What is Genetic Engineering?

Genetic engineering is a laboratory technique used by scientists to change the DNA of living
organisms.

DNA is the blueprint for the individuality of an organism. The organism relies upon the
information stored in its DNA for the management of every biochemical process. The life,
growth and unique features of the organism depend on its DNA. The segments of DNA which
have been associated with specific features or functions of an organism are called genes.

Molecular biologists have discovered many enzymes which change the structure of DNA in
living organisms. Some of these enzymes can cut and join strands of DNA. Using such
enzymes, scientists learned to cut specific genes from DNA and to build customized DNA
using these genes. They also learned about vectors, strands of DNA such as viruses, which
can infect a cell and insert themselves into its DNA.

With this knowledge, scientists started to build vectors which incorporated genes of their
choosing and used the new vectors to insert these genes into the DNA of living organisms.
Genetic engineers believe they can improve the foods we eat by doing this. For example,
tomatoes are sensitive to frost. This shortens their growing season. Fish, on the other hand,
survive in very cold water. Scientists identified a particular gene which enables a flounder to
resist cold and used the technology of genetic engineering to insert this 'anti-freeze' gene into
a tomato. This makes it possible to extend the growing season of the tomato.

At first glance, this might look exciting to some people. Deeper consideration reveals serious
dangers.

What are the Dangers?

Fundamental Weaknesses of the Concept

 Imprecise Technology—A genetic engineer moves genes from one organism to another. A
gene can be cut precisely from the DNA of an organism, but the insertion into the DNA of the
target organism is basically random. As a consequence, there is a risk that it may disrupt the
functioning of other genes essential to the life of that organism. (Bergelson 1998)

 Side Effects—Genetic engineering is like performing heart surgery with a shovel. Scientists do
not yet understand living systems completely enough to perform DNA surgery without
creating mutations which could be harmful to the environment and our health. They are
experimenting with very delicate, yet powerful forces of nature, without full knowledge of
the repercussions. (Washington Times 1997, The Village Voice 1998)

 Widespread Crop Failure—Genetic engineers intend to profit by patenting genetically

engineered seeds. This means that, when a farmer plants genetically engineered seeds, all
the seeds have identical genetic structure. As a result, if a fungus, a virus, or a pest develops
which can attack this particular crop, there could be widespread crop failure. (Robinson
1996)

 Threatens Our Entire Food Supply—Insects, birds, and wind can carry genetically altered
seeds into neighboring fields and beyond. Pollen from transgenic plants can cross-pollinate
 with genetically natural crops and wild relatives. All crops, organic and non-organic, are
vulnerable to contamination from cross-pollinatation. (Emberlin et al 1999)

Health Hazards

 No Long-Term Safety Testing—Genetic engineering uses material from organisms that have
never been part of the human food supply to change the fundamental nature of the food we
eat. Without long-term testing no one knows if these foods are safe.

 Toxins—Genetic engineering can cause unexpected mutations in an organism, which can

create new and higher levels of toxins in foods. (Inose 1995, Mayeno 1994)

 Allergic Reactions—Genetic engineering can also produce unforeseen and unknown

allergens in foods. (Nordlee 1996)

 Decreased Nutritional Value—Transgenic foods may mislead consumers with counterfeit

freshness. A luscious-looking, bright red genetically engineered tomato could be several
weeks old and of little nutritional worth.

 Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria—Genetic engineers use antibiotic-resistance genes to mark

genetically engineered cells. This means that genetically engineered crops contain genes
which confer resistance to antibiotics. These genes may be picked up by bacteria which may
infect us. (New Scientist 1999)

 Problems Cannot Be Traced—Without labels, our public health agencies are powerless to
trace problems of any kind back to their source. The potential for tragedy is staggering.

 Side Effects can Kill—37 people died, 1500 were partially paralyzed, and 5000 more were
temporarily disabled by a syndrome that was finally linked to tryptophan made by
genetically-engineered bacteria. (Mayeno 1994)

Environmental Hazards

 Increased use of Herbicides—Scientists estimate that plants genetically engineered to be

herbicide-resistant will greatly increase the amount of herbicide use. (Benbrook 1999)
Farmers, knowing that their crops can tolerate the herbicides, will use them more liberally.

 More Pesticides—GE crops often manufacture their own pesticides and may be classified as
pesticides by the EPA. This strategy will put more pesticides into our food and fields than
ever before.

 Ecology may be damaged—The influence of a genetically engineered organism on the food

chain may damage the local ecology. The new organism may compete successfully with wild
relatives, causing unforeseen changes in the environment. (Metz 1997)

 Gene Pollution Cannot Be Cleaned Up—Once genetically engineered organisms, bacteria

and viruses are released into the environment it is impossible to contain or recall them.
Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, negative effects are irreversible.

DNA is actually not well understood. 97% of human DNA is called ³junk² because scientists
do not know its function. The workings of a single cell are so complex, no one knows the
whole of it. (San Diego Union-Tribune 2000) Yet the biotech companies have already planted
millions of acres with genetically engineered crops, and they intend to engineer every crop in
the world.

