true. We should definitely not do something just because we can, to me that is a horrible thing to do. This proposition is all wrong and it just isn't right in todays society. We are not ready for a huge advancement like this, yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abu, I agree that humanity should be left as it is. You stated "This is also discriminating to people who have special need or birth defects, it shows them that people are trying to create new ways of creating a child without those diseases." and I agree very much. Those people already feel that they are outcasted, and if we create perfect humans imagine how much they'd probably hate themselves for having a special need or defect. You say we aren't ready for a huge advancement YET, but don't you realize no matter how advanced we are in technology, we will be playing God, which is very wrong.

      Delete
    2. Your post and opinions you used stood out to me out of all the others. I liked how you looked more into the moralistic issues and how genetic engineering would make those with birth defects and special needs feel. You also mentioned how we need to learn to be who we are, which is true. There is no need to be conducting genetic engineering because birth defects and diseases are a natural part of life. We all know that perfect human beings and perfect societies are not possible as of right now. So why must we continue to try so hard to do so and become more advanced than necessary? We definitely are not ready for such an advancement like this.

      Delete
  10. In all honesty, the idea of conducting genetic engineering on humans is one that seems intriguing and almost unreal. However, although attempting this on humans in order to prevent various defects seems like a good idea, I feel that we're just not ready to start something as revolutionary as this. First of all, conducting genetic engineering on humans can potentially be very dangerous or harmful to the human being tested on. Being that it is still a premature experiment, it might not be safe to test something as extreme as this just yet. Who knows what could happen if something went wrong during the procedure? What if this just introduces a new type of disease or defect that the person would have to live with for the rest of their life? This leads me to the ethnic and moralistic issues that need to be considered in this situation. I personally don't think it's right to experiment with a person's genetics in order to make them "perfect". We're only human, and we weren't meant to be perfect. God made us with flaws and imperfections, but these characteristics are what make us genuine, unique people. Just because we are able to alter a human's genetics to prevent them from having defects, does not mean we should. It is possible that this could be tried sometime in the future once the idea of genetic engineering matures and scientists go further into their studies, but for now, I feel that it would be better not to experiment on humans' genetics- for both safety and moralistic reasons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paige, I like how you mentioned that the imperfections God gave us are what makes us unique and they distinguish us from one another. That was a great point. What would the world be if we were all the same and perfect? You are certainly correct when you say that this is a premature experiment and conducting this on humans may not be safe at all. Overall we basically had the same opinions dealing with genetic engineering and its moralistic and scientific issues.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you Paige. The topic is definitely intriguing yet it has many problems. I agree with you when you say "although attempting this on humans in order to prevent various defects seems like a good idea, I feel that we're just not ready to start something as revolutionary as this." This is big leap forward and I talked about this towards the end of my blog, Is society really ready for this big of a jump? I don't think this is the right time to do biological testing like this on humans since it may lead to many consequences. God has made everyone perfect in their own way and scientist trying to create a "perfect human" does't make sense to me. Humans aren't meant to be created in a lab. Good job on your blog!! Humans should be left as they are.. i agree!!

      Delete
    3. It is a bit ironic that our main blogs had almost the exact same points. I strongly agree that it is too early in the game for such a ground-breaking experiment and can alter the fate of mankind with a decision not thought out fully. There is a terrifying endless possibility of things that may happen due to this/these experiment(s), and when I say endless, I mean ENDLESS! DNA has enough information to stack up "a gazillion" pieces of paper printed with all of the information fit in one 2-strand molecule! Do you know how much DNA (and RNA) we have in our bodies? Trillions. We replicate and make new DNA and RNA on a daily basis. Messing with this process could be detrimental to the world as a whole. It would affect all other animals, plants, and fungi, and possibly even substances and other non-living things which in turn affect us and it would just form a cycle as I see it.

