| Genetic Engenering Essay, Research Paper
Genetic Engineering
A new technology is dawning on our era, a technology that could change the lives of our children and their children to come. Will this medical advancement be pursued or will it be outlawed? The medical advancement is genetic engineering, the duplicating of human cells, and people have strong feelings both for and against it. Many people who have strong feelings for why cloning should be allowed say, ” Cloning human cells could one day save your life and the lives of many other people. This research could find cures for cancer, genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, and damaged hearts, livers, and brains” (Bailey 1). On the other hand, the people who feel otherwise say, “Introducing genes into chromosomes is very much a hit or miss proposition. Scientists might achieve the results they intended once in twenty times, making the procedure far to risky to preform on a human embryo” (Nash 2).
Many times scientist have proved that they do indeed have the power to duplicate an animal, plant and human body parts so that they are exactly identical to each other. For example, in May of 1998, scientists successfully cloned a calf using a new cloning technology that could make it possible to create “designer” cattle. Also, in June of 1998, there was talk about having successfully cloned a mouse swept through the scientific community(Nash 3). These are just a few of many times scientists have cloned an animal. These are the many things science has brought fourth and we need to take advantage of them. After studying both sides of
the issue, I believe human cloning is a good thing to peruse for our children’s sake.
One of the most popular arguments in support of cloning is that we can make people disease free and it could decrease the risk of birth defects. In other words, we can make a super human or the perfect person, which would lower the risk of being born abnormal or infected with any genetic diseases that may have been passed down by their parents (”The Benefits” 1). Just think for one second if you have allergies and how miserable it is in the Spring when all the flowers are blooming and the trees are blossoming. Scientist can take out the gene that makes you allergic to things. “A fertilized ovum could be cloned, and the clone could be tested for diseases and disorders. If the clone is free of diseases than the real ovum would be free of disease too. Then the zygote could be implanted in the womb” (”Pros” 1). Also, “scientists believe that they may be able to treat heart attack victims by cloning their healthy heart cells and injecting them into the areas of the heart that may be damaged. Heart disease is the number one killer in the United States and several other industrialized countries” (”The Benefits” 1). In other words, human perfection could be engineered.
Those opposing cloning feel that if it is possible to make a perfect human, “would this human be accepted into the society or would people look at him as some kind of science experiment” (Nash 4). This human could have above normal strength and sub-normal intelligence, a genetic underclass (”Cons” 1). Even if we made a whole lot of them there would be a risk of creating a population that is entirely the same. “This population would be susceptible to the same diseases, and one disease could wipe out a whole nation. How do you think the woomen who has to carry around a baby for nine months, is going to feel about using it for spare parts and throwing it away like garbage? If I were a woman, I would not want to carry
around a baby for nine months and then just lose it to some strangers. “The percentage of body parts being rejected from the body is very low” (Nash 3). So that is not an issue for why cloning is good.
Even with these concerns it may be possible to just clone the body parts needed. Scientists are in the process of finding these things out but they need more time, more time that people won’t give them. Just last year a mouse had a human ear growing on his back(Nash 1). If we can make a human ear grow on a mouse, then we can grow human body parts. We will never know unless scientists are allowed to continue there research on cloning.
“Some opponents of cloning say it is to risky. But what opponents of a new technology regard as too risky may be acceptable for others. After all, some people parachute out of airplanes, while others won’t even ride jetliners. “Risk” is not an objective quality of an object or technology; it is inextricably tied up with one’s values. Why should cloning opponents get to impose their values on sick or dying people”(Nash 3). In conclusion, I think that cloning should be allowed to be pursued to an extent. By that, I mean is that it should only be allowed to clone parts for medical use and to save lives, not to clone whole humans because that is taking it too far. I encourage all of those who read this paper to help make cloning possible because it may one day save the lives of your children or some close to you.
Work Cited
Bailey, Ronald. “Send in The Clones.” http://www.reason.com/9806/bk.bailey.html ( 3/22/99).
Nash, J. Madeleine. “The Case for Cloning.” http://cgi.pahtfinder.com/timeline/mag…09/science
.the_case_for_clo26.html (3/22/99).
“Cons: Anti-Cloning Research.” http://library.advanced.org/24355/data/reactions/cons.html (4/13/99).
“Pros: Cloning Supporters.” http://library. Advanced.org/24355/data/reactions/pros.html (4/13/99).
“The Benefits of Cloning.” http://www.humancloning.org/benefits.html (4/15/99).
|
