There is a continuous global debate about the use of science to modify nature and its consequences to the environment …show more content…
Henig (2004), a poll in 1969 showed that about 50% of American adults believed that IVF was against God’s will and would encourage proximity. Louise brown therefore served as a proof that the process of IVF could indeed produce healthy children and an estimate of 1 million babies have been conceived using the IVF method. Although widely accepted, religious protesters still see the process as ‘playing God’ and should not be thought of as a means of conception. Some also believe that producing children artificially could also lead to some deficiencies in the children and they might be more prone to diseases or might not be as mentally stable as naturally conceived children. A study was conducted by Ceelen.M (et al, 2007) to investigate the difference between IVF children and naturally born children. The results stated that IVF children have a defective body fat composition although it was also said that more research was needed in order to arrive at a valid conclusion. Despite the concerns, the IVF process has become an alternative most people now agree on and the number of artificially conceived children is rising steadily even though the success rates of IVF conception is far less than what is …show more content…
Although it is obviously that the two processes are in need of improvement, they both will probably become household terms and common processes used by everyone. In the future perhaps the IVF will become a thing of the past with single gamete reproduction becoming a reality and Nootropics becoming a generally accepted by both public and government. The future also presents endless possibilities for modifications to nature of which may or may not make as large an impact as Nootropics and artificial