      Delete
    4. Paige, I completely agree when you say that ethics are a big part of this issue. But I have to say that when you stated you were concerned with the potential problems of human genetic engineering, that I was a bit set back. After all, with the opportunity to advance, does come risk. My personal philosophy is that in order to climb a few steps, we must sometimes risk losing balance.



      Delete
    5. I have the same feelings on this subject as you do. I feel that society is not ready for genetic engineering, even though it could prove to be beneficial to the human race many years down the road. It just doesn't make sense in today's world where we teach the children that no one is perfect, by creating a perfect human, we are causing the conflict of perfect vs. flawed.

      Delete
    6. Hey Paige, you have good arguments especially in the middle of your blog where you talk about the overall danger and immorality of doing this. In biology I learned that if we are not precise enough we will change an entire organism and like Ian said in his blog we can just "throw them away". It is a great idea but is it something we should be focusing on now with all of the other strife and concerns in the world, that's why we aren't ready for this technology.

      Delete
  11. Genetic engineering has been a controversial topic for awhile. In my opinion, it is not time to start conducting genetic engineering, nor will it ever be time to start. To state that there are no health risks is an exaggeration. It is known that genetically engineered crops have problems, so why wouldn't a human have them. Genetically engineering is morally and ethically wrong in more than one way. When you look from a religious point of view, depending on religion, genetically engineering is wrong. If God created all of mankind and life itself, than should man be allowed to tamper with the power of the almighty God? Never. By having the power to genetically engineer, you are pretending to be God by trying to create something that was made by divine power. Even if you believe in the theory of evolution, if we have evolved to fit our surroundings, shouldn't we still be evolving to adapt to our changing surroundings. Mother nature has a divine design and is not meant to be messed with. The world is not meant to be perfect, but society has made people obsessed with the idea of perfection. Just because you have the ability to do something outrageous doesn't mean you should. Just because I have the ability to kill, does that mean I should? No matter how advanced we are in technology, we should not create something that was not meant for us to do. Genetic engineering is wrong, and should never be done. The clone of the sheep they did awhile back was absolutely ridiculous to me.
    *I'd also like to note something. Why are so many people shocked with how if this happened that they would just throw it away if their were defects? People throw out their babies often. There have been many cases of people finding new borns in garbages. The entire thing is disgusting to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your blog topic really made me think less into the scientific faults of genetic engineering and more into the meaning. This process truly is "playing God" because genetic engineering is basically correcting the way God has presented mankind. The world is definitely not meant to be materialistic and with genetic engineering, people are even more into the idea of perfection which I feel is wrong. This process is just an addition to the advances our generation wants to adapt and I believe it should not be inherited. Your side note really stressed how absurd the entire thing really is.

      Delete
    2. "The world is not meant to be perfect, but society has made people obsessed with the idea of perfection." This line really stuck to me. By starting genetic engineering, we are trying to be perfect. I don't think that will ever be achieved...at least not for centuries.

      Delete
    3. I agree with your blog post entirely. We should never genetically modify a human, not now or not in the future. As you mentioned people have been obsessed with perfection. Our society is not perfect and is not meant to be. We cannot mess with Mother Nature because it can lead to major consequences. Trying to defy God and his power is wrong and I believe the whole idea is absurd.

      Delete
    4. Religion is something for man to rely on, spiritually. Some people tease that one can live without bread and water, but cannot loses his beliefs. Genetic engineering will make a gap in the world between the rich and poor because it costs money. However, how can you call a man closer to perfect a human? It is ethically not fair and should be opposed.

