Genetic experimentation and development have the prospect of initiating a number of alterations as well as benefits to the human being. In addition, the genetic developments have the ability of creating new living things, prevent emission of toxic wastes as well as provide cure to various ailments.
Further, through the utilization of genetic tools, modification of individual attributes is possible. The paper presents the shortcomings as well as the gains achieved through genetic development and experimentation. Moreover, the paper spells out how the ethical principles and moral system are affected by the genetic engineering. In this regard, the study will set limits where genetic development and experimentation should reach.
Discussions about the extents of genetic development and experimentation
Over the years, the global society has been involved in complicated debates on the bioethical concerns pertaining to the researches on human embryonic stem cells and human cloning. To begin with, the stem cells have the capability of forming assorted varieties of tissues. In this regard, the stem cells exhibit the quality of enabling development engineering that can aid in the reorganization of smashed up tissues and cure humans from lethal ailments.
Secondly, embryonic stem cells from the human embryos majorly involve the destructions of living embryos thus could jeopardize the smooth functioning of the body cells and causing impairments to the donors (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2007).
Generally, adult stem cells have played critical roles in curative undertakings compared to the embryonic stem cells due to their relative firmness. In other words, the utilization of the unstable embryonic stem cells is an ingredient for tumors. On the contrary, the versatile adult stem cells are effective in therapeutic purposes.
Researches on the embryonic stem cells have resulted into the destruction of embryos. Therefore, conducting researches that do not involve the destruction of cells needs immense support. However, this has attracted debate from diverse quarters with proponents and opponents of genetic engineering raising different concerns. The supporters of cell modification contend that there has been increased cure of dangerous diseases that were otherwise untreatable due to the genetic engineering.
In addition, through the application of modern genetic engineering as well as therapy technologies, devastating effects of cell diseases have been alleviated. On the other hand, the critics of genetic development argue that researches involving genetic experiments and development would lead to an escalating rate of embryo deaths (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2007).
Further, opponents claim that genetic development is an unethical experimentation motivated by the activities of the scientists from Germany in the era of Nazi.
Human cloning has also been at the centre of debate about genetic development and experimentation. In other words, using asexual processes in developing new genetic characteristics to living organisms has been a central issue. For instance, fusing the somatic cells of ewe to the oocytes of sheep respectively through electrofusion produces divergent, self-incorporated and new organism that has the same genetic characteristics as the parents (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2007).
Based on this development, other researchers contend that developing human beings is scientifically feasible through somatic cell nuclear transfer. In fact, the proponents of cloning assert that it would provide the parents with the opportunity of determining the attributes as well as the genetic features of the offspring. In addition, people who have no kids would be provided with the prospects of bearing children.
Moreover, the pain suffered from the loss of kids would be outdated since there is a chance of making the genetic duplicates of the deceased children. Conversely, the opponents of cloning reproduction of human beings are of the opinions that it is dehumanizing and thus has the ability of corroding culture thereby instigating the commoditization of human life (Schichor & Simonet, 2002).
In essence, through cloning, children are considered as products of manufacture that are made instead of begotten. The consideration compromises the offspring’s eccentricity and thus brings out ethical concerns pertaining to affinity, individuality as well as sense of self. Further, growing the genetic combinations to such extent aggravates the complexity among the kids because the anticipations of the parents promote ambiguous life among the offspring.
The extent of genetic engineering has initiated debate concerning live birth cloning as well as research cloning. In fact, genetic duplication of human beings for reproductive rationales has continuously attracted immense disapproval from the masses. People assert that genetic duplication of human beings is immoral test on the expected children (Schichor & Simonet, 2002). Studies show that only about two percent of the genetic experimentation is accomplished.
Genetic copying leads to numerous fetal deaths and causes major disabilities as well as malformations among the cloned animals. For example, cloning hinders the achievement of the optimal developmental landmarks in cows by initiating heart and lung complications, pathological obesity in mice and severe arthritis in sheep. Concerning such problems suffered by the animals due to cloning, there has been increased opposition against reproductive cloning (Schichor & Simonet, 2002).
