I read an article about synthetic biology. The article discussed the difference between genetic engineering (the altering of an already living system) and synthetic biology (the construction of a new living system). I find the science that allows us to manufacture life very intresting. The article also talks about how controversial creating life is. Many people find it unethical to make life in a lab. Although the debate continues this science will continue to grow.
Kiki Castle I read the article, Genetic Testing to Predict Disease: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI. It discusses how it testing for certain diseases can lead to ethical issues. In the specific case study of Marybeth, her brother died when he was born because he had a loss of oxygen. She is pregnant with her second baby who is a boy and finds a mutated X chromosome, she decides to get tested even though she has a healthy four year old girl. She finds that her mother, sister, and possibly her little girl may be carriers of the mutated gene. This leads to problems because now she knows this information but has to deal with the ethical info about whether its appropriate to tell her family members and or have her daughter tested. Would this ultimately lead to different decisions her daughter would make throughout her life? I think the testing can be used in a good way to help fight, and prevent diseases or mutations being passed on but also it can be used in ways to not keep things confidential.
This article drew me in as it is an issue that I am facing right now. I always thought that getting tested and knowing what risks to take and not to take would be a smart idea for someone who has survived cancer once. But through this article it really made me process if that is the kind of life one should live. Should the results come back that you are predisposed for a disease, how would that affect the way you live? I feel like some would live life crazy and erratic to "make the most" out of the time they had before diagnosis, while some would not take any risks and live a life of fear and anxiety. Neither of these people are what I want to become. Should one know their future before their future becomes apparent? The more I think about it, the more I feel the answer should be no. There are also other problems with knowing this information, such as insurance discrimination. As much as I wish that the information would stay confidential, the moment it leaks there can be a huge raise in insurance costs. Not to mention the emotional damage it can do to a family learning that a loved one will get sick. It just doesn't seem fair. You must live life one day at a time, not in fear of what may arise in the future. Genetic testing seems to cause more turmoil than relief in my opinion. The only time i feel it would be a good idea is in infants to protect them from SIDS or other very life threatening diseases within their infantry. But even so, this can send a mother into an overprotective rage and may hold the child back forever. I think the answer for me on genetic pre-disposal would be no.
I read the "Looking for Ms or Mr Gene Right: Premarital Genetic Screening" article. This article discusses getting genetic screening done before getting married in order to see what offspring will be produced and if your parter as well as you carry a disease that could be passed on to offspring. I found it interesting that anyone would base part of the reason for marrying someone off of their genes, although getting married is about producing children, it is also about a lot more than that. You can't just not marry someone because they do not have perfect genes, and i do not believe most people would base who they marry partly off of this. On the other hand, if both partners do get married and they have recessive genes for a disease that could be potentially ftal or debilitating to theuir offspring it would be good to know so that they can make a decision whether it is worth it to have children of their own.
I read the article "Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning" by Glenn McGee. In the article, McGee explains the social and moral issues with human cloning. First, the possibility for humans cloned to be born with deformities is very high. There is also the issue that the clone will always be dependent on the parents. Due to the definition of an embryo, a clone can't even be considered so. There is even controversy as to whether or not the clone would have a soul.I believe it is unethical to clone. It is not worth the high possibility that the child will be born with deformities and have a difficult life. Also, I believe it isn't okay to mess with the natural order of things. I do not, though, agree with the opinion that the clones would not have a soul or lack the traits to be dependent from their parents. I believe the clone would be a person like any other.
I read an article about resurrecting the wooly mammoth. I found it fascinating that humans could reintroduce this long-extinct mammal into the world. One detail that was particularly interesting was that although most mammoths went extinct tens of thousands of years ago, certain populations survived longer. One one arctic island, a population survived up until 3,000 years ago. Elsewhere in the arctic, mammoth carcasses have been preserved in the permafrost. Scientists are using these discovered carcasses to extract DNA. So far, all the DNA has been to extensively damaged for use. Once suitable DNA is obtained, it will be placed in the emptied-out nucleus of an elephant’s egg cell. Then an elephant will be a surrogate for the mammoth. The article raised and responded to potential problems in four categories: legality, morality, feasibility, and potential for success. I thought the article adequately responded to each problem, but what wasn’t addressed was the cost. While I certainly believed the experiments to clone mammoths should be allowed, I would staunchly oppose government funding of the projects. Other individuals should privately invest in the project, if they desire. I look forward to developments in this idea, and I think it will be intriguing in the future.
