I mean, seriously. I've read some sites about this, and the sites referring to some sort of laboratory say it's okay, but some sites voice against genetic engineering, because they think it's morally wrong. I don't think morals are an issue when it comes to science, but is there anything else wrong with it? Think about it...
2006-07-20 05:45:41 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
No, there is nothing wrong with genetic engineering per se. It is how u use it or rather what u want to create using the science that could be right or wrong. Its ilke this, Einstein gave the equation E=mc2. Nothing is wrong with the eqn, but the fact that it became the basis for the invention of an atomic bomb made its application wrong.
Genetic engg. is a trial and error technique. You dont often get the desired result at the first go, when u try to cut and paste a gene into a genome. The result can be undesirable and even dangerous. Imagine unleashing a very powerful strain of a bacterium or a virus or a chimeric organism on humanity.
Moral wrongdoings of the technique is a matter of personal beliefs.
2006-07-20 05:57:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here's the problem as I see it. Genetic engineering in some regards are constructive and helpful. An example of this is the research being done to prevent human genetic defects such as Downs, ALS, MS, etc.
However, genetic engineering for profitibility sake tends to make things a bit more complicated. Think about this example in a hypothectical sense. A hybrid grain is genetically engineered to grow faster and produce more marketable product for cattle feed. The cattle in turn is fed this grain and seem to do better and produce more beef for market. Humans then eat this beef and all seem well... until years down the road some rare type of cancer pops up and it's attibuted to the meat derived from the cows who were fed the grain. But.. by then.. the grain is prevaliant that getting rid of it all is impossible.
Another example would be for genetically modified insects used to control certain weeds in farming. These insects then mate with 'normal' bugs creating a hybrid that is impervious to insectides and better at eluding their natural prey. Thus the insect over populates and we have no way to get rid of them.
Just two examples where science driven by greed can be detrimental compared to science driven by human compassion.
Hope this helps!
2006-07-20 12:59:04 · answer #2 · answered by wrkey 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question depends on how one would define "morally wrong". My personal view is that genetic engineering holds tremendous potential to improve our species. We could reach unimagined heights in longevity, performance, and intelligence. It could also lead to our extinction either entirely or maybe just as we know ourselves to be today. There is much uncertainty in where things could end up and how they should even proceed with the task to produce nothing but the desired results. Even though nature has made many humans as seemingly flawed when looking at each individual, take a look at how perfect it works when you examine the species as a whole. We could set out with the best of intentions to improve the human race genetically, only to end up with some horrible result that no one could forsee.
2006-07-20 13:26:16 · answer #3 · answered by aaron g 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not that I'm aware of. Those who have "moral" objections
really should limit their diets to range grasses. Nearly
everything else has been modified some way. The corn
in your corn flakes is nowhere near what corn was in days
gone by. Or how about a grapefruit? Is selective crossing
any different than changes at the molecular level? What's
the big deal w/ all this? I see no problem w/ engineering
humans. I would love to have been engineered to resist
cancers etc.
2006-07-20 13:00:46 · answer #4 · answered by belate 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem with genetical engineering lies in the possibility that it could lead to new species that could become a threat to existing species. The natural process of mutation and selection is omitted. This can lead to new treatments and drugs, but potentially also to great harm. The biggest problem is that the process is practically irreversible: once a genetically engineered organism is out in nature, it is nearly impossible to get rid of it again - even if it turns out to be very dangerous.
2006-07-20 12:54:08 · answer #5 · answered by sternenstauballergiker 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing wrong with it as long as it's used to cure genetic diseases and handicaps. If it's used to create a Frankenstein, that's when we start running into problems.
2006-07-20 12:51:52 · answer #6 · answered by tkron31 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i, too, would like to see a detailed explanation of the moral problem.
2006-07-20 12:49:31 · answer #7 · answered by My Big Bear Ron 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