      Delete
  12. The phrase “genetic engineering” itself gives off a bizarre tone. I strongly oppose to this new adaptation that is bringing controversy around the globe for countless reasons. Although the thought of having birth defect free babies seems completely positive, the consequences linked with this process overweigh the general pro. Is it really necessary to go to such high extents and receive worst outcomes? The article which corresponded with this blog topic stated “A researcher in Oregon, Shoukhrat Mitalipov, has performed the mitochondrial procedure in monkeys and has said that it is ready to be tried in people.” I feel this statement fully proposes inaccuracy. I agree with Dr. David L. Keefe that the monkeys are not composed of the same aspects as us humans which can result in an inaccurate effect of the procedure. The experiment is categorized as premature and has a high percentage of still containing flaws especially with such extreme scopes. Our generation includes many circumstances where we are trying to make every facet of mankind more moralistic and ethical. For example, finding new reliable energy sources has been going on in the world for quite a while. Unlike the situation where you can get rid of an unreliable outcome of energy source, it would be unruly to “discard” humans. Humans are natural beings and should in no way be treated like manufactured objects. Additionally, having the opportunity of doing something, such as genetic engineering, doesn’t mean we should inherit it right away. I believe this process should still undergo more experimentation till perfection. On the other hand, genetic engineering would be “playing god” because we were born a certain way for a reason and it is what determines us unique. In generalization, I feel that our generation shouldn’t leap into these advances such as genetic engineering without fully thinking through every detail there is to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your viewpoints, and I am happy you didn't contradict yourself by pointing out flaws even if it were perfected. You stated "Humans are natural beings and should in no way be treated like manufactured objects.", and you're right. For example, in the movie "The Island", the clones find it hard to believe they were just a product for use. Also, its good that you pointed out how we would be playing God. No one should feel equivalent to him, because the only one who can give life is God, this is my belief.

      Delete
    2. I feel that we are natural beings, and we should not be treated as manufactured objects as you stated. However, I feel this experiment would not be playing God because, in my opinion, God will see the importance of such a thing if needed someday. God would look past the possible "immorality" of the act and understand it is for the fate of humankind (again, if needed in the future, I do not believe it is necessary now). Going back to a blog topic a few weeks ago, science helps us in many ways, but often people get excited and amped up for a proposal that sounds great short-term, but can lead to utter chaos in the future.

      Delete
  13. I am going to start off by saying that I feel genetic engineering is not attempting to play God. However, genetic engineering can lead to advancements and achievements never thought to be possibly reached. As a scientist, three major backfires of this seed of science stagger me. What I cannot believe these scientists don't realize when coming up with these hypotheses is the importance of population control, especially in modern society. With a consistency of genetic engineering and creating essentially fully immune humans, these humans will just keep growing. The world population, as we speak, is growing at a rate of about 1.2% and we are not taking the desperate measures we should. We are doing the opposite. Genetic engineering leads to a much greater amount of people living to what we consider old age and even much more. Another thing that comes to mind is the possibility of genetic mutations (consisting of many). If these scientists mess up in their projects and cause mutations in humans' DNA and/or RNA, it could only be bad. Many diseases are derived from these mutations and there could even be more out there that we don't know about. You're risking people's lives and their future generations...for what? Lastly, I would like to point out that this proposal completely conflicts with the nature of the world, the environment, and the growth in health of the world's ecosystems. The way nature progresses is important and it's vital to stay all natural, we have much power as man and do very much seek it, but we must think through our actions more thoroughly. In other words, just because we can do something, it doesn’t automatically mean that we should do something. I see no point in going through any more with this project, the cons that pop up in my head are much too substantial not to consider. I would not label this as immoral, more so inhumane. Who knows what these experiments can do short term and long term to the evolution of humans? There are a number of possibilities. It is the sad truth that we can't yet have multitudes of people living very long and in essence staying healthy. Population growth is the biggest problem the world has today, it's us. Making these, you could say, "genetically modified" humans is taking the world down the wrong path. Now is the wrong time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agreed with most of your points included in your blog. I hadn't originally thought of the population circumstance that comes with genetic engineering but it just adds to the countless cons to this process. I also agree that due to the imperfections still contained in genetic engineering, we should not inherit it. It will only lead to a downfall of effects. The generation we will in is definitely trying to leap into many advances without thinking each element through. One part I disagreed with you on was how you feel it does not play god which you didn't elaborate upon.