The concerns above arise from an appreciation of the fundamental role DNA plays in life, the
gaps in our understanding of it, and the vast scale of application of the little we do know.
Even the scientists in the Food and Drug administration have expressed concerns. (Alliance
for Biointegrity)

In September 2004, Merck announced the recall of Vioxx because it had been associated with heart
attacks, stroke, cardiovascular injuries and other serious side effects.

An internal study showed that patients taking Vioxx (also known as Rofecoxib) had double the risk of
having a heart attack, stroke or other serious injury.

If you have taken Vioxx, you may be entitled to monetary damages for injuries.

http://www.bio-integrity.org/FDADeception.html

Concerns Expressed by Government Scientists

The quotes below were extracted from documents obtained by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity
during the preparation for their law suit against the FDA. Please visit the website of the
Alliance for the complete documents and details of the case against the FDA.

 
    "The process of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to
the technical experts in the agency [FDA], they lead to different risks."

    "I wonder if part of the problems associated with this approach - using scientific issues to
set the stage for the policy statement - are due to the fact that the scope of technical experts
assigned to the project did not include any whose usual job is risk analysis."

Dr. Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer, to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA's
Biotechnology Coordinator, about the Federal Register document "Statement of
Policy: Foods from Genetically Modified Plants". Dated January 8, 1992

 
    "A genetically engineered plant may contain an identical profile of expected plant toxicant
levels (i.e. expected toxicants) as is normally found in a closely related, natural plant.
However, genetically modified plants could also contain unexpected high concentrations of
plant toxicants. The presence of high levels of toxicants in the bioengineered food plant could
occur by two or more mechanisms. For example, normal levels of toxicants could be
amplified through enhancement of toxicant gene transcription and translation. This might
occur as a result of up-stream or down-stream promotion of gene activities in the modified
plant DNA. In addition, plant toxicant genes which were normally inactive could be expressed
in the modified plant gene as a result of insertion of the new genetic material (i.e. positional
mutagenesis). Thus, the task of analysis of all major toxins in genetically engineered plant
food includes the assessment of both expected toxicants and unexpected toxicants that could
occur in the modified plant food."
 Edwin J. Mathews, Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology Section of the
Biotechnology Working Group. Subject: Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants. Dated
October 28, 1991.

 
    "At this time it is unlikely that molecular and compositional analysis can reasonably detect
or predict all possible changes in toxicant levels or the development of new toxic metabolites
as a result of genetic modifications introduced by the new methods of biotechnology."

    "We cannot assume that all gene products, particularly those encoded by genes from non-
food sources, will be digestible. For example, there is evidence that certain types of proteins
(e.g., plant lectins and protein allergens) are resistant to digestion and can be absorbed in
biologically active form."

Samuel I. Shibko, in a memorandum to Dr. James Maryansksi, FDA Biotechnology

Coordinator. Subject: Revision of Toxicology Section of the Statement of Policy:
Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Plants. Dated January 31, 1992.

 
    "Unexpected Effects - This is the industry's pet idea, namely that there are no unintended
effects that will raise the FDA's level of concern. But time and time again, there is no data to
backup [sic] their contention, while the scientific literature does contain many examples of
naturally occurring pleiotropic effects. When the introduction of genes into plant's genome
randomly occurs, as is the case with the current technology (but not traditional breeding), it
seems apparent that many pleiotropic effects will occur. Many of these effects might not be
seen by the breeder because of the more or less similar growing conditions in the limited trials
that are performed. Until more of these experimental plants have a wider environmental
distribution, it would be premature for the FDA to summarily dismiss pleiotropy as is done
here."

    "Chart IV, box that reads - "Newly introduced protein present in food from the plant?" This
does not take into account, nor does the document as a whole, those introduced proteins
(enzymes) that while acting on one specific, intended substrate to produce a desired effect,
will also affect other cellular molecules, either as substrates, or by swamping the plant's
regulatory/metabolic system and depriving the plant of resources needed for other things. It is
not prudent to rely on plant breeders always finding these types of changes (especially when
they are under pressure to get a product out). Nowhere is such an issue discussed or examined
in this document."

Dr. Louis J. Pribyl, in comments on the "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92".

Dated March 6, 1992.

 
    "Lines 9-17 appear to provide justification for the use of tox[icology] studies in safety
assessment, citing as an example the inability of analytical or molecular methods to detect the
presence of a [sic] unknown toxin produced by activation of a previously cryptic gene.
However, lines 8-end of paragraph say that the tox[icology] studies will not be needed if
DNA insertion is limited to only a single site of known genomic location. This discussion
implies that pleiotropy (i.e., production of a [sic] unknown toxin due to activation of a
previously cryptic gene) will disappear or be negligible if gene insertions are limited to a
single copy at a known genomic location. Evidence should be provided to support this
position."

    "It is my understanding that pleiotropic effects are unpredictable, and may be triggered by
gene insertion at a single site, as well as at multiple sites, the plant genome."

Carl B. Johnson, in comments on the "draft statement of policy 12/12/91". Dated

January 8, 1992.

