In the light of technicism, genetic manipulation will be judged as a successful technological process with a technological guarantee. Genetic engineering has to guarantee the quality of its product. Needless to say, a poor outcome is not acceptable and must therefore be destroyed. The result will be seen as a product better than what natural processes provide. The old ethical issue of eugenics is at stake again. Eugenics seeks to improve the human race and always implies discrimination against disabled people. Eugenics seeks to prevent human beings with diseases and handicaps, instead of preventing diseases and handicaps of human beings. It is my convinction that eugenics via genetic manipulation is not allowed. The rights of all human beings ought to be honored.
It is an important ethical issue whether, in the perspective of the garden, genetic engineering is really necessary. I think that we do not need it. The main question which ought to be answered is, Do we really need this new technology to solve our problems? Are not the risks too high? The general ethical assessment ought to be, "No, unless." The "unless" relates to the fact that we already have the new technology, that, in certain cases, it can be seen as inevitable.
In this activity, develop an essay about those issues associated with genetically altered food. Read the chapter on genetic engineering in your E-Text:(Ethics Theory and Contemporary Issues 8th Edition/Concise MacKinnon and Fiala) Using information presented about genetically altered food, write an essay that describes your position. Do you believe it is acceptable or unacceptable to alter food genetically for mass consumption? *(I Believe it is UNACCEPTABLE)* Provide an ethical rationale that supports your opinion. Give EXAMPLES of AT LEAST TWO-2 Articles that examine genetically altered crops or animals with citations and references for each. Discuss the ethical arguments in each of the articles. What Awaits you: On-time delivery guarantee Masters and PhD-level writers Automatic plagiarism check 100% Privacy and Confidentiality High Quality custom-written papers
In addition to analyzing the direct ethical, legal and social implications of the Human Genome Project (HGP), the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) funds examinations of issues that are related because they involve manipulation of human genetic material or information. These include such controversial topics as genetic engineering and enhancement, and eugenics. Other controversial but related issues - such as stem cell research and cloning - have not yet been examined by NHGRI.
There are two ways in which risks can be managed. They are reflected in the differing approaches to biotechnology taken by Americans and Europeans. Faced with an entirely new entity in our lives, Americans may ask, "What is the likelihood that this will do me more good than harm?" We can then make our decision about using the item in accordance with the results. This is a risk-benefit approach, and it comes naturally for Americans. On the other hand, Europeans might ask, "Has this item been shown to be safe, so we don't have to worry about serious unforeseen problems down the line?" This precautionary perspective, favored by Europeans, dictates that no product be admitted until it has been scientifically shown to be safe. A risk-benefit approach thus requires that a product or practice is shown to be unsafe before it is ruled out, whereas a precautionary approach requires that safety be demonstrated before the product or practice is admitted.
The United States has consistently favored commercial interests over environmental concerns until it can be demonstrated that a particular practice is unsafe for humans. A notable exception to the risk-benefit approach is the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) process for granting approval for medical drugs and devices. The FDA takes a precautionary approach, requiring that a sponsor demonstrate safety and efficacy prior to marketing a product. So far, the FDA has refused to assert jurisdiction over genetically engineered foods. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates genetically engineered plants under the Plant Pest Act. The Enironmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the release of genetically engineered microbes into the environment under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, Microbial Products of Biotechnology. These regulations apply only to commercial research and development of transgenic microbial species. Under this act, the EPA must operate under the risk-benefit approach and is required to meet a substantial burden of proof before it can even request data on a particular organism or before it can regulate or prohibit the production and release of microorganisms. This patchwork of Federal regulatory authorities covering biotechnology is confusing and inefficient. The public interest would be better served by a single office or agency responsible for evaluating the variety of biotechnological interventions and their impact on the environment.
While the appropriate balance of environmental and health concerns against economic benefits is fundamentally a political and ethical question, there is a serious flaw in the risk-benefit approach favored in the U.S. The benefits of a particular biotechnological intervention in the environment typically accrue directly to the sponsor, often a commercial interest. However, the harms that may result from such interventions typically do not remain confined to those interests or the individuals responsible for introducing them, but instead may propagate throughout the environment and affect the general public. A gene that protects a food crop from certain pests benefits the farmer and the seed company directly, but should that gene cross into a noxious species, it may well create problems for the general public. Thus, an important issue in weighing risks and benefits is not simply whether the benefits justify the risks, but who reaps the benefits and who bears the risks. If the risks and benefits are disproportionately distributed to different groups, the practice may be unjust.
One of the problems with assessing the risks of biotechnological interventions is that it may be very difficult to establish the exact cause of a particular harmful effect in the environment. Several solutions have been offered for this problem, including the use of unique genetic markers to label genetic modifications of organisms. Should the release of such organisms into the environment cause problems, the modified genes can be traced back to the specific project responsible for their release. The Institute of Virology at Cambridge University has demonstrated that such genetic markers can indeed be used to track modified genes. The use of these markers for genetically engineered organisms would promote accountability and provide an added incentive to ensure the safety of genetically modified organisms prior to release.