      Delete
    2. Robert, you made outstanding points that I agree completely with. However, one thing you said about not going against God, made me feel you had the opposite perspective, but it’s quite alright since everyone has a different opinion on God himself. As I mentioned in my post, yet did not elaborate upon as much as you did, was that population was one of the most significant effects of such a construction. Our world is already suffering from population growth and if we proceed with this new idea, the situation could get much worse. Also like I briefly stated in mine, mutations and defects in such genetic makeup, such as DNA, could disrupt the expected outcome and create more controversy. I like how you stated, “You're risking people's lives and their future generations...for what?” There are such less pros for this process, that I do not comprehend how scientists actually want to plunge into this newfound research, despite all of the cons.

      Delete
  14. It is my firm belief, that we are not ready for genetic engineering on humans as of this day and age. That is not to say we will never be, but right now I just feel that society has not fully reached a consensus as to whether or not this issue is morally sound. When I was debating over whether or not it was so, I finally reached the conclusion that it was, only if genetic engineering was used for advancing the human immune system or preventing unbeneficial mutations. However if this was used for unfair mental or physical advancement, then my original opinion would be null and void. Lastly, I feel that the final question of this week's blog topic is too broad to discuss thoroughly. In general, though I must say that in general we should not do something JUST because we can. However depending on the scenario, (death or scientific advancement) the answer to the question can never truly be set in stone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree we are not ready for genetic engineering, but I feel that it should never be done. Genetic engineering goes against many beliefs, and goes against mother nature, so don't you think it shouldn't be used at all? Your view was interesting, but kind of contradicting itself.

      Delete
    2. Sai, I believe with Hava. I don't think we should ever go against mother nature. We are born 'perfect'. Why should we mess with mother nature?

      Delete
    3. I can only agree with you partially because you mention about genetic engineering in the future. I don't think we are ready to modify a human today or even in the future. Think about all the consequences that could arise! I do agree with you when you say genetic engineering should not be used for unfair mental or physical advancement. If one day every human is genetically modified, it would be wrong in my opinion. The idea of trying to create a perfect human boggles me because in a sense we are not thankful for the way we were made by God and the idea of wanting to become a " better" human is ridiculous.

      Delete
    4. Hey sai like the others you had great arguments but the only argument I have about this is when you state it will come later when we are ready. Honestly whether it's 2014 or 2782827 we won't be ready! Humans won't reach a consesus on this proposition if they know how morally wrong it is to change someone's entire identity. Besides that the rest of the argument is well written, good job

      Delete
  15. The idea of genetically engineering humans to make the "perfect" is ridiculous. God created us to be humans and we are all unique. Nobody is perfect and we all have faults. We need to realize that creating a human in a lab is unethical and is morally wrong. I love science and learning about the natural world, but tampering with the natural world can create major consequences. We can't be definite about these experiments that are done on a different species of animals and expect them to work on humans. This topic reminds me about the novel "Flowers for Algernon" which helped me grasp an opinion on this topic. We need to accept ourselves just the way we are. The idea of trying to create a "perfect" human or genetically modify someone to something they are not can create major uproar. How would you feel if someone was genetically modified to be near perfection and you weren't? Our society and environment would drastically change and I would not want to live in that type of world. I know scientists probably have research to genetically modify a human, but just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it. What about experiments that fail? What would happen to those humans? Ethically and morally it is not right to create a "better" human. I strongly feel genetic engineering on humans should never occur because God created us to be unique and different from each other, and by experimenting on humans we would ultimately change the course of nature.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The idea of genetically engineering humans is absolutely absurd. It actually makes me speechless. Why would one think of doing that? Every human was made perfectly in their own way. Birth defects and diseases are a part of our life. But we are all special and unique.
    Being perfect is boring. Think of the book "THE GIVER". THey were all the same and their lives were extremely boring.
    There will never be a good time to start this process. It shouldn't happen, period. There is no such thing of a better person....because no one is exactly alike. Honestly, if this were to possibly happen eventually, I hope it's a long way down the rode so we don't experience it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with you when you mention every human is perfect in their own way. God created each one of us to be unique and different from one another and it's ethically and morally wrong to genetically engineer a human. You use a great example to prove your point by mentioning "The Giver". We cannot try to create a utopian society where everyone is perfect because major consequences can arise. Genetic engineering should never occur and I completely agree when you say if it were to happen it should happen a long time from now so we wouldn't have to experience it.

