Thomas W. Clark reports in his piece "Playing God, Carefully", that the husking of a minimum genome is close at hand; thus, the "the biological interplay of DNA, proteins, and other subcellular components in supporting the necessary functions of life? would be completely understood"(2000, p.37). Essentially, this discovery will complete our office to genetically alter any living thing at the most rudimentary level. According to ethicists, the crux of the debate lies in whether or non work on minimal genomes constitutes "performing God". If it does, our task becomes deciding if playing God is wrong. If it is, Clark concludes that " in advance(p) biology does pose a threat and we might search to limit research into what once were the mysteries of life"(2000, p.38). If it is not, "then a detailed analysis of life's mechanisms is simply a means to an end, not an intrinsic threat to the specialness of life?"(Clark, 2000, p.38).
Clark's summations aptly interpret the ethical root of the debate over genetic engineering. S
Our planet suffers so many ills, not the least of which include overpopulation, the depletion of natural resources, poverty and pollution. In this light, it seems quite a foolish to attempt to ethically endorse any applied science that would ultimately serve to lengthen the lifespans of the wealthy and the privileged. And yet we mustiness pay more attention to genetic engineering than we already do -- the science fiction age is upon us.
And as for the moral philosophy of genetic engineering, I find it impossible not to chasten virtually any and all gene/DNA manipulations. iodine of the things that defines us as human beings is our desire to better outfit ourselves for survival. But we are individuals, and our somebodyal survival instincts do not emerge until we live, breathe and feel.
To deprive an individual of his mature to puzzle life with his genetic code intact is to deprive him of his right to survive on his own terms. Our society values perseverance, dedication, cultivation of talent, and discipline. If we allow genetic manipulations to occur, how might these characteristics suffer? If children are born(p) with programmed genetics, haven't we also programmed their potential? Predetermining the basic characteristics of a future person serves only to violate the very essence of human individuality, not to mention impede the delicate processes of human development. So yes, in the case of an unborn child, human DNA is sacred, and should not be touched.
Schaeffer, Pamela. (Oct 22, 1999)"Revolution in Biology Drives Revolution in Theology, morals and Law". National Catholic Reporter. v36 i1 p.15.
Others, like Patricia J. Williams, argue that morals must indeed be the focus of the debate, positing that under Silver's construct, genetically engineered superintelligence(or jumping ability or disease-immunity, etc.) will become only when a product on the market the same as any other -- to be bought and sold according to face-to-face wealth and the balance of supply and demand. Under
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.
No comments:
Post a Comment