NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Genetic Genetic Engineering Genetic Engineering Genetic Engineering is a radical new technology, one that breaks down fundamental genetic barriers- not only between species, but also between humans, animals, and plants. By combining the genes of dissimilar and unrelated species, permanently altering their genetic codes, primary organisms are created that will pass the genetic changes onto their offspring's. The field of genetic engineering has the potential to strip the individual privacy, diversity, and freedom of society. It is obvious that technological questions in this area are being answered very rapidly.
However, the ethical questions that have arisen as a result of the technology are not being answered quite so readily. Until the development of this technology, people have had to deal with genetic inequality as a fact of life. With the advent of gene therapy, this may no longer be the case for some people. Most people feel that it is alright to use gene therapy to treat human genetic diseases. Somewhat surprisingly, even the Catholic Church has taken a stand for the use of gene therapy. Reverend Russell E.
Smith, president of the Pope John XXIII Medical-Moral Research and Education Center, stated that gene therapy is a very noble enterprise, because it is aimed at the actual cure of actual diseases (Ward 63). Some individuals, however, are concerned that the technique may be used for treatment of genetic disorders other than diseases. For example, in January, 1993, it was reported in USA Today that an 11 -year-old boy was receiving gene therapy treatments at a cost of $ 150, 000 per year to increase his height. At 4 11, four inches below average height, he was tired of being picked on at school for being short. His father was quoted in the article as saying, You want to give your child that edge no matter what. I think youd do just about anything (Ward 65).
Because many people are concerned about the safety of gene therapy, a special committee of the National Academy of Science was created to look into the consequences of releasing rDNA engineered organisms into the environment. The committee concluded that there is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of rDNA technique or in the transfer of genes between unrelated organisms, and that, the risks associated with the introduction of rDNA engineered organisms are the same kind as those associated with the introduction of unmodified organisms (Speaking the Language of Recombinant DNA). However, John Fagan, a professor of molecular biology at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa, is highly concerned about the fact that very little is known about the long-term effects of the existence of genetically engineered organisms in the environment (Speaking the Language of Recombinant DNA). To make known his concern, he returned approximately $ 614, 000 in grant money to the National Institutes of Health.
His underlying concern is that an engineering mishap with devastating effects does not occur as a result of carelessness and or lack of precaution. Because of these and other concerns about the use of gene therapy, it has been necessary to create public policies to deal with these issues. The debate over how to regulate research and development in this area has been ongoing since the advent of rDNA technology in the early 1970 s. Important issues concerning decision-making and regulation of research were addressed at the now famous Asilomar Conference held in 1975. This conference, which involved mostly molecular biologists, the press, and some government officials, set the tone for dealing with rDNA public policy issues.
The major concern at the time was the possible health risks to researchers and the public at large. Many people were also concerned about the possible environmental effects. These concerns are normal and even expected with the advent of new technology; however, there existed then and to a certain extent still exists today a concern unique to the study of rDNA and its related fields. The concern is for the possible development, by some engineering mistake, of a kind of Frankenstein running rampant throughout the environment. This concern has been considered very carefully and has had a large impact on the development of public policy concerning rDNA technology. Continued efforts in research since the Asilomar Conference have shown that the initial rDNA public health concerns no longer need be a major source of concern, as standard recombinant microbial strains have been handled safely and without incident thus far.
Because of this good track record, many people now have the opinion that research involving rDNA technology no longer needs regulation, and that this regulation is in fact standing in the way of progress. Dr. Henry Miller, former head of the Biotechnology Policy Office at the FDA, has expressed his concerns about this problem and has proposed steps to rationalize the regulations of biotechnology in the United States (Tanouye, par. 2). There are, however, also many individuals who feel that although the current regulations may not be perfect, they are all that we have. The U. S.
Department of Agriculture, which is involved in the regulation of biotechnology, responded to Dr. Millers proposed steps by admitting that the developments in biotechnology have incredible potential for the enhancement of society, but that regulations are definitely necessary until all possible safety issues are dealt with effectively (Tanouye, par. 4). So how should the development and use of gene therapy be regulated, and who should be doing the regulating? I would imagine that there are as many answers to these questions as there are people on the planet.
So how do we come to any decisions about anything, how do changes come about, and how do we incorporate these changes into our individual lives? I believe these things come about as a result of natural processes. For example, it is very natural for people to be interested in what controls our physical, mental, emotional, and social development. It is as equally natural for people to be interested in finding cures for diseases and ailments that afflict humankind. Once these interests are carried over into research and answers to some of these questions about our development are found, it is quite natural for people to want to regulate how these findings should be used. It is the collective philosophy of all individuals affected by the technological developments, which dictates the societal integration of those developments.
I believe in this process, and therefore, my beliefs about how development and regulation of gene therapy should be conducted are one in the same with how these things are being conducted. I am not saying that the issues are being dealt with perfectly or even that I agree with everything that has been done. What I am saying is that developments have been made, issues have been discussed, conferences have been held, regulations have been made, and precedents have been set. No known technology can change what has already been done. As for the future, I cannot say what will happen.
All I know is that things will continue to change, and it is my hope that in some way my personal philosophy will be incorporated into the melting pot of philosophies. By expressing my personal beliefs on gene therapy, I will be contributing to the future of this technology. As I have said before, I believe in natural processes. Because of this I believe in continued careful and regulated research of gene therapy techniques for the benefit of individuals suffering from genetic diseases. I, as most people, do not like to see human suffering, most especially that of individuals close to me. If the technology is available to provide relief, I most definitely believe that it should be used.
However, this seemingly black and white issue becomes very gray when an individual tries to define human pain and suffering. It is obvious to most that Parkinsons disease fits this definition, but what about the eleven year old boy who is tired of being picked on at school for being short? Should being below average height be considered a source of pain and suffering? A point must be made that practically everyone gets picked on at some point in his or her life because of a particular physical trait.
Perspective is needed here. Having to deal with being below average height simply cannot be compared to having to deal with Parkinsons disease. I do believe that it will be necessary to develop new laws and regulations to prevent industries and individuals from taking advantage of human gene therapy techniques. I understand that forming such regulations would be a very difficult and complex task, but I personally believe it to be very necessary. There is so much truth to the saying that variety is the spice of life, and actually, without biological variety the human population will be doomed. Therefore, it is important to be very selective and particular when deciding who should be allowed to receive gene therapy treatments.
Mother Nature has done very well on her own for billions of years. We must respect her wisdom and be very prudent when contemplating making a change in her grand design.
Free research essays on topics related to: pain and suffering, year old boy, genetic diseases, recombinant dna, gene therapy
Research essay sample on Year Old Boy Pain And Suffering
