This article gives you the run down on the different types of genetic engineering and how they can affect you and your future generations. The author mainly focuses on the moral aspect and how it could be seen as morally outrageous or acceptable. It explains that if genetic engineering and gene therapy become a normal thing, it will be extremely expensive, then causing the economic gap to grow wider apart. The author also emphasizes that if we limit genetic work to only be done to repair genes rather than reconstruct them completely, the risk factor will decrease extremely.
I plan to use this to support two of my points, how genetic engineering could pose greater risks and how it widens the economic gap. “Breakthrough Is Needed. ” This author is 100% pro genetic engineering in humans. He believes in it because he feels that it will cure diseases and decrease death from genetic specific diseases. “If God controls everything, then why do we have genetic engineering?
God must have meant for humans to have Genetic Engineering or He wouldn’t have given us the greatest gift of all, the ability to artificially create life. ” By the way the author talks about how great genetic engineering could be and how if we don’t take this chance, we would be denying our human rights, they are attempting to somehow threaten the audience into siding with him. The author managed to fit a ton of information into a few paragraphs and for people who lose interest if the article is too long, like myself, it was good and easy to read!
Who the author is speaking to is those people who are pro genetic engineering and he’s also speaking to those who are against it and trying to change their minds. Hurka, Thomas. “FIFTH COLUMN PRINCIPLES Should We Tailor Our Genes? Thomas Hurka Weighs the Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering. ” The Globe and Mail, 18 Feb. 1992, ProQuest, search. proquest. com/docview/385400062/abstract/embedded/OR8PLZKZGX6BATI5? source=fedsrch. Mr. Hurka provides the different examples of gene therapies that you can choose from to alter genes. The author asks many rhetorical questions throughout the article to try and have you question your position.
He also weighs in on the whole “playing God” conversation and states “…every time we avoid a falling rock or take medicine. We change the course of nature because we didn’t like where it was going. ” He doesn’t come out and say that he agrees with genetic engineering, but he shows the benefits of it. He is writing this for those who aren’t really clear with what genetic engineering is. I could use this article for more than one point that I make in my paper. He shows how we could possibly be playing God by doing this, but also weighs in on how we might not be going against God’s will.
He isn’t being biased and is playing the game from all angles, so to speak. He asks rhetorical questions to make you think and he also writes for those who aren’t too clear on what Genetic Engineering is. Overall, I feel like this is a very reliable and useful source. Kuntz, Shandi. “No Need to ‘Engineer’ Babies. ” Leader Post, 10 Sept. 2007, ProQuest, search. proquest. com/docview/349940187/abstract/embedded/XUZJBL0TZEQRL5KF? source=fedsrch. Author Shandi Kuntz keeps her article short, sweet and to the point. The author is against genetic engineering to the fullest extent, however, the only exception is if the child’s health is at risk.
She refers to parents that change their children’s physical traits “shallow” and that they are “setting a bad example. ” I can use this article not only to show that genetic engineering will sway the social norm and I can also use this in my counter-argument to show that the only time genetic engineering is acceptable is when health is an issue. The language she uses makes her seem like a very strong writer, by saying things like they are, rather than “sugar coating” it, it makes it seem like a more passionate article. She wrote this mainly to inform people of designer babies and why not to promote the idea. Manmade Humans. This article talks mainly about how genetic engineering was originally used to identify genetic diseases and how it’s evolved and is used for designing your babies. The author also explains how people want to make their child “better” but technically, what is better? They talk about how by doing this, it will cause an economical issue seeing that not everyone will be able to afford it.
The author wrote this to inform those who are not aware and to also show the positive and negative side effects. So I will be able to use this source for how genetic engineering decreases individuality along with altering the social norm and also how it widens the wage gap. “By deliberately introducing DNA changes early in development, the characteristics of an individual could be greatly altered.
Included in this article, it was included that animals that were tested by altering their genes, extreme increase in cancer rates occurred. This shows that if you change one gene, it could throw the whole “balance” off. He even uses the term “hit-or-miss” to show that he doesn’t know what will happen if you change a specific gene, there is no way to find out until you take that chance and do it. He also uses words like “perilous” and “irreversible” to show that if genetic engineering is taking a step further, that there’s no turning back. Considering it’s fairly new and is still not 100%, there will be plenty of mistakes and risk factors.
However, he explains that if you want to take that risk, go for it. Powell, Russell, et al. “Evolution, Genetic Engineering, and Human Enhancement. ” Philosophy & Technology, vol. 25, no. 4, Dec. 2012, p. 439. ProQuest, doi:10. 1007/s13347-012-0091-6. This PDF is extremely informative about the different types of genetic engineering and it gives you all of the information you will need about every subject. The authors have plenty of evidence to back up their reasoning on every point, to prove that this is a reliable source. They give you cause and effect throughout the entire selection.
I feel like I could use this for my point of how it could change your genes and save your future generations and I could also use it to show that genetic engineering could possibly decrease individuality. Rommel, Kirsten. She makes the point that with genetic engineering, diversity would lack and she also states that if we were to eliminate one disorder, we could also create a new disorder.
Also, it’s said that with genetic engineering, it would increase the gap between the rich and the poor. The technology used to genetically alter humans is extremely expensive and will only be available to the wealthy. She also feels that there should be restrictions on genetic engineering to prevent certain things like cloning from happening. I feel that she wrote this strictly to inform those who aren’t aware of the risks and trying to suggest we set a limit on where we take this new technology
. This article, written by William Saletan, shows that once people start using genetic engineering to enhance their or their children’s lives for unnecessary reasons, this will “diminish our humanity”. He also describes genetic engineering as being unclear. He too also states that parents are supposed to love their children no matter what, however, now they have the opportunity to decide the sex of the baby along with other superficial things. By doing this, it “betrays that relationship. He also talks about violating social norms.
He uses many analogies to try to explain how genetic engineering is going against the norm. I could use this to support how I think genetic engineering decreases individuality and alters the social norm. Woodard, Joe. “Altering Our Genetic Destiny. ” Calgary Herald, 12 Feb. 2000, ProQuest, search. proquest. com/docview/244787002/abstract/embedded/PM6K7N4YG8KFU6G1? source=fedsrch. This newspaper article contains many different viewpoints given from different sources. They have some who agree with genetic engineering and they have some who disagree with it.
The main argument is on trying to decide whether genetic engineering is going against God’s will or not. Those people who were interviewed were either professors in ethics in medicine and biology, professors in medicine or pastors. I think by having different views of a subject is always a positive thing. You’ll get to see several sides of one subject, rather than just one. I feel like this source would work well for my research paper considering one of my arguments will be on how genetic engineering is going against God’s will.
