Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Gene editing is a promising new developing biotechnology that can significantly expand our power to modify human beings. Although, questions have been raised about the potential use of genetic information in ethics, religion, law, and society since completing the Human Genome Project. Concerns about the disastrous consequences of this technologys abuse sparked doubts about its proper application. First, it is suggested that adopting gene-editing technology is risky since no future repercussions can be accurately predicted. Secondly, attempting to use gene editing to ensure that humanity has adequate resources is guaranteed to fail. Finally, there has been no successful deployment of large-scale gene-editing technology. All of the possible risks of the technology are ignored based on assumptions. Therefore, gene editing has more risks than benefits regarding the ethics of human interference in the genome and the environmental effect of gene editing. As a result, gene editing must be carefully monitored and addressed cautiously because of the ethical issues, unpredictability, and more significant environmental effect.
First, the adoption of gene editing technologies cannot be accurately predicted, making them potentially harmful. This is evident as several researchers on gene editing have no idea the possible future consequences it may have on the organisms. Human beings have a limited understanding of ecosystems (Clarke, 2020). Researchers tend to learn from the consequences of the actions that have already been performed without enough knowledge. The research further states that genes are complicated interdependent systems resulting in unintended or unexpected consequences through interference. There is a great deal of skepticism about how these advancements will affect DNA since scientists are still uncertain of the functioning of several genes in the human body (King, 2016). Scientists hope that gene editing will help combat pandemics, making it evident that there is no accuracy in determining the technologys future consequences.
Gene editing, which enables the deletion, addition, or substitution of nucleotides at specified locations in the genome, is now a major topic in academic and legislative debates. With the introduction of practical techniques such as CRISPR, the possibility of employing synthetic biology safely in people for either somatic or germline modification is being seriously investigated. The ethical, legal, and social implications of somatic genetic alterations in humans go beyond essential health and safety concerns; yet, current legal and ethical frameworks seem to be more amenable to this technique, which is already being used in (pre-)clinical trials.
Gene editing has also been referred to as gene modification. In theUnited Kingdom, genetic modification is not banned, although some regulatory measures have been put in place. In Kierras argument on the debate on the advantages and disadvantages of gene editing, she states several disadvantages of adopting early-day research into practice (Clarke, 2020). Kierra further noted that the interference of the genes has unexpected consequences both to the subject organism and the general ecosystem. For instance, genetic editing in the UK has been linked with the sudden drop in curlew numbers. This resulted from the release of the non-native birds, as the abundance of these game birds led to an explosion among the predators (Clarke, 2020). Another instance of gene editing conducted on Buri the bull led to unexpected genetic modification changes where there was a change in the shape of the resistance of the antibiotics. Therefore, there is not enough information on predicting the future consequences of gene editing, making the process more dangerous.
Secondly, gene editing is considered an effective method of ensuring that humanity has enough resources to meet its needs. Attempting to use gene editing to ensure that humanity has adequate resources is doomed to fail. This is because humans have been able to sustain themselves throughout the vast majority of human history. Instead of looking for or producing more resources, the problem originates from peoples incapacity to discover strategies to maintain their current resources. Gene editing is thought to have several advantages, including the removal of illnesses and the generation of more tolerant crops, leading to more consistent harvests and a more predictable supply of food (Arlidge, 2021). As the environment continues to deteriorate and humanitys misuse of nature continues, genome editing to produce new crops and improve yields will not be of any benefit. CRISPR is not just concerned with human-related social and bioethical problems. It is important to evaluate interactions with other creatures and the environment, including risk assessment based on the concept of intentional damage, safety measures to avoid ecological degradation, or possible usage in genetic modification of animals and agricultural goods. When CRISPR-created genetically modified organisms are released into the natural environment, there are severe worries regarding the impact on the ecosystem.
Thirdly, considering that there is no successful case of gene-editing technology deployment on a big scale to date, it seems as if the possible hazards of this technology are being overlooked entirely based on assumptions. When determining whether or not to use gene-editing technology, it is critical to evaluate the procedures safety as a consideration in the decision (Holm, 2019). Several ethical concerns have been raised concerning the new technology that seems to be the principal focus of current gene editing research (Dockser, 2017). Questions have arisen whether the use of the technology in the future would be voluntary or made compulsory by the responsible authorities. Such arguments are always based on assumptions as there is no evidence supporting the claims. This is driving the future of gene-editing technology unpredictable and questionable as the safety and efficacy of the technology are not guaranteed.
