Should we increase human well-being or honor difference? The thought of molding future human to fit some pre-thought ideal of power and beauty is one that should make us contempt. Once a fashionable field of question, the study of ultimate offspring remains related with some of the worst overabundance of the 20th century, from forced cleaning to massacre. The lesson we might be lured to draw from this is to let nature proceed ignored, free from human interruption, and embrace the diversity it produces.
We should not edit our offspring’s gene. Not only we take away our child’s right by pre determine their natural identity but also it is inhumane. Although altering gene can prevent genetic illness such as cancer, our current technology is advanced enough to predict and avoid birth defect. Technology such as Cryopreservation is available to human to provide ultimate egg and sperm to produce healthy baby. “Before undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, individuals often seek to undergo a cryopreservation procedure in order to increase the likelihood of having their own biological children” (Red Rock). We cannot edit child gene because if we fail to edit and grow a monster it is our responsibility to kill the creature, kill a living human in the womb.Quality altering may once in a while harm other imperative qualities, which could prompt medical issues, for example, disease further down the road. Also, removing a quality from commission has dangers: People with absent or imperfect CCR5 qualities are progressively vulnerable to genuine entanglements from West Nile infection diseases. “ Even if the baby don’t end up. with any health problems as a result of He’s genetic tinkering, the experiment is still bad science ” says Julian Savulescu, a bioethicist at the University of Oxford who comment on the first Crisp. Cas9 experiment on chinese young girls. “I liken it to Russian roulette. You can pull the trigger and not kill, but that doesn’t mean what you did was right” (Hesman).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
We should not edit our offspring’s gene because it is dangerous. We have potential risk to create the “terminators”. Our current technology is not advanced enough to edit genes accurately. The crispr cas9 gene edit have not test on a real human yet. Gene edit is certainly unpredictable. 'It is very important to consider the unintended genetic consequences of making an intended change, because there are all sorts of genetic interactions that occur in cells during cellular development — especially in humans, but also other organisms,' Scientist said. 'I think just getting a handle on how a desired change impacts the function and development of an organism or embryo is going to be a big part of this, and it could be decades of work. But this needs to be discussed in the context of this meeting and future meetings so that we can really determine the path forward for gene editing.' The Crispr/Cas9 system of altering DNA is, by the norms of prior techniques, amazingly fast and simple. It isn't completely dependable or exact, however it places gigantic potential power in the hands of customary researchers. It is additionally globally far reaching, and outside the ability to control of any single country now. So rash and exploitative analyses were just normal.
We should not change our offspring because gene edit is irreversible. Too much gene mutations can lead to problems. Gene editing has two kinds. “The germline editing”UK professed to have done is very not quite the same as the physical quality treatments that are at present changing the outskirts of drug. While substantial quality altering influences just the patient being dealt with (and just a portion of his or her phones), germline altering influences all phones in a living being, including eggs and sperm, as is passed onto who and what is to come. The conceivable outcomes of that are hard to predict.'A key favorable position, the scientist states, is with ensuring individuals for if a change to DNA is made and where the wrong spot is cut, this could prompt unintended and unsafe reactions. Also, fixing DNA can be troublesome inside specific cells, similar to cerebrum and muscle cells. This makes the focus on RNA more advantageous when dealing with these types of genes. Our babies carries our genes, and if we edit their genes to make them look certain way in the womb, we cannot change certain feature back. For example, if a black parents lightens their baby’s skin tone by alter the melanin production in his gene, the kid might hate it. Because he doesn’t’ look like their parents anymore. Some people might think gene edit can be a trendy movement, but, again, the kids did not have a chance to reject since they are not born yet. This is certainly irreversible.
In general, The cons overweight the pros. Therefore, we should not edit our next generation’s gene because it is inhumane, dangerous, and irreversible. We should not edit our offspring’s gene. Not only we take away our child’s right by pre determine their natural identity but also it is inhumane. We should not edit our offspring’s gene because it is dangerous. We have potential risk to create the “terminators”. We should not change our offspring because gene edit is irreversible. Too much gene mutations can lead to problems. We should not use other human to achieve our desire and it is certainly not okay to do so because when we look back what we have done, it is all too late. So, let us think about gene edit twice and prevent disastrous scenes that happened in the Science Fiction movies to become reality.
Works Cited
- Red Rock Fertility. “Egg, Embryo and Sperm Freezing.” Red Rock Fertility, Red Rock Fertility, 23 Mar. 2017, redrockfertility.com/egg-sperm-embryo-freezing/.
- Saey, Tina Hesman. “News of the First Gene-Edited Babies Ignited a Firestorm.” Science News, 17 Dec. 2018,
- Sanders, Robert. “When Is 'Gene Editing' Dangerous? (Video).” LiveScience, Purch, 8 Dec. 2015, www.livescience.com/53015-when-is-gene-editing-dangerous.html
- Editorial. “The Guardian View on Editing Human DNA: a Bad Idea, and Badly Executed | Editorial.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 4 Dec. 2018, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/04/the-guardian-view-on-editing-human-dna-a-bad-idea-and-badly-executed.
- Bergman, Todd, and Mary Todd Bergman. “Harvard Researchers Share Views on Future, Ethics of Gene Editing.” Harvard Gazette, Harvard Gazette, 27 Feb. 2019, news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/perspectives-on-gene-editing/.
- “Is Reversible Gene Editing Possible?” Press Release - Digital Journal, 5 Nov. 2017, www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/science/is-reversible-gene-editing-possible/article/506862.
Stuck on your essay?
