Prenatal Screening

Farmers and ranchers have been manipulating genes for plants and animals well before gene sequencing and molecular techniques were practiced. The size of a grapefruit and coloring on cattle may be attributed to the former. With new knowledge about animal and plant genomes, scientists can now delicately screen, edit, and splice genes for varying reasons. This paper intends to explore some of the more common techniques in genetic engineering (prenatal screening, gene manipulation, and cloning) for humans and the ethical issues surrounding them.

Genetic technique and screening has entered the medical scene in numerous countries. It is important to examine these issues before experimental practices become casually introduced. Issues including

In some cases, prenatal screenings may be compulsory. While used in certain cancer trials, prenatal screening is one of the most common forms. By using minimally invasive fetal genetic sampling techniques such as chorionic villus sampling, the possibility of variety of conditions may be ascertained according to Binns and Hsu. Screened conditions range from incurable, life threatening diseases to developmental impairments. With this information, a mother may opt to abort the child. A key word in this idea is the possibility of the condition rather than the reality of it (2002). There are only a few diseases with one gene mutation (Claybourne, 2006). Many conditions entail a combination of many genes being activated. In spite of tests, the baby may suffer from none of the conditions. The other issue is deciding which tests to perform. Early tests were introduced for diseases such as Tay-Sachs for those with a predisposing family history says Binns & Hsu. As we are gaining more information about tests, non-lethal conditions such as Downs Syndrome have been included (2002). There is a legitimate question regarding where the testing may stop or not. There may be testing for eye color soon. Minority groups might be selected out of the industrialized population if some tests were used particularly if the condition was not present in the parents such as deafness. Parents also can selectively implant

In the pursuit of what someone with virtue would do, many of these ideas do not lend themselves easily to formulating character development explains Doris (1998). There are some that state that combining genes from different organism is wrong (Wrubel, 1998), and virtue ethicist may agree with that. With a close association with nature, this philosophy would likely oppose many of the techniques based solely on its interference in the world and its amorphous character connection.

The deontological philosopher may be more open to these technologies. Given their objective to fulfill duty (Kanungo, 2001), they may support more guidelines for animal welfare as well as prenatal testing or embryonic selection for deleterious and life threatening diseases. Selection of embryos for enhancement may be a too far in terms of actual duty and would likely be rejected.

The utilitarian philosopher would probably be the most open to these technologies as well of the most circumspect about them. In efforts to reduce pain and life-threatening diseases, this type is likely to embrace technologies. They may even make a case for enhancement if the person could evaluate the consequences of it (Kelman, 1981). With such thought, this type would be more likely to consider risks of these technologies such as new diseases or age related conditions in young clones. They might reject them for these potential downsides as