I read the article concerning ethics about cloning. I though it was interesting how everyone has a different opinion on cloning. I feel that cloning is something that we shouldn't do because you can recreate a person but they won't be 100% the same. Their personality will be different there demeanor, because those come from experiences and not your mind. I did think it was interesting how they were going to use it possibly, as a cure for infertility. I thought that it was interesting how "One theological analysis holds that humans are co-creators with God; perhaps it is more accurate to say that humans are moving ever closer to a posture of making babies, rather than having babies. Cloning represents a remarkable test of human restraint, wisdom and institutional development, one that will in many ways identify the moral features of 21st century biotechnology." This was interesting because it shows that religion plays a major role in science to this day!
I read an article about genetically modified (GM) foods and how they could potentially be a risk to humans and animals. Something I didn't know was that when foods/crops are gentically modified, they end up with one or more genes that include a series of other genes that can cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics, transcription terminators, or can promote viral activity. I think that this is dangerous for people to be consuming -- especially learning that they can do this. Also, another thing that I learned while reading this article was that these genes can also cause your body to react in an unpredictable manner; which could lead to new allergies. After hearing a few of these facts, it makes me lean more towards not having genetically mutated foods. Would we really want to risk our health for food that lasts longer, and possibly tastes better? I honestly wouldn't. But I really liked this article because I never actually thought of genetically mutated food being bad (besides the name). It's nice to get information like this to help understand why GM foods are bad.
I read an article about a revolutionary new hypothesis regarding the evolution of the modern human being. The article refuted the once widely accepted standpoint that "suggests that modern humans evolved from archaic forms (such as Neanderthal and Homo erectus) concurrently in different regions of the world". This is now a minority standpoint as there have been many breakthroughs in the field that represent the Recent African origin hypothesis; such as that the preferred method of DNA mapping focused on the D-Loop which offers a very high degree of error due to a multitude of factors such as parallel mutations, which is when mutations occur at the same site in independent lineages. This would make the scientific findings fallible because it obscures crucial information about the environments of the individual lineages. The clear solution to this would be to utilize the information outside of the D-Loop because back mutations and parallel mutations were all but absent. I enjoyed this article because it presented dewy point of view that I had not yet been exposed to and it really made me question what I had learned in the past about the evolution of Homo Erectus to the modern human.
I chose to read the article, "Animal Cloning: ...Old MacDonald's Farm Is Not What It Used To Be" by Lauren Pecorino. The article highlighted the sciences behind animal cloning, and what's ahead with these technologies. Also, mass producing genetically engineered crops and produce high in nutrients is a magnificent application for these sciences. One of the details mentioned that I found interesting was the ability to preserve endangered species if currently practiced methods are inadequate. I also was intrigued by the incorporation, PerPETuate. Their services include the cryogenic preserving of pets for future cloning. What I wasn't entirely sure about was the methods, specifically the ones outlined in this article, to treat human diseases. What exactly is transplantation rejection? I hope we perpetuate the advancement of our technology in this field, though with all of the ethical controversies, the future for cloning is still cloudy.
I read an article on investigations that could lead to the resurrection of the woolly mammoth. The idea of bringing back this once-extinct animal is exciting, nor is there a barrier that would prevent the experiment, but there are many of those who oppose this due to issues of legality, morality, feasibility, and the potential of success. Personally, I believe that this experiment should take place, since it could become a big step forward in the science world. However, the safety of the environment should be taken into consideration. Scientists should make sure that the resurrection of the mammoth will not cause an unbalance to the environment. I hope that this experiment will play a significant role in resurrecting other extinct animals, as well as preserving current endangered animals.