 
    "As I know you are aware, there are a number of specific issues addressed in the document
for which a scientific consensus does not exist currently, especially the need for specific
toxicology tests. Also, the quantity and quality of data that would be required is not addressed
and is difficult to specify at this time. I think the question of the potential for some substances
to cause allergenic reactions is particularly difficult to predict."

Dr. Jams Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator, in a letter to Dr. Bill Murray,
Chairman of the Food Directorate, Canada. Subject: the safety assessment of foods
and food ingredients developed through new biotechnology. Dated October 23, 1991.

 
    "In response to your question on how the agency should regulate genetically modified food
plants, I and other scientists at CVM have concluded that there is ample scientific justification
to support a pre-market review of these products. As you state in the Notice, the new methods
of genetic modification permit the introduction of genes from a wider range of sources than
possible by traditional breeding. The FDA will be confronted with new plant constituents that
could be of a toxicological or environmental concern. The Notice further describes unintended
or pleiotropic effects that pose unknown safety concern. It has always been our position that
the sponsor needs to generate the appropriate scientific information to demonstrate product
safety to humans, animals and the environment.
    "A marked-up copy of the Notice with our comments will be provided to you directly by
the Center's scientists. Generally, I would urge you to eliminate statements that suggest that
the lack of information can be used as evidence for no regulatory concern."

    "Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human
food safety problems. For example, increased levels of glucosinolates or erusic acid in
rapeseed may produce a residue problem in edible products."

Gerald B. Guest, DVM, Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, in a

memorandum to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator. Subject:
"Regulation of Transgenic Plants - FDA Draft Federal Register Notice on Food
Biotechnology". Dated February 5, 1992.

 
    "The insertion of any DNA into the plant genome may result in various phenotypic changes
(desirable or undesirable) referred to as pleiotropic effects. Undesirable phenotypes may
include, for example, poor growth, reduced levels of nutrients, increased levels of natural
toxicants, etc. Pleiotropic effects occur in genetically engineered plants obtained with
Agrobacterium-mediated transformation at frequencies up to 30% (Ref. )[sic]. Most of these
effects can be managed by the subsequent breeding and selection procedures. Nevertheless,
some undesirable effects such as increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants,
appearance of new, not previously identified toxicants, increased capability of concentrating
toxic substances from the environment (e.g., pesticides or heavy metals), and undesirable
alterations in the levbels of nutrients may escape breeders' attention unless genetically
engineered plants are evaluated specifically for these changes. Such evaluations should be
performed on a case-by-case basis, i.e., every transformant should be evaluated before it
enters the marketplace. (A similar approach was recommended by the International Food
Biotechnology Council (Ref. )[sic]).
    "To address unrecognized toxic substances that may unexpectedly appear in transgenic
plants or to evaluate plants that normally contain many toxic substances at very low levels,
toxicological evaluation of the edible plant tissue may be more appropriate than using
chemical identification and quantification procedures."

Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of Contaminants

Chemistry. Subject: "Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically
Modified Foods. Supplemental Information." Dated November 1, 1991.

 
    "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Out interest is in
selling as much of it as possible."

Phil Angell, Director of Corporate Communications, Monsanto. (The New York

Times of 10/25/98)

 
    "Except for a handful of new "food additives" such as artificial sweeteners, which must
receive premarket approval from FDA before entering the marketplace, most new foods are
introduced under the "postmarket" authority of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Under this
authority, foods made up of proteins, fats and carbohydrates with a history of safe use in food
can be sold once companies are satisfied the new product is safe without first getting FDA
permission.

John Henkell, "Genetic Engineering - Fast Forwarding To Future Foods," in the FDA
Consumer, April 1995.

 
These concerns were expressed in light of a policy proposal by the Food and Drug
Administration. In fact, the FDA implemented policies which conflict directly with the
recomendations of these government scientists. Naturally enough, other scientists, being free
to take a broader look at genetic engineering, have also raised concerns.

http://www.safe-food.org/-issue/ge.html
Genetic Engineering Advantages & Disadvantages

- Genetics and Evolution

During the latter stage stages of the 20th century, man harnessed the power of the atom, and
not long after, soon realised the power of genes. Genetic engineering is going to become a
very mainstream part of our lives sooner or later, because there are so many possibilities
advantages (and disadvantages) involved. Here are just some of the advantages :

 Disease could be prevented by detecting people/plants/animals that are genetically prone to

certain hereditary diseases, and preparing for the inevitable. Also, infectious diseases can be
treated by implanting genes that code for antiviral proteins specific to each antigen.
 Animals and plants can be 'tailor made' to show desirable characteristics. Genes could also
be manipulated in trees for example, to absorb more CO 2 and reduce the threat of global
warming.
 Genetic Engineering could increase genetic diversity, and produce more variant alleles which
could also be crossed over and implanted into other species. It is possible to alter the
genetics of wheat plants to grow insulin for example.

Of course there are two sides to the coin, here are some possible eventualities and
disadvantages.