An additional inducement to minimize risks can be created by amending the legal liability incurred by the release of genetically modified organisms. For instance, the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection recommended that the release of genetically modified organisms into the natural environment should be conducted under strict' liability, "whereby any individual or organization claiming for damages caused by another party does not have to prove that the other party acted negligently in order to claim damages, but merely to show that the damage was caused by the actions, activities or products of the other party.² Commercial interests involved in the release of genetically engineered organisms into the natural environment would, thereby, have a strong financial incentive to minimize the risks of their intervention. The Committee also recommended that the release of genetically engineered species be conducted only if appropriate insurance coverage has been provided by the sponsor prior to the release.
Ethical deliberation requires impartiality, that is, disinterestedness on the part of those who judge. Thus, scientific grants are awarded through blind peer review so as not to be biased by personal relationships. But the use of biotechnology may affect us all. One of the problems with the peer review mechanism is that the practice of science itself predisposes practitioners to particular values. If the question is strictly scientific, then peer review can provide impartial assessment, but if the question concerns the place of scientific values in public policy or ethical deliberation, then scientific peer review is inherently biased. Because of the uncertainties of the risks of many biotechnological applications and the impacts of these risks to both human and ecological interests, the ethical evaluation of biotechnological applications requires a very different kind of process than our present regulatory system provides. Our system relies heavily upon scientific expertise and a general predisposition to minimize regulation and promote trade. Questions regarding the application of biotechnology in the environment require far greater public participation and, in general, greater impartiality.
Though there are benefits to genetic engineering, there are also drawbacks to genetic engineering including ethical and legal issues that are dealt with in today’s society in order to try and regulate the...
s the world population increases and suitable land for food production decreases or is converted to other uses, there is a need for more efficient food production. Ocean and fresh water fisheries have been depleted by overfishing and the effects of pollution. Aquacultural techniques have been developed to raise native fish species more efficiently, speed up their development cycles, and confer resistance to a variety of diseases and pathogens. Some of the most promising techniques have stepped beyond sophisticated breeding and culturing techniques to employ the very machinery of life itself to enhance production. Genetic engineering techniques have allowed researchers to insert genes from wholly unrelated species to alter life cycles and enhance disease resistance for a variety of aquatic species. Other techniques involve the development of DNA vaccines and genetically altered bacteria to assist aquacultural development.
These and other transformations of life through biotechnology have been pursued for the sake of the social benefits they promise. Cheaper and more effective medicines are possible when produced through biological rather than chemical means. Farm production can be made more efficient and the use of biological pesticides, for instance, can reduce the need for chemical pesticides. Some genetic engineering of plants aims to reduce the need for fertilizers, thereby minimizing the pollution effects of runoff to rivers and coastal waters. One of the first applications of a genetically engineered organism was the modification of bacteria that could digest oil spilled in the oceans. Bioremediation and, in general, the improvement of the environment have been the primary aims of a great deal of biotechnological research. In the marine context, much of the scientific work being done is aimed at ameliorating the effects on food species and marine ecosystems of overdevelopment, pollution, and loss of breeding habitats.
While biotechnological methods promise a variety of important social and environmental benefits, public response, especially to the release of genetically modified species into the environment, has been mixed. Though not always based on a sound understanding of the science and technologies involved, the public is wary of genetically altered foods and concerned about the inability to control biological agents once they are released into the environment.
The ethical evaluation of biotechnological interventions rests first upon a good understanding of the science behind these interventions, and second upon balancing the risks and benefits such interventions pose. In addition, the power of new molecular techniques to manipulate life, insert the genes of one species into the genes of another species, and otherwise redirect living organisms both in captivity and in the wild to specific human purposes, raises questions about the proper role of humans in their environment and in the alteration of living organisms.
What are some of the risks associated with biotechnology and how are they balanced against the benefits they promise? What are some of the fundamental objections to genetic engineering and the role of biotechnology in general environmental ethics? This essay will review the types of objections and questions that have been raised about biotechnology in general but will not necessarily provide answers. As biologists explore the increasing power of science to manipulate life, it is important that they are aware of the kinds of arguments that question their practice. How those arguments are addressed requires both a good scientific understanding of the particular details of an intervention, and public moral and political deliberation. Part of that deliberation is to answer these questions and to understand the objections and the different types and models of moral reasoning.
The church in the Middle Ages struggled againstGnostic antinomian movements, and it remains to be seen whether these newimmanentist church movements are also going to struggle with antinomiantendencies in religious genetic engineering, particularly when most secularscientists are pursuing genetic engineering while paying only lip serviceto any ethical issues whatsoever.
Writing an ethics paper can present some unique challenges. For the most part, the paper will be written like any other essay or research paper, but there are some key differences. An ethics paper will generally require you to argue for a specific position rather than simply present an overview of an issue. Arguing this position will also involve presenting counterarguments and then refuting them. Finally, ensuring that your reasoning is valid and sound and citing the appropriate sources will allow you to write an ethics paper that will satisfy any critic.