We should not tamper with the genes of an embryo
Many permitted human activities, like delaying paternity, add to this chaos by increasing the number of random mutations in the germline.
It is true that a few couples—a very small number—would not be able to produce unaffected embryos, and so could not use PGD to prevent disease inheritance. We may needlessly subject future generations to an endless cycle of suffering and disease.
Scientists genetically modify human embryos in controversial world first Read more Around 7. Your Privacy Invaded In the escalating skirmish between privacy and genetic technology, the banking of genes is viewed as a potential Armageddon, the giant mushroom cloud looming over the horizon. A spokesman for the Japan Medical Association found the experiment "unthinkable. But the individuals whose lives are potentially affected by germline manipulation could extend many generations into the future. Like many resources there are risks associated with its use. What they got was a cross-eyed porker with crippling arthritis and a strangely wrinkled face! The eugenics movement, which originated in 19th century England, was aimed at improving the hereditary qualities of the population by keeping the birth rate of the unfit in check and encouraging the reproduction of the fit. And no one—including the scientist himself—knows how. The treatment rendered the baby resistant to devastating mitochondrial diseases. Instead, these latterday creators are trying to build honest-to-god [sic] protoplasm from organic chemicals, molecule by molecule, cell by cell. Should we permit germline gene editing for their sake? And of course at the other end of the spectrum there are changes that make most people squeamish.
They see meddling with our genome as inherently dangerous — no matter which genes we target. If you start screening sperm donors for dyslexia, where do you stop?
We need to resist that temptation until these technical issues have been resolved. In short, technical limitations are evaporating. Opponents say that modifying human embryos is dangerous and unnatural, and does not take into account the consent of future generations.
But surely our DNA cannot be compared to the patterns of printer ink on page? That technology itself can evolve means there is greater urgency for how we think of our biology: either as a machine which can break down and get new spare parts or as part of ecology whereby breakdown is not necessarily bad and can be part of growth, renewal or reorganization.
Should companies be allowed to own parts of our own genetic code? The consumer will is there. As you can see, only people with more than 35 of these repeats are at risk for HD. In this instance, molecular "chunklets" are being formed into cubes, octahedrons, and other geometric forms for this very purpose. The opponents are right. Indeed the risks are very high. If we could safely and easily correct these errors at the embryonic stage it would be possible to virtually eradicate this disease burden. In the US, work can go ahead with funding from foundations, charities, companies or private individuals. According to this view it would be far wiser not to dip our toes in at all. Gene editing could ensure we all have the best chance to live healthily into old age.
We lose nothing by editing this gene out of the human lineage.
based on 85 review