However, research cloning continues to receive approval among masses across the spectrum. In research cloning, the nuclear somatic cell transfer exclusively generates the embryos for research purposes. More importantly, the processes avoid implantation of embryo into female uterus thereby avoiding its advancement into a fetus and develop into a mature being.
The research cloning has significant benefits. In particular, the generation of medicines that are of inherent equivalence to patients has been attained because of the embryonic gene yields through research cloning (Gottweis, 1998). However, opponents of research cloning assert that the major aim of research gene copying is only to bring new beings into continuation and then kill them to obtain the body parts. Actually, the society allows bringing into life new individuals.
However, the public would not allow killing and destruction of human cells. In other words, reproductive cloning creates peculiar circumstances in the society’s state of affairs. As such, the extent of cloning should be limited to the development of new beings and not destruction or thrusting aside of any cells.
Many people contend that cloning, which involves genetic duplication should be banned. In fact, in the perspective of cloning, the somatic cells are comparable to the gametes and not to the embryos. Therefore, fusing the somatic cells to the gametes through the sexual reproduction produces new distinctive organisms (Gottweis, 1998). Further, larger percentage of the society considers cloning as ethically problematic since it surpasses numerous significant moral precincts.
For instance, cloning initiates a dehumanizing world of genetic engineered offspring as well as the habitual use of embryonic beings existing as sheer innate assets.
Actually, states such as the US, UK, Belgium, Cuba and Singapore prohibit cloning of embryos for either research or therapeutic purposes due to its dehumanizing effects. In addition, the United Nations continuously receives conventions from different nations such as Costa Rica and Belgium calling for the proscription of human cloning.
According to the diverse ethical opinions, the embryo has a right and moral rank to life at varied periods of existence. Just to begin with, the Catholic Church contends that at the point of conception, an individual acquires inclusive right to life. Therefore, destroying the embryonic cells is unethical and is considered as murder of blameless beings. In addition, the view contends that utilization of intrauterine devices that obliterate the embryo constitutes slaughter.
Secondly, several logicians contend that nothing subsists after cell divisions. In this regard, the destruction of the embryo would lead to lack of existence (Gottweis, 1998). Thirdly, the consciousness view allows embryo experimentation for fourteen days after conception and it is considered moral in the United Kingdom.
However, the analysis faces a number of shortcomings, particularly; the genetic engineering of the embryo cells renders organisms unconscious thereby affecting the state of minds. Lastly, the potential view asserts that it is immoral to kill a potential individual through cloning of embryos and somatic cells.
Stem cell and cloning researches are accompanied by huge costs. As such, the researchers have not been successful (Gottweis, 1998). In other words, through experimentation and development of embryonic stem cells, teratomas and teracarcinomas develop in mice.
Further, clinical applications such as myocardial infarction and acute liver failure prohibit cloning of cells. Development of genes is only affordable to the wealthy hence labor intensive due to the personalized treatments. Moreover, cloning involves a huge number of oocytes from women and retrieval of the eggs presents health concerns to women (Gottweis, 1998). The experimentation of cells generates commercialization of eggs and embryos thus undermining the self-respect of women.
The pursuit of genetic development and experimentation has benefits and shortcomings. In fact, cloning has inestimable prospect of prolonging human life. However, the genetic engineering should be subjected to regular relations to prevent the potential risks with which it is associated.
Gottweis, H. (1998). Governing molecules: the discursive politics of genetic engineering in Europe and the United States. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Schichor, N., & Simonet, J. (2002). Should we allow genetic engineering? A public policy analysis of germline enhancement. Retrieved from web.
Thiroux, J. P., & Krasemann, K. W. (2007). Ethics theory and practice. Upper Saddle River, NY: Pearson.