English 112/ 0002
February 26, 2013
Genetic Modified Humans: Is Not Acceptable
In the essay, titled "Building Baby from the Genes Up?" Ronald M. Green proclaims his approval of genetic selection and extraction of human genes. He gives reasons that support his outlook on the matter, that this will be useful to civilization. Ronald M. Green is in violation of several ethical codes, with his view on genetic modification. I am against genetically modified humans, and I will explain to you, why this is my stance on the subject. First, I will summarize exactly what Ronald M. Green says in his article about his view on genetic modification and why practicing it is vital. Second, I will describe research involving human embryos and the disadvantages that genetic modification could possess for the future of human species by using research. Third, I will give you my viewpoint of why genetic modification is unethical and morally disturbing. In this essay, to support my standpoint, I will be using work from Rebecca Dresser, who wrote, "Genetic Modification of Preimplantation Embryos: Toward Adequate Human Research Policies." Rebecca Dresser describes current shortcomings and recommends policy actions are designed to ensure, that they must meet certain criteria for research on human modification being practiced. In addition, author, Sally Deneen's article entitled Designer People. Where she asks, Are We Changing the Nature of Nature? Richard Hayes, Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, the opposing viewpoint to Ronald M. Green. In addition, to the Bible and other scholars, who also feel that, human genetic modification, is unethical. Ronald M. Green, started by using the example of tow British couples, they wanted to conceive a child, but over several generations, many of their female family members had died of breast cancer. The couple wanted to use in-vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to select only the healthy embryos for implantation. Their goal was to eliminate breast cancer from their family lines at last (515). In Britain, they have a formal Agency, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HEFA), that must approve all requests for (PGD). In July 2007, after careful deliberation, the HEFA approved the procedure for both families. This brought about some serious concern, not the fact to use the PGD to avoid genetic disease, but that the embryo carrying the cancer mutation could go on to live forty or fifty years before ever developing cancer, if it even did come to exist. To critics, HEFA, approving this request, crossed the thin line between separating legitimate medical genetics and the quest for the perfect baby (515). Green argues that, "if we understand genetic causes of obesity, for example, we can intervene by means of embryo selection to produce a child with a reduced genetic likelihood of getting fat"(516). He assures that no child would have to face a lifetime of dieting or experience health and cosmetic problems associated with obesity. Green, says, "We could use gene targeting techniques to tweak fetal DNA sequences"(516). He points out four major concerns for the critics against genetic manipulation. First, they worry about the effect of genetic selection on parenting. Second, they ask whether gene manipulations will diminish our freedom by making us creatures of our genes or our parent's whims. Third, their fear that reproductive genetics will widen our social divisions as the affluent "buy" more competitive abilities for their offspring. Lastly, some worry about the religious implications of this technology. Does it amount to "playing God"? (516). All of Green's points may have substantial support, but there are still holes in his theory. While Green may have an understanding of why genetic manipulation may be helpful, there are several other ways, which prove the contrary of this type of...