I chose to read the article "Genetic Testing to Predict Disease: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI)", which basically talked about the ethical, legal, social, and moral aspects of genetic testing. I can relate to this article because my dad has an acute heart condition where he has extra muscle at the bottom of his heart. I recently went to the cardiologist and my doctor said that if they really wanted to, they could do a test for the myosin protein to see if I have the protein. However, if I showed that I had an abnormal myosin protein in my cardiac muscle we might have to submit that information to insurance companies and in the future insurance companies might be bias and choose to not insure me. I think genetic testing is useful in cases where the parents know they carry rare diseases that their offspring can develop. But, I do think that all fetuses should have the chance to live in our world.
The Article "Genetic Testing to Predict Disease: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI)" deals with the moral and ethical implications of 1. finding results on peoples genetic makeup for disease prevention, 2. screening the genes of fetuses to determine genetic issues etc, and 3. the availability of these results. The article does not lay out any clear conclusion, it only poses the question as to how far genetic testing can go. By presenting a morally ambiguous situation in which a woman discovers her unborn child may have some genetic disorder and, despite being potentially opposed to abortion, is presented with the possibility of such. In reading this article, it is still obvious the impacts presented do not matter given the potential benefits. When considering the moral implications of any action (research or otherwise), the largest factor to consider is (deontologically) the harm in the act itself. As result, one can see that there is a clear intent in testing a person that is based in helping or informing such a person. Each individual can be assumed to be their own moral judge and therefore when looking at an act the focus ought to be placed on the smallest scale possible, being what the person considering the moral action they are responsible for. Beyond that isnt a concern because one person ought not assume themselves better moral judges than another. As result, simply running genetic tests itself is not morally ambiguous as the intent is entirely based in good being to inform and potentially allow for one to prepare for any disease. In the case where the test may force life changing decisions, the action of genetic testing is still justifiable in the fact that a person has the right to make any change at any time, so adding in the factor of genetic knowledge does not present a new harm, and again allows for better understanding.
Dane Muller pd.3 I read the article Environmental Metabolomics: The Study of Disease and Toxicity in Wildlife and I leard a few things about metalolomics. First I learned what Metabolomics is. Metabolomics is the study of naturally occurring small molecules, or metabolites, in order to: understand and diagnose diseases in humans and wildlife, monitor the environment using “sentinel species,” which indicate the health of the environment assess chemical risks of pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and other household and industrial chemicals help maintain healthy stocks of animals, including fish, for farming and industry The major advantage of metabolomics for diagnosing a disease is, in humans or wildlife, this approach measures the phenotype of an organism, as well as the epigenome. When an organism becomes diseased or stressed, thus triggering specific molecular changes, the phenotype becomes altered. This change can then, in principle, be measured using metabolomics. This was really cool to me because me because Metabolomics not only studies the phenotype, but also the epigenome and how the environment effects the wildlife or human.
David Sahud Period 6 After reading the article on genetically modified foods, i have learned the dangers of these modified foods. When foods are genetically modified, some of the genes may cause bacteria to have an antibiotic resistance, cause the production transcription terminators, or can promote viral activity. Food genetically modified can unpredictably affect the human body such as by causing new allergies to form. What worries me is the lack of extensive testing of the genetically modified food. I feel we need to know exactly what we’re eating and how these foods affect our body. What should be most important is not the income of the companies who sell theses modified foods but the safety of eating these foods for humans. I understand the advantages of genetic engineering but i feel more testing should be done and the foods should be modified to be safer for human consumption.