 Nature is an extremely complex inter-related chain consisting of many species linked in the
food chain. Some scientists believe that introducing genetically modified genes may have an
irreversible effect with consequences yet unknown.
 Genetic engineering borderlines on many moral issues, particularly involving religion, which
questions whether man has the right to manipulate the laws and course of nature.

Genetic engineering may be one of the greatest breakthroughs in recent history alongside the
discovery of the atom and space flight, however, with the above eventualities and facts above
in hand, governments have produced legislation to control what sort of experiments are done
involving genetic engineering. In the UK there are strict laws prohibiting any experiments
involving the cloning of humans. However, over the years here are some of the experimental
'breakthroughs' made possible by genetic engineering.

 At the Roslin Institute in Scotland, scientists successfully cloned an exact copy of a sheep,
named 'Dolly'. This was the first successful cloning of an animal, and most likely the first
occurrence of two organisms being genetically identical. Note : Recently the sheep's health
has deteriorated detrimentally
 Scientists successfully manipulated the genetic sequence of a rat to grow a human ear on its
back. (Unusual, but for the purpose of reproducing human organs for medical purposes)
 Most controversially, and maybe due to more liberal laws, an American scientist is currently
conducting tests to clone himself.

Genetic engineering has been impossible until recent times due to the complex and
microscopic nature of DNA and its component nucleotides. Through progressive studies,
more and more in this area is being made possible, with the above examples only showing
some of the potential that genetic engineering shows.
For us to understand chromosomes and DNA more clearly, they can be mapped for future
reference. More simplistic organisms such as fruit fly (Drosophila) have been chromosome
mapped due to their simplistic nature meaning they will require less genes to operate. At
present, a task named the Human Genome Project is mapping the human genome, and should
be completed in the next ten years. 

The process of genetic engineering involves splicing an area of a chromosome, a gene, that
controls a certain characteristic of the body. The enzyme endonuclease is used to split a DNA
sequence and split the gene from the rest of the chromosome. For example, this gene may be
programmed to produce an antiviral protein. This gene is removed and can be placed into
another organism. For example, it can be placed into a bacteria, where it is sealed into the
DNA chain using ligase. When the chromosome is once again sealed, the bacteria is now
effectively re-programmed to replicate this new antiviral protein. The bacteria can continue to
live a healthy life, though genetic engineering and human intervention has actively
manipulated what the bacteria actually is. No doubt there are advantages and disadvantages,
and this whole subject area will become more prominent over time.

http://www.biology-online.org/2/13_genetic_engineering.htm

Genetic Engineering
    Genetic engineering is a major scientific discovery of the twentieth century which
promises to widen our understanding of life development and endow humanity with the
capacity to combat hunger, fight diseases and even control human behaviour. The far-
reaching implications of this “discovery” gave rise to heated moral and philosophical
debates on its wisdom and on the possible risks it might pose to different groups of
people. In this brief article, genetic engineering will be defined, with its major methods
clarified. The article will proceed later to examine potential uses of genetic engineering
in agriculture, the environment, medicine as well as in controlling human behaviour.

What is Genetic Engineering?

    Genetic engineering could be defined in one of two ways. It used to refer initially to
“any of a wide range of techniques for the modification or manipulation of organisms
through the processes of heredity and reproduction”. Thus , the term referred to both
artificial selection and all the interventions of biomedical techniques, among them
artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, sperm banks, cloning and gene
manipulation. However, it is used now to denote “recombinant DNA technology, or gene
cloning, in which DNA molecules from two or more sources are combined either within
cells or in vitro and are then inserted into host organisms in which they are able to
propagate. Gene cloning is used to produce new genetic combinations that are of value
to science, medicine, agriculture or industry”.

Different forms of Genetic Engineering

Methods of genetic engineering in this narrower sense include four techniques, recombinant DNA,
which has been explained in the preceding paragraph, gene transfer, embryo transfer and nuclear
transplantation. In gene transfer “molecular biologists isolate segments of DNA containing a gene
or genes of interest and then incorporate them into the DNA of somatic cells in culture”. Embryo
transfer, on the other hand is the “process of transferring a pre-implantation embryo from the
reproductive tract of one female to that of another, where it often implants and goes through a
normal gestation”. As for nuclear transplantation, molecular biologists “ transfer the entire
nucleus of one cell into a second, enucleated cell that has its nucleus removed.

