(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); As I consider entering the field of biotechnology, I'm considering the moral aspects of one of the largest parts of the practice: genetic engineering. When I first started researching the topic, I saw no downsides; the ability to cure diseases before birth, to end disabilities all make genetic engineering seem like the profound solutions to problems humanity has been plagued with for thousands of years.

I quickly found, however, that this is not entirely true in the eyes of everyone. Some people see a major religious fallacy in this claim, or a moral one. Some people say that, by genetically engineering a human being, we're tinkering with what "God made", or changing a person without them having the ability to refute it.

Where do you fall? Is genetic engineering morally wrong, or could it benefit humanity, and the world, greatly?

I haven't looked into human GE much, but my father's side of the family are all big farmers in Central Illinois, and they grow GE'd corn. There's no downside in plants, except for a loss of biodiversity, meaning a strain of a virus could wipe out all of the crops that have been GE'd one way. Could that also apply to human GE'ing?

Yeah, genetic engineering in plants is one of the earliest fashions of biotech. As for a loss in biodiversity and the risks that come with that, yes, genetic engineering could subject humans to the same risks. However, that's only if genetic engineering is taken in a certain direction. I am wholly against the idea of making humans "perfect", which would likely mean giving them certain "desired" traits (i.e. making designer babies). When it comes to those sorts of decisions, I think genetic engineering is immoral.

I don't think using genetic engineering to cure diseases and disabilities pose the same risks, because all you'd be doing is removing any genetic mutations that could cause disabilities or diseases later in life. So, I'd imagine that biodiversity would remain, because you wouldn't be editing the human genome; simply ridding it of its dangerous mutations.

The only thing people are afraid of is change, if they tell you otherwise they're lying.

Change means new ideas/techniques/practices. Factually/Scientifically, you can't argue against it. The only argument may be in the sense that this is immoral, or can go wrong. There is no "real" right answer to this question, as I can see positives and negatives.

Positives would include the wiping out of diseases, and potentially making a "better" person. Although that's true, what defines "better". To say that this would only be limited to disease is somewhat trivial. When I think of it, I can't help but think of the movie GATTACA. Do I think society would change that drastically? No, but there would be some interesting results.

Never the less, I doubt it will get that far down the line. Religions would strongly oppose this, and religion is still far too dominant and populous to override. Unfortunately, the arguments offered on that side are the wrong one's on this issue.

GE people you have to ask is it right? Not the idea of are we playing god, but do we have the right to change someone without their consent? We are not given the choice to be born, GE the human race just seems to add to that insult. We have our faults because we are imperfect, regardless of how nature may create us. I cannot help but think that the idea of engineering a human is paramount to the "perfect race".

Though I do agree it is a good idea, I just ponder do we have the resolve not to abuse it?

I did a research paper on this a couple years ago, so much hate because at the time in class I was the only Agnostic Atheist and everyone else was ignorant religious freaks who refused to view views through another person's eyes.

I agree with Genetic Engineering, I see nothing wrong with it at all. I think it's hypocritical for people to say that we can do it to animals but not ourselves when we ourselves are animals.

If people are accepting of fertilizing an egg and then putting it inside a women, then it should be no different from modifying its genetic layout. Who is to say that with this we might be able to figure out a way to then slow down bio breakdown then apply it to living and already born humans. It then could be administered to those healthy enough at age 18 to allow for 50-100 years extra in life. This would mean limitations on children but yea.

I think that this is a key question: Can we overcome human ignorance and arrogance to reap the benefits of genetic engineering? There definitely is plenty of evidence that would say no, the human race is not ready to handle that kind of power responsibly. When it comes to making "designer babies" and the like, I would side with those against genetic engineering as it is the abuse of a capability that should be used for truly significant things, like curing diseases and physical and mental disabilities.

I also think there's a good point in asking whether or not we have the "right" to do so. Whenever I hear that, I like to pose the question of what that person would have wanted: If you asked a disabled or diseased person right now, and you asked whether or not they wish they could have been cured of said disability or disease before birth, I think the answer would be almost unanimously "yes".

That is what I am afraid of that we as a civilization while trying to correct our flaws, we inadvertently create another set of headaches. I think helping the disabled, curing diseases, helping us better ourselves will always be an honorable goal, and I condone this action. As you said I am not looking forward to the inevitable want to create a child out of this, for the sole purpose of vanity.

I want to see this technology prosper, I am just wary of those who abuse it just because they have the money.

A disease that could only infect the GE'd people?

Zombies? Juggernauts? Superheros? Bigger Tits?

or maybe

New Aids? New Cancer? New STDs?

This depends entirely on the basis for which the genetic engineering is being done. If it's for a military advantage of some sort, it's obviously wrong. On the other hand, if it's to cure someone of a health issue they have, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing this.

Religious claims that this is wrong can be thrown off the table immediately. Their very belief is absurd, so why should they get taken seriously on genuine moral issues such as this? It's the equivalent to burning "witches" back in the days that the people believed in magic.