The article Biotechnology in Crops: Issues for the Developing World by Laura Spinny addresses the advantages and concerns regarding genetically altered crops throughout the world. In 1997, an estimated 30 million acres worldwide were presumed to grow genetically modified (GM) crops. It is clear to see that currently those numbers have grown exponentially, reaching to roughly 70% of all crops grown worldwide. This allows crops to be bioengineered to have qualities that are advantageous for growth and quality of the specific crops. A positive impact of this would be growing the world’s agriculture output by 25% in the next decade or so and delivering more quality foods to consumers. However, there are a few concerning points for GM crops. One would be a monoculture, or plats lacking in diversity to be at full risk of epidemic. If a disease or plague were to infect a certain plant type, usually it does not spread due to genetic diversity of plants. Minimal diversity between plants could end in a wipeout of a crop like the potato famine in Europe. Additionally, there are financial issues of who gets paid for the crops that billions of acres are occupied with. Seeds of these crops are not easy to track and a farmer could be growing a crop unknowing that they legally belong to another person. This brings to attention biopiracy to the world. All in all, this was a great article and had a lot of relevant information for today’s world.
Trey Leonard Period 3 I read the article on Microbial Forensics.I think that it would be very cool if they could track down specific strains of a disease. If they could look at some anthrax in the US mail system and be able to track it down to a specific location and say definatively that the anthrax came from this location. It would help the prosecution in a court case to show the jury that they are 100% sure that this was the origin of the disease. However the technology to do this would cost a lot of money. Also, as it said in the article, it would be hard to educate all of the first responders and doctors to be able to diagnose the disease. The diseases used in bioterror are not widely seen diseases. However if the technology became widely available and easily used then this could be a very useful tool in trying to prosecute people.
Research around Autism is a challenge due to many factors dealing with the genetics of the disease. From the article Genetics of Autism by Michael J. Dougherty, i learned that Autism is a genetic disorder inherited from parents, it is linked to multiple genes, it is prone to be effected by the environment, and there is a lack of genealogical data. The disorder of Autism is characterized by social detachment, abnormal speech development, unusual OCD's and receptive movements as well as metal retardation. This disease effects one in seven hundred children, boys more often than girls. the study of Autism can be categorized as Behavioral genetics which is a field of research that seeks the source of discrepancies between individuals behavior. Genes surprisingly have a huge effect on personal behavior and environment isn't the only thing that shapes the was people act daily. It was found after studying the combination of nature and nurturing that effected mental retardation that more than one gene could be responsible for a normal function dealing with personality to become mutated and not function correctly. the study of twins has provided immense evidence surrounding Autism. The chance that a identical twin of person effected with autism is 90% and of a fraternal, only 10%. An international collaboration was held in 1996 where all information about Autism and other behavioral disorders was shared and further studies will hopefully someday find which genes, when mutated, trigger the development of Autism within a child. Allison Atkin p.6
The Article "Genetic Testing to Predict Disease: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI)" covers the moral and ethical issues of using results of people’s genetic makeup to prevent disease, determine genetic problems in a fetus and how the results of such tests should be made available. One issue of course being abortion (which shouldn’t be an issue). If you are pregnant and know your baby will be mentally retarded, are you still willing to raise them? Should you really have to? It’s all personal opinion, but come on a fetus isn’t self aware- it isn’t even aware of its own existence. Aborting a baby that will only have a hard life seems to me like a win win for both the parent and potential child. Honestly, though, the moral issues here are strictly on a personal level. I literally cannot stand people such as the anti-choice group, because hey, listen, your subjective and narrow religious views don’t apply to everyone. If you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one, end of story, if someone else wants to have one, it’s not your choice. Stay out of it. The basic intent to test a fetus to check for disease is good, it produces no harm itself. The actions that would result of a test might be ethically questionable to certain people.
I read Transgenic Animals: Their Benefits To Human Welfare by Endang Tri Margawati. It discussed how transgenic animals were made, and what their uses are. In my opinion, I think transgenic animals are ok to use. The benefits they provide to humanity outweigh the harm to the animal (which seems extremely minimal- in fact they didn’t even discuss it in the article). It relates specifically to me in two cases. I am lactose intolerant which means I am missing an enzyme that breaks down lactose. Lactose is present in all dairy products like milk, cheese and ice cream. They can insert a human gene into that cow that causes it to produce milk with less or no lactose. From my standpoint, this seems like a great idea. I’