Applications and Uses of Genetic Engineering

    Genetic engineering in this way opens new vistas for science and for many areas of
practical applications. In science, it enables investigators to understand how living
organisms form and acquire their essential hereditary qualities. In agriculture, the
manipulation of genes would make it possible to develop varieties of plants that could
better serve needs of mankind. An example of such applications is to produce seeds that
would give rise to better yields, more nutritious, and more resistant to diseases. This
application is known already and it led to a significant increase in cereal production in
some Asian countries. But public opinion in Europe and also in USA is opposed to food
that is partly genetically-engineered. In medicine, David B. Weiner ad Ronald C.
Kennedy have argued in an article in Scientific American that if bits of DNA or RNA
were “introduced properly into the cells of the body”, they could “stimulate powerful
immune responses against viruses, bacteria and even cancers”. They added that “such
genetic vaccines hold promise as safer, better controlled preventives and therapies for
diseases currently beyond medicine’s reach”. Other scientists have shown the potential
that genetic engineering is opening for the treatment of many wild diseases. Thanks to
GE , they argue, it would be possible in future to replace a patient’s defective genes and
tame viruses and other vehicles of diseases by introducing proper genes into them. This
kind of therapy will make it possible to effectively treat aids and brain disorders.
However, scientists have a long way to go before such therapies are developed and made
available. Finally, some scientists have ventured into contemplating the use of genetic
engineering to improve people’s cognitive abilities or even to control their behaviour.
Studies of twins and adoptees suggest that about half the variation seen in verbal and
spatial ability is genetically-based. Thus the two US scientists Robert Plomin and John
DeFries are searching for genes responsible and for genes involved in such cognitive
disabilities dyslexia . Much more controversial is the notion that genetics can "explain,
predict and even modify human behaviour”. With such belief, some scientists have
linked mental illness, alcoholism, homosexuality ad even high intelligence to specific
genes and they believe that with more profound knowledge of these genes, they could
come to control those dimensions of human behaviour and existence.

Arguments against Genetic Engineering

    It is easy to realize now how such discoveries of genetic engineering could give rise to
a heated debate pitting environmentalists, clergymen, philosophers, scientists and
ordinary people against each other. The major arguments are the following:

 God is the only creator of the universe, and human-beings should not challenge
his will by modifying some of the traits of what He has created in a specific way
for reasons known only to Almighty.
 There is a delicate natural balance in the environment, and human intervention
through genetic engineering could unwittingly upset this balance with unknown
and possibly dangerous consequences for mankind.
 For some, not only nature is beautiful, and products of nature are therefore
much more preferable to products of genetic engineering, but the former
products could cause unpredictable diseases.
 Genetic engineering could be used as a tool in the hands of some ethnic and racial
minorities against other peoples. Believing in the superior genes of a certain
racial group, scientific knowledge could be used either to modify genetic traits of
other groups or even claiming their inferiority could proceed to eliminate them.
Such dangerous ideas were quite popular under the Nazi regime in Germany.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C005271F/biology.html

Izra Jute

The application of genetic engineering on human beings relates to the controlled alteration of
all the genes in the human chromosomal. Deoxyribonucleic acid, otherwise known as DNA, is
responsible for the genetic characteristics for every living organism. It can influence the
individual's physical appearance, actions and abilities. Now with the advance of DNA
technology, scientists are able to change the gene expressions and the individuals' abilities,
cognitively, communally or physically. In my essay, I will analyse the pros and cons of
human genetic engineering by presenting two sides of an argument and my personal opinions
on the topic itself.

Izra Jute

The application of genetic engineering on human beings relates to the controlled alteration of
all the genes in the human chromosomal. Deoxyribonucleic acid, otherwise known as DNA, is
responsible for the genetic characteristics for every living organism. It can influence the
individual's physical appearance, actions and abilities. Now with the advance of DNA
technology, scientists are able to change the gene expressions and the individuals' abilities,
cognitively, communally or physically. In my essay, I will analyse the pros and cons of
human genetic engineering by presenting two sides of an argument and my personal opinions
on the topic itself.
Genetic engineering is use to repair damages or replace the missing genes in those who have
genetic disorders in the form of gene therapy otherwise know as somatic. This state of genetic
engineering can help lessen many genetic disorder problems, such as severe combined
immunodeficiency, cystic fibrosis and so on. The process of somatic undertakes a non-
pathogenic virus system. The good copy of the individual's genes is been inserted into
liposomes, which are the microscopic fatty droplets. The new cells would separate as normal
cells and each division would stimulate the destined cells trait. The result of the procedure
would be that the individual would then have the gene cells that were absent previously.
Personally, I think this trade of genetic engineering is useful as it helps those who have
genetic disorders and make them better. This can lead to a improved future for them, as they
do not feel isolated from the society because of their health problems.

On the contrary, genetic disorders only represent a small fraction of the ill health burden.
Despite this figures, a large disproportionate amount of research funding is being spend on
gene therapy protocols, yet however in spite of many years of research, none of the protocols
have so far succeeded. Adenoviruses, a type of pathogenic attenuated vectors are use to
transfer genes into patients. In this case, the genes may experience an unflavoured manner as
it combines with wild type versions of viruses in the body and this generally results to further
complications. It can weaken the patient or even can lead to fatal. This gene therapy has
already resulted one death from their use. Even though it can be great achievements on
patients with disorders of genetic, I feel that it is unnecessary for researchers to invest a large
amount of money for the therapy protocols.

These huge sums can help those who are hungry, homeless and so on.

DNA resulting from gene-splicing is use in genetic screening that is to test the patient's
genomes for gene distinguishes which might later result to genetic disorders. This procedure
is also tested on unborn babies for the sign of mongolism, also known as Down's syndrome.
These abnormal chromosomes resulting to mental deficiency, slanted eyes and short broad
hands, cause this disease. Any unwanted foetuses can be aborted hence it will gradually
decrease the undeliverable population traits. Gene screening can also be carried out on
embryos produced for in vitro fertilisation, IVF. This method will save implanting embryos
with undesired characteristics for example the gender of the baby. Soon, parents might be able
to create babies designed to meet their own wishes.

