Embryonic Engineering Pros And Cons

Childbirth is a miracle of humanity. It is the process of two people bringing life into the world. This process has gone untouched since to the beginning of humanity and life forms themselves, but in recent years the possibility to edit this natural process has arisen with new technologies and much research. Through trial and error scientists have come up with ways to edit genes. This has been a recurring possibility in plants by GMO (genetically modified organisms) and some animals such as Dolly the Sheep, but in humans this is revolutionary. Technologies such as “CRISPR”, a system that introduces two molecules that can cut two strands of DNA at a specific location and many others are making leaps in genetic research and editing, and have

Some of their strengths include the fact that they base their main defensive argument on scientific research that has not yet shown any signs of being able to be used in a harmful or hurtful manner. Another very solid strength is the fact of their proponents previous credibility on the issue. Some of the arguments weaknesses are the fact that not all of the research has been conducted, so there is a bit of uncertainty to go behind all statements made, because the implications of said editing is not yet fully known. As well as some of the proponents of this argument aren’t as credible, not having extensive background in the field, but, there is only such an extent anyone can have credibility in a more recent and new idea and scientific process. There were two main proponents of the idea of genetic engineering and embryonic editing. Mr. Christopher Gyngell, one of the main and open supporters of this research, has a very extensive and reputable background. He is a bioethicist at the University of Oxford, an extremely well-based and respectable school to work for, and therefore gives him substantial credibility. This credibility greatly increases the strength of these arguments made because his backing and research of bioethics of all things, would hold much weight in the world of a topic exactly based around that. This backing and weight his arguments carry

The standpoint I take on the issue is that I support genetic engineering. This is for a variety of reasons such as being able to rid the world of certain genetic diseases that can be life threatening, or overall increasing the average lifespan of the world population we know today. This in general outweighs the “possibility” of harmful things to come with the use of genetic engineering, and the only small chance that the unknown will bring something extremely harmful is not a big enough threat to prevent the medical progression of the human race to help people's’ quality of life. The main argument that brought me to having this opinion is the prevention of these diseases. As someone who has had personal experience with genetic diseases affecting my family in a negative way, these would be impactful and life changing to a wide variety of people globally. More investigation could be done into the possible global restrictions that would be placed once the genetic engineering is used more, and how these laws would be directly enforced. More resources such as college libraries with insight on these new technologies and directly how they’re used could be useful. I personally think that research on the topic should be shifted from a more doubtful and cynical view to a more optimistic and