Human autonomy is a question that cannot be reliably predicted when the deployment of CRISPR and similar technologies approaches a peak. CRISPR can enhance the degree of intellect in cultures; it is believed that gene editing may also have a societal impact. Genetically altering human genes is now possible because of new biotechnological advancements, such as gene editing. This is coupled with a great desire to enhance peoples mental, moral, and social well-being in addition to their bodily well-being (Hofmann, 2018). Genetic engineering would allow for the creation of designer babies, children whose talents and intellect could be enhanced by genetic augmentation. The ability to choose for desired phenotypes could be selected for. Genes may be manipulated to increase or decrease a persons capabilities in a wide range of areas.
One of the most controversial uses yet of CRISPR, which can be used to alter a human embryo genetically, was recently slammed throughout the globe (Al-Balas, Dajani, & Al-Delaimy, 2020). Such alterations to the human DNA are frowned upon by monotheistic faiths, who see them as an infringement on Gods creation. Furthermore, these alterations might have a long-term impact on future generations. As a result of the Human Genome Project (HGP), questions have arisen about how this information would be used in the future. There have been fears that this technology may be misused and that this could have a terrible impact on humankind (Al-Balas et al., 2020). It has become more challenging to regulate the use of germline editing technologies for medical purposes. Genomic adjustments that can be passed down to future generations are called germline editing. Ethical concerns arise when gene editing is used to treat an unborn childs genetic diagnosis since any off-target alterations might develop swiftly (Ormond et al., 2019). Inspections and eventual incorporation of rising scientific technologies are coordinated via an established regulatory structure. Although it has been decades since the system was created, it cannot meet the issues that will inevitably come with the advent of gene-editing technology soon.
When gene-editing methods like CRISPR or other gene-editing tools are first introduced into society, there should be no concern about the ethical consequences. Especially some of the worlds most eminent experts in the fields of biologists and genomics specialists concur that the widespread concern about the ethical basis for gene editing is legitimate, even at this early stage. Genome editing utilizing CRISPR-like technology raises ethical issues when applied to human genomes. There are only a limited number of somatic cell modifications that can be made through genome editing. It is not handed down from generation to generation since these modifications impact just a few issues. Genes that have been altered in germline cells may be handed on to future generations. This technology raises various ethical questions, including whether it is acceptable to utilize it to increase typical human qualities such as knowledge and intelligence. Several nations presently prohibit the use of germline cell and embryo genome modification for ethical and safety reasons.
In conclusion, gene editing is among the most exciting study topics, and it is constantly surprising to the scientific community with new and fascinating findings. However, such monumental advances are not without their specific set of complications, which may harm future generations experience life in the future. It is most probable that the human race will become more morally corrupt if the significance of thoroughly checking and controlling the application of advances connected to gene editing is not addressed, and it is possible that the socioeconomic disparity would expand.
References
Al-Balas, Q. A. E., Dajani, R., & Al-Delaimy, W. K. (2020). The Ethics of Gene Editing from an Islamic Perspective: A Focus on the Recent Gene Editing of the Chinese Twins. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(3), 18511860. Web.
Arlidge, J. (2021). Why Jennifer Doudnas DNA discovery is revolutionising the way, we tackle disease. Web.
Clarke, P. (2020). Debate: Gene editing the pros and cons for farming Farmers Weekly. Web.
Dockser, A. M. (2017). The Ethics of Gene Editing. Web.
Hofmann, B. (2018). The gene-editing of super-ego. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 21(3), 295302. Web.
Holm, S. (2018). Let Us Assume That Gene Editing is SafeThe Role of Safety Arguments in the Gene Editing Debate. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 28(1), 100111. Web.
King, A. (2016). Gene-editing: Where do you draw the line? Web.
Ormond, K. E., Bombard, Y., Bonham, V. L., Hoffman-Andrews, L., Howard, H., Isasi, R., & Allyse, M. (2019). The clinical application of gene editing: ethical and social issues | Personalized Medicine. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.