Sperms and eggs from intelligent and attractive people are already offered for sale on the
Internet. This means that by genetically extract the right DNA from the sperms and eggs,
scientist will be able to design a perfect human being of the parents' desires. Although this
manner of proceeding will result to the decrease number of unwanted babies and help those
who are infertile in the form of IVF, I feel that designer babies is not morally right as the
individual would be an instrument of the parents' desires and reflects their vanity and
selfishness self.

An argument to follow my opinion is as follow. IVF procedure is highly wasteful of eggs,

sperms and embryos. Hundreds are needed for one successful implantation. Each and every
one of the embryos have a potential to be a full human beings. So, is it morally right for
parents to kill the numerous amount of unwanted embryos just because they do not qualify the
parents' desire? Surely not. This treatment could lead human beings to be egotistical and only
care about one's self. In addition, Down's syndrome children are often regards as a gift in their
families. This special children are grateful of their lives and they also propose opportunities
for family members to learn and develop the skills and knowledge which they might not
developed previously. Also how the society that we live in changes its attitude as it accepts
those people with essential needs and disabilities.

Experimentally, gene therapy is being applied to treat cancer. Cancer is the major class of
diseases in the total burden of ill health. The advantage of this procedure is that it only aims at
the cancerous cells therefore avoiding collateral damage to other tissues on the surrounding by
the chemical therapies and current radiation. This technique is effective as it prevents any
further complications on the patients as it only targets on the damage cancerous cells. Also,
the patient will be least affected by the radiation. If gene therapy is approved and could be
done widely, it will reduce the amount of patients with cancerous problems.

Conversely, cancer is influenced by the environmental circumstances as food, water, lifestyle

and carcinogenic chemicals in air, by tackling these factors, we will be able to reduce the
numerous amount of cancer rather than using the technology of gene therapy. Also, whilst
removing the cancer growth, the doctor might not observed the underlying causes of the
cancer and as a result, a tumour will formed. It will take another chemical therapy to remove
it and therefore it just creates more problems and money is needed to pay for the treatment.
Therefore, I generally feel that it is a waste of time, effort and money to try to reduce the
major class of diseases when it can be done through the every day lifestyles of the individuals
that is by looking after their health diet.

In conclusion, I would consider that genetic engineering has its advantage and disadvantages.
It can help those with genetic disorders and treat cancer in a form of gene therapy. It is also
useful for infertile parents who wished to have a child of their own. On the other hand, it
makes human beings to become selfish. Just a tiny error can cause a fatal result on the patients
and can lead to death. On the whole, I feel that genetic engineering is morally right thing to do
if is done in a well manner with careful concentration and without selfishness. I believe that
designer babies and cloning is morally wrong as it is an act of egoism and manifest.

http://www.helium.com/items/1125708-the-application-of-genetic-engineering-designer-
babies?page=2

What Are The Disadvantages Of Genetic Engineering ?

Technology has a huge impact on our lives. It
not only paves way for improved lifestyle but it also
helps to find cures for diseases that were previously
Sponsored Links :
considered incurable. That is exactly the role of
genetic engineering. However, as with everything in
life, even genetic engineering has its advantages and
disadvantages.

While genetic engineering can help to prevent certain hereditary and

infectious diseases and create a diversity in the gene pool, we must not
neglect to consider its disadvantages. Usually disadvantages of genetic
engineering are not touted or spoken about by scientists. They prefer to just
highlight the positive effects.
 Our environment is extremely complicated with all the species forming
a complex food chain. Although humans might sit right at the very top of the
food chain, we are still dependent on other species in this complex inter-
linked chain. Therefore, any introduction of modified genes into the
environment would affect the food chain. And the worst part is that
scientists still do not know what consequences a genetically modified
organism might have on the environment and other species.

Genetic engineering has raised an upheaval because of all the ethical

and moral issues involved. The question that is often being asked is
whether man has the right to change and alter the laws of nature. This is
something that most people are not comfortable with. Genetic engineering
has the potential to allow humans in the future to pick desirable traits and
even gender in their offsprings. This aspect of the science is troubling for
many people.

Pros For Genetic Engineering In Humans

Humans have benefited a lot from genetic
engineering. It has been used to make better seeds in
agriculture so that the crop yields are faster and also
less amount of fertilizers are used on the crops. Sponsored Links :
Genetic engineering is also used to develop treatments
and cures for deadly diseases. For example, in 1987,
the FDA approved genetically modified vaccination to
treat hepatitis B.

The scope for making powerful vaccinations and medications to treat

diseases through genetic engineering is vast for the future. 

Genetic engineering can also be used to extend lifespans. It is

estimated that in future, genetic engineering would make it possible for
humans to live to about 150 years. However, as of now cloning techniques
for humans are heavily condemned due to obvious reasons such as
growing disparity between the wealthy and the non wealthy nations.
However, genetic engineering is being used in animals as well to increase
their productivity. Cows can give better milk while goats can provide better
meat. Genetic engineering has been used in microorganisms to make
better and new pharmaceuticals. It also helps in the process of
bioremediation, which leads to cleaning up of pollution and waste by living
organisms.
 