      Delete
    2. Hey kate you make a very good argument a bit similar to mine. The comparison that you gave to the giver was really strong because the way the book modeled society is the way we are trying to make it which isn't good according to what you already said. We don't have a right to interfere with nature and what it gave us, good blog.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you! In the past, I thought that the world will be better if we can create men. Mom can have a clone boy replaced her dead son, the world will have less pain and tears. But as I growing up, the concept of enjoy the pain adapt into my world view. If we can use genetically engineering, we can see the the defect of people's DNA and fix it before life starts. But the physically "perfect" baby will loses the experience of enjoying the natural senses.

      Delete
  17. This is directed at hava's post. I agree with kaitlyn on this one. The quote you stated talking about how the world today has become obsessed with perfection is so true. And by creating a perfect human, people will surely feel inferior and would cause possibly some major problems. Overall, i agree with what you said in your post.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wow I really like this blog topic and there are many ways you can go about with this so I will make it short simple and to the point. Of course it's morally wrong to alter and trick Mother Nature especially when it comes to changing the genetic make up of a human. Nobody is perfect and nobody will ever be perfect no matter how hard we try so the fact that scientists would even try these experiments on us humans baffles me. Unless there is a fire crisis where we need this technology it should be kept to ourselves. Not only can this technology benefit mankind it still has the possibility to harm it. Science has already had a big enough impact on our society as it is so there's no need for more. Religion is a totally different aspect of this proposition but to continue with answering the question I believe it would cause some havoc if this new system of engineering were to be implemented. Just like the blog says just because we can do something doesn't mean we have to and that's certainly the case with genetic engineering

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mother nature is existing, useful and however, make sense only if we believe there is one. Why people in modern days still go to the church even when they know everything about genetics, which consider to be "the secrets of life"? Because religion, is something people want to rely on, it gives people hope and courage. Death, pain, and everything to a devout person is only a journey. But if men is created by men, this spiritual comfort won't work as powerful as it used to be any more.

      Delete
  19. Emotionally speaking, I don't feel like that the time has come for us to begin conducting genetic engineering on humans. However, the idea of creating life for whatever reasons just crush on my view. Even test tube baby makes me feel guilty which comes from nowhere in my mind. Besides all the scientific harming and creationism, human just need to enjoy and experience everything natural, no matter it is painful, ugly or weak. Although the goal of science is to study life and try to use the knowledge to make a better one, but it doesn't mean that we should see for "perfection", all the physical defect, in my point of view, make our life feel real and rorty. We conduct genetic engineering on humans, we make our life longer, we create life that is less painful, for what? Death and diseases, somehow can be view as art, they make creature build belief, and also, help to break the flashy wall to see through the spirit of life; they are supposed to be part of the life. Science is Pandora's box, well, a more complex one. our curiosity makes us know more about the inside information, some are useful, some are seductive, some can do benefits but hurt at the same time, and some, can destroy all the faiths and intellectual virtues. Genetic engineering, undoubtedly, can save a lot of lives and reach a life closer and closer to the ideal of perfect, but the cost will be unacceptably high. Human will be divided into two parts, one is which can afford the money and experience a high-quality life, but the other one has to stay in the way we do today. The gap between rich and poor and the unstable society will make the world loses basic senses. There are so many ways to provide a better life, but genetic engineering on human just isn't a right choice in today's world.

    ReplyDelete