If a person were to say about sixty years ago that we could alter DNA, create a DNA database, modify foods genetically, or make an organism have the traits we wanted, then we would probably think that he or she was out of their mind. Being able to do these things would make our lives appear to be part of a science fiction book. But if you said the same thing today, a majority wouldn’t be surprised at all. We have made plenty of advancements in the past years in the field of genetics that it would be considered highly possible, we’re even doing some of them now. If we do fund more money to genetic advancements it can help us, however in the long run it could only create a Pandora’s box of problems. Being the most intelligent species we have the most control. If we do continue to fund money into altering DNA, creating a DNA database, modifying foods genetically, and making organisms have the traits we want, then we’d be playing god. With this ability who knows what will happen. In my opinion, we should not fund money into genetic advancements.
Today we could test our DNA to find almost
…show more content…
According to The Stanford Review: “Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering”, modification in humans can create inequalities like in the movie Gattaca where one brother was (not modified) short-sighted and had a weak heart and the other brother was modified and had a perfect health. Also changing your child’s genetic makeup is immoral and shouldn’t be allowed since it has a lifetime effect on him or her. Sadly, people do judge by the book’s cover. Genetic modification works to remove the disease not help the people with the disease. According to “Pros and Cons of Compulsory Database” if we do have a database for our DNA profiles, everyone is a suspect for a crime when they go through our profiles and invade our privacy. Our information there could also be abused. A DNA database is also very expensive which means more taxes for us. No one likes