In case of agriculture, the use of herbicides and pesticides has

decreased because of the immunity of the genetically engineered crops
against insect infestation and crop diseases. It has also been used to
produce vaccines and drugs in plants.
 It is only because of genetic engineering that the world is able to
produce sustainable crops to feed the ever growing world population. In
humans, the field of science is being used to treat certain genetic disorders
and diseases as cancer.

What Are The Drawbacks Of Genetic Engineering ?

When it comes to genetic engineering, most
people do not have much idea about what this field of
Sponsored Links :
science involves. At the most they might have some
basic information about the corn or soybean varieties
that are being sold in all grocery stores across the US.

However, it is believed that genetic engineering will eventually have a

profound effect on human life. Parents will be able to create custom-made
babies and hereditary diseases will be a thing of the past. However, as
exciting as it may sound, there are drawbacks to genetic engineering.

It may sound nice and comforting to know that you would be able to
genetically engineer traits in your child in the future. However, this would
harm the society. For one, the gene pool would shrink tremendously, and
the other being that there would be a bigger gap between people. As time
passes, basically everyone will start to look the same because some of the
traits that we find desirable are the ones that are thrust upon us by the
society and culture we live in. For instance, blond hair and blue eyes are
considered to be epitome of beauty. In addition, it would be only people
who could afford would opt for this. Therefore, the lower class of society
would be left with children who would be considered undesirable and as a
result they would be shunned. Therefore, making custom-made babies
would actually end up harming the society and not improving it.

Although genetic engineering has the potential to cure many diseases

in the future, the question is do we want the people who are suffering from
disorders like Autism or Down's syndrome to be completely wiped out?  By
wiping out disorder, we would in effect be wiping out communities. This
would be nothing less than genocide. Yes, it sounds extreme but if you look
at it, people with disabilities have the right to make their own choices and
decisions in life. Just because we find certain things undesirable, it does not
mean that they see things in the same perspective. Of course, curing a
child from Down's syndrome could be blessing for the child but the question
remains whether parents will just stick to this. For all you know the parents
might want to change complete appearance of the child too.

While the intentions of genetic engineering are good, the drawbacks

associated with it need to be evaluated carefully before the science
becomes available to people.
 http://www.scienceamigo.com/biology/genetics/What-Are-The-Drawbacks-Of-Genetic-
Engineering.html

A Brief Overview of Genetic Engineering and Animals

 

Scientists are now capable of creating new species of animals by taking genetic material from one, or more, plants or
animals, and genetically engineering them into the genes of another animal.  This allows scientists to create animals that
are on one hand completely foreign to the earth and on the other, specifically tailored to possess only the traits that
humans desire in animals. 

This means that science can engineer farm animals to grow faster, have healthier meat and flesh, and be less able to
feel the pain and suffering often associated with the conditions present in modern factory farms.  Genetically engineered
animals are also created to help medical researchers in their quest to find cures for genetic disease, like breast cancer. 
Finally, endangered animal species can be cloned, thus helping wildlife management in its goals of preserving wild
populations of the earth’s biological diversity, and by ensuring that endangered animals' genetic information will not be
lost when the last of the species dies. 

This use of modern technology is not without its drawbacks or its critics.  By genetically engineering farm and research
animals, critics argue, we may be undoing what nature has worked to create over millions of years.  Natural animals are
specifically adapted to a given environment and when science manipulates the genes of a few species in the ecosystem,
the entire balance of the ecosystem might fall completely apart causing an unknown number of natural animal species to
grow ever extinct.  Others argue that animals should possess, at a bare minimum, the right to be free of genetic
manipulation or a reduction in their natural abilities. 

Despite this debate, the law in both the United States and in Europe, tends to support genetic engineering research and
development by allowing genetically engineered animals to be patented.  Patents give scientists a monopoly over their
genetically engineered animal species, something before unheard of in modern economic systems.  Typically, animals
could be owned, but never entire species. 

Regardless, we must not wait and see what the effects genetic engineering animals will have on the earth.  We must
form educated opinions, lobby for government regulation, and hope that whatever direction that bioengineering takes us,
is a positive step towards decreased animal suffering, increased environmental sustainability, and an overall
compassionate regard for the earth and its precious life.

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/qvusgeneticengineering.htm

Ethical Issues

Transgenic biotechnology presents an exciting range of possibilities, from feeding the hungry
to preventing and treating diseases; however, these promises are not without potential peril.
Some of the issues that need to be considered are the following:

 Are we blurring the lines between species by creating transgenic combinations?

 What are the known health risks associated with transgenics?

 What are the long-term effects on the environment when transgenics are released in
the field?

 What ethical, social, and legal controls or reviews should be placed on such research?

Transgenic biotechnology presents challenges, such as health risks.

 Are we inflicting pain and suffering on sentient creatures when we create certain types
of chimeras?

