Source: Composite by G_marius based on Bart's and UK Ministry of Defence's images
Is the technological progress in genetic engineering (in areas like food, health or chemistry) a threat or an opportunity? Here we discuss the issues.
Debate proposed by Pete Pajuheimo
We are discussing genetic engineering food in another debate, let's focus now on the technology that allows it possible. Men have been using Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) technologies since 1972, when United States Biochemists Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen used enzymes to cut a bacteria plasmid and insert another strand of DNA in the gap. Since then, genetic engineer technologies have helped us achieving many milestones in the fields of biology, medical sciences and chemistry. For example founding and utilization of green fluorescent protein (GFP)-gene is helping us in the fight against cancer and in the study of biology in a more precise manner. In field of chemistry, these technologies have helped in the development of bacteria that can produce oil from atmospheric CO. Biologists can use genetic engineer technologies to improve our crops by, for example, altering the vitamin/nutrition composition to make it more suitable for human consumption. Many scientists think there is great promise in GMO technologies and that much more can be achieved through these technologies in the future.
Genetic engineering pros and cons: threat or opportunity?
However, GMO technologies bring also important threats as well as legal and ethical issues that are far from being resolved. Some of the common cited risks are those of the development of mixed artificial species, or human engineering. Opponents to genetic engeneering warn of possible scenarios concerning runaway genes in our and other living organisms nature causing unexpected outcomes or the long term effects that the consumption of genetically modified food (GMF) may have on humans. What about parents or governments chosing the personality of the children? Although many within the scientific community dismiss these fears and risks, further research on GMO and its risks as well as improved and more transparent communication between the big laboratories behind GMO and the public is probably needed to improve the level of trust that the public have on these genetic engineering research and technologies.
If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.
New to netivist?
Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
You are viewing a filtered list of comments. Click the button above to view all comments.
293 xp
22 posts
In future there will be 'organic' children and modified children. In best case scenario that GM tech is not forced upon as ike in nowadays in a form of eugenics. We are doing that now in hospitals where doctors may say that your baby will born severally disabled or dying in a few years in some inheritance disease and abortion is therefore recommended (Not forced, as it should be and always be)
But I wonder what these organic children in future may think about their parents because their classmates are health, strong, wise, beautiful (not like it's good criteria for human value), they don't have inheritance diseases and they life long and organic children are 'dumber', sick, don't live as long etc. Anyway it has to be volunteer not forced. But that for sure that in future we GE our children to fit better in society and maybe full fill vanity of their parents.. (I want blonde children with brown eyes and she/he has to be six feet tall at least and IQ over 130)
647 xp
167 posts
All the problems with genetic engineering come from not knowing enough about it. And the more it is feared, the harder it will be to get people and funding to know more about it.
Then you have misuse. Science is nothing but a tool to learn about the cosmos. A tool being misused is not a reason to destroy the tool, it's a reason to improve the controls over it.
Now, think of any person you've ever known that suffered cancer or any other disease with causes rooted on genetics. Imagine if they could have kids knowing they won't have to suffer the same problems.
Humans left natural selection a long time ago. So we'll have to use genetics to compensate, because things like throwing babies off cliffs like they used to do in some ancient civilizations doesn't seem like a good idea.
Look at the movie Gattaca. People is discriminated for having this or that gene sequence. But in that fiction, they only read the sequences. They didn't change them. Now you can look some Star Trek chapters, in which a congenital disease was easily cured with a simple procedure that fixed the genetic sequence, removing the disease altogether.
That is the future.
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
