Watch this video
As shown in the video above recent experiments claim that two babies have been born that were genetically engineered to resist HIV infection. Should this or any similar genetic modifications (which can be passed from generation to generation unlike standard gene therapy such as the one used to treat the woman with the vision problems ) be allowed for humans?
It is quite controversial and honestly, I feel divided. To a certain degree I understand how this type of technology could be useful in disease prevention and giving individuals a chance at a more fortunate life. However, I also feel that it’s not okay because it’s like scientists are playing God. Who’s to say those children weren’t meant to be advocates for other children born with HIV? I also disagree because new technology always starts with a good intention but more often than not it becomes perverted and is used inappropriately and I believe this technology has the potential to do the same.
i think that there is nothing wrong with allowing this to be allowed for humans if you are able to use the technology to prevent a child from having a certain mutation or genetic disease than we should use it so they can have a healthy life
I am divided, as many others are, on this topic. I feel as though it should be allowed, for those who could suffer from inherited diseases. Part of me feels as thought if we are able to help someone in need, we should. However, this technology could also create an economic divide. The only people who would be able to receive the treatment would be the wealthy, and very few would be able ot get the treatment, because you can’t do this on a super large scale either. So consequently, people without money would be unable to do anything, and ever with those who do have the money, doctors would have to choose who to save, which seems unfair.
I believe that this type of work should be allowed, with more research. I believe it should be up to the parents of the babies to make this decision as I am sure there are risks that come along with this. However, the benefits of being able to have children that won’t have a genetic disease for example would be a wonderful gift to parent who know that they are carriers for a certain disease. I feel that with more research and technology, this could eliminate many diseases that affect children and parents every day.
I think this is split on whether to do it or not. It’s good to have an option that allows the child to be free of diseases but on the other hand, many people might see it as wrong considering it isn’t as natural. As long as nothing negative comes from running tests or something horrific happens then I guess using the tech. wouldn’t be that bad.
When it comes to the concept of genetic modifications or genetic engineering, I believe that most opinions on this matter won’t change what will occur. I state this because this is or could become a controversial topic and the truth is people will do what they do. Should humans be allowed to do a lot of things? No, but that doesn’t seem to stop us. We pollute, corrupt, and manipulate. We also heal, build, and innovate. The idea of being able to stop future generations from contracting the HIV infection is something that is good. We could kill off the viral pathogen. We have done this before with the poliovirus in a less elegant way. Since the polio vaccine was used in 1979, the number of reported cases in the last 30 years can be counted on one hand.
The real question is what will be next, what type of genetic engineering will be going too far? Being able to alter genetic information within the womb means we could eventually choose what child we want. Is that right or moral? For most people they would say no because that seems too immoral or possibly unnatural. That we are playing God. [Thinking about the movie Jurassic Park, where they talk about how scientists questioned if they could rather than should.] But that is how we think of it today, but what about in the future. People back in the day probably thought flying was considered unnatural, or the ability to have all the world’s information at our fingertips is wrong. What about the advancements of medical therapy or the removal of tumors?
It all takes a perspective to be able to decide what is or what should be. What if you are about to have a child and you find out that the child will be born with a debilitating disease. The doctor comes up to you and discusses that with one little procedure, your child will be cured even before birth. Would you not want the best life for your child? We might say, well we should love them for who they are but what about the world? People can be cruel, and you will not be always there for them. So to wrap up this question, should humans be allowed to use similar genetic modifications: it doesn’t matter about the should because we will do what we do.
When it comes to the concept of genetic modifications or genetic engineering, I believe that most opinions on this matter won’t change what will occur. I state this because this is or could become a controversial topic and the truth is people will do what they do. Should humans be allowed to do a lot of things? No, but that doesn’t seem to stop us. We pollute, corrupt, and manipulate. We also heal, build, and innovate. The idea of being able to stop future generations from contracting the HIV infection is something that is good. We could kill off the viral pathogen. We have done this before with the poliovirus in a less elegant way. Since the polio vaccine was used in 1979, the number of reported cases in the last 30 years can be counted on one hand.
The real question is what will be next, what type of genetic engineering will be going too far? Being able to alter genetic information within the womb means we could eventually choose what child we want. Is that right or moral? For most people they would say no because that seems too immoral or possibly unnatural. That we are playing God. [Thinking about the movie Jurassic Park, where they talk about how scientists questioned if they could rather than should.] But that is how we think of it today, but what about in the future. People back in the day probably thought flying was considered unnatural, or the ability to have all the world’s information at our fingertips is wrong. What about the advancements of medical therapy or the removal of tumors?
It all takes a perspective to be able to decide what is or what should be. What if you are about to have a child and you find out that the child will be born with a debilitating disease. The doctor comes up to you and discusses that with one little procedure, your child will be cured even before birth. Would you not want the best life for your child? We might say, well we should love them for who they are but what about the world? People can be cruel, and you will not be always there for them. So to wrap up this question, should humans be allowed to use similar genetic modifications: it doesn’t matter about the should because we will do what we do.
I think this technique the doctors are using on new pregnancies is definitely a risky experiment and should be something that is researched more. The obvious positive effect is that it protects newborns from life threating conditions such as HIV that their father has, but on the other hand, it seems unfamiliar to the modern world so far. With that, only some families will be able to afford the treatment since it is not exactly normalized. Technology is developing way too quick, and they are coming up with new things every day, which is why I am concerned of the safety levels here. I am not fully in support of this.
I am cautiously in favor of allowing procedures such as the one in the video to be used on humans. Withholding life-saving technology is very difficult to justify on moral grounds. When it comes to genetic alterations that can be passed down through generations, any mistake or unrealized consequence will have devastating ripple effects – so it is of utmost importance to ensure that the procedures are safe and accurate. But if those fears are assuaged, there is really no reason that this technology should be artificially held back on moral grounds.
One concern surrounding the genetic baby modifications would be one around cost. If the procedure is expensive, then only the very rich would be able to ensure their children have low risk of life-threatening conditions. But an imbalance of availability is no reason to bar the practice from existing.
When it comes to fully customizing every aspect of your child genetically, that is pretty far outside of the bounds of what is acceptable. But checking for and stepping in to prevent lethal diseases is not something that should be thrown to the wayside for the sake of not wanting to play God.