 Will transgenic interventions in humans create physical or behavioral traits that may
or may not be readily distinguished from what is usually perceived to be “human”?

 If the blending of nonhuman animal and human DNA results, intentionally or not, in
chimeric entities possessing degrees of intelligence or sentience never before seen in
nonhuman animals, should these entities be given rights and special protections?

 What unintended personal, social, and cultural consequences could result?

 Will these interventions redefine what it means to be “normal”?

 Who will have access to these technologies, and how will scarce resources be
allocated?

Are we crossing species boundaries?

Some individuals have argued that crossing species boundaries is unnatural, immoral, and in
violation of God’s laws. This argument presumes that species boundaries are fixed and readily
delineated. However, a recent issue of the American Journal of Bioethics reflects that the
notion of species boundaries is a hotly debated topic. 10 Some bioethicists have pointed out
there are a variety of species concepts: biological, morphological, ecological, typological,
evolutionary, phylogenetic, to name a few.11 All of these definitions of what a species is reflect
changing theories and the varying purposes for which different species are used by
individuals.

Will the technology facilitate transmission of disease?

While the issue of the morality of crossing species boundaries reflects differing world views
and may be conceptually unclear, there are known risks associated with xenotransplantation
of transgenic cells or organsfrom animals to humans. For example, there is a small but
significant risk of the transmission of usually fatal zoonotic diseases, such as bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (also known as “mad cow disease”), porcine endogenous
retroviruses (PERVs), and Nipah encephalitis.12 The introduction of these diseases to the
human population could have devastating consequences. The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration has banned xenotransplantation trials using nonhuman primates until the
procedure has been adequately demonstrated to be safe and ethical issues have been
sufficiently publicly discussed.

Is it ethical to create altered animals that may suffer?

The risks and benefits of the experimental use of animals need to be discussed as well.
Similarly, by combining animal DNA and human DNA with plant DNA, do we run the risk of
creating new diseases for which there is no treatment? The long-term risks to the
environment are unknown. Various bioethicists, environmentalists, and animal rights activists
have argued that it is wrong to create “monsters” or animals that would suffer as a result of
genetic alternation (for example, a pig with no legs), and that such experimentation should be
banned.13

Altering Humans

Is it possible the technology may be used to create slaves?

Several bioethicists have called for a ban on species-altering technology that would be
enforced by an international tribunal.14 Part of the rationale for a ban is the concern that such
technology could be used to create a slave race, that is, a race of subhumans that would be
exploited. In April 1998, scientists Jeremy Rifkin and Stuart Newman, who are both opposed
to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), applied for a patent for a “humanzee,” part human
and part chimpanzee, to fuel debate and to draw attention to potential abuses on this issue.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied the patent on the grounds
that it violated the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits
slavery. The decision has been appealed, but the appeal has not yet reached a court, and it
may never do so. The appeal may be dismissed on other technical grounds.

Can the definition of “human” be applied to altered species containing human genes?
Although the USPTO has permitted the extensive patenting of bioengineered life forms and
human DNA, the question that has been raised by Newman and Rifkin’s application is one that
will not be resolved easily: What constitutes a human being? A genetic definition is not very
helpful, given the variability of gene sequences between individuals. A species definition is
controversial, as mentioned earlier. If we look to characteristics for a definition, there are
many characteristics that humans share with primates and other animals. 15 If we create a
being that has the ability to speak and perhaps even reason but looks like a dog or a chimp,
should that being be given all the rights and protection of a human being? Some bioethicists
argue that the definition of “human being” should be more expansive and protective, rather
than more restrictive. Others argue that definitions that are more expansive could be
denigrating to humanity’s status and create a financial disincentive to patenting creations that
could be of use to humanity. The question of whether or not the definition should be more
expansive or more restrictive will have to be considered as courts, legislatures, and
institutions address laws regarding genetic discrimination.

Will society manipulate the genetic traits of children?

In a similar vein, the International Olympic Committee has expressed concern that athletes
will soon employ genetic engineering to get an edge.16 If individuals are willing to genetically
manipulate their children to make them better athletes, then it’s likely individuals will be
willing to manipulate their children to be brighter, better looking, more musically inclined, or
whatever the parents think would give them an advantage. Opponents of genetic
manipulation argue that by allowing this we run the risk of creating a race of superhumans,
changing what it means to be normal and increasing the ever-widening gap between the
haves and the have-nots. Proponents of genetic manipulation argue that currently parents can
and do give their children advantages by sending them to better schools or giving them
growth hormone and that banning genetic manipulation is a denial of individual liberties.
These arguments also reflect the opposing philosophies regarding how scarce resources
should be allocated.

Society must address the ethical and legal issues of altered organisms.

Conclusion

Transgenics and genetic engineering present intriguing and difficult challenges for 21st
century scientists and ethicists. Until we as a society or, perhaps, as a global entity can agree
on what beings, human or otherwise, are worthy of moral and legal status and respect, we
can expect intense cross-disciplinary debate and discussion as new intelligent life is created
through science and medicine.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/glenn.html