synthesis paper

Technology is evolving today, and we often hear the term “Genetic Enhancement”. Genetic enhancement refers to an attempt which is trying to change human traits. The purpose of genetic enhancement is to exceed the limit of human perception or physical ability. Gregory Stock who is working at UCLA as a director of the Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society, in his article “Choosing Our Genes,” states that genetic engineering can allow parents to get a chance to choose the genetics and traits for their children. John Naish, in his article “Genetically Modified Athletes,” introduces the Olympic athletes who increased muscle and oxygen carrying power by genetic modification. On the other hand, Stock also points out some negative points of genetic engineering such as “loss of diversity” and “only available to the wealthy”. Naish mentions the benefit of genetic modification in the beginning, but his main claim of the article is genetic modification causes ethical problems. C. Ben Mitchell posted a journal, “On Human Bioenhancement,” to Ethics and Medicine showed his point of view that there are a great number of reasons that we should against human bioenhancement. All of the five articles which we talked about in the class presented the issues of genetic enhancement, and I also think it’s harmful because ethical, affordability, and right of choice for embryo. Although genetic enhancement can improve the ability of human and even bring our power to an incredible area, it still has a lot of issues which we need to consider carefully.

First, genetic enhancement should be reconsidered because it causes ethical problems. It influences individuals and entire society by physical and mental inequality. Genetic enhancement can improve the ability of individual, but it’s not fair to others who make an effort in an honest way. For example, in Naish’s article, he claims it is already be proved by laboratory experiments that genetic modification can increase the mice power of athlete, and the genetically modified athletes are taking a great power which other athletes cannot have from genetic enhancement. Therefore, it is a cheating action. Besides, Mitchell suggested in his article that genetic enhancement causes the unfairness of Olympic competition. In here, he uses the term “the principle of justice” to describe the Olympic example and let us understand the ethical problem of genetic enhancement. By similar example compare to Olympic athlete, IQ, speed, dexterity, hearing, musical ability, etc., could create injustice problem as well. The enhanced individual would take a big unfair advantage over others stated Mitchell. Like the example of Olympic officials created “biological passport” for Olympic athletes in Naish’s article, I believe our society cannot allow genetic enhancement unless it is possible for everyone in the world. If genetic enhancement is possible for everyone, the ethical problems won’t exist anymore. However, sadly, the principle is the wealthy will always take the good advantages and it is almost impossible to eliminate the difference between poor and rich.

Affordability is another reason why genetic enhancement is harmful. The difference between wealthy and poor gets more and more huge in our society, and there is no way to stop the difference. New technologies are only available for the people who have money or authority; in the opposite, the poor cannot even get enough food for the day. Genetic enhancement will encourage the difference between wealthy and poor bigger and make the society unbalanced. In the Mitchell’s article, he said that enhanced wealthy people seem unjust because there is someone doesn’t have the ability to take the basic health care. In addition, Stock suggested same opinion in his article. He said that genetic engineer technology is a democratizing technology since it is only available to the wealthy who can easily go to other country to do genetic enhancement or pay money to black-market and receive the services. Genetic enhancement would bring a great advantage to the wealthy, but it also makes the poor more miserable.

Genetic engineering can give people a chance to choose the genetics and traits for their children, but it has risks. Parents select an embryo which may cause a health problem to their children. Stock in his article calls this choice “an unwelcome choice”. The reason is society may not accept the choice of some parents, such as many people think that sex selection should be illegal in United States. Moreover, he claims “parents who decided to specifically select an embryo that would result in a child with a serious health condition. Should parents be allowed to make such choice?” I believe if parent cause a health issue to their children by choosing the embryo, they would lament the choice which they made. David Cyranoski, in his article “DNA Editing of Human Embryos Alarms Scientists,” implies that the germline modification is editing embryo; therefore, it will change the genetic information of the person permanently and make a change to future generations as well. He cites the word of Dana Carroll who is a geneticist of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, which is “Germline genome alterations are permanent and heritable, so very, very careful consideration needs to be taken in advance of such applications”. From these two articles, we can see that parent choose a genetic editing embryo for their children has many issues. Yet in many countries, germline gene editing has already banned by law.

Work Cited

Gregory, Stock. "Choosing Our Genes." Futurist (2002): 17-24. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

John, Naish. "Genetically Modified Athletes." London Daily Mail (2012): n. pag. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

Ben, Mitchell C. "On Human Bioenhancement." Ethics and Medicine (2010): n. pag. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

Cyranoski, David. "DNA Editing of Human Embryos Alarms Scientists - Scientific American." 13 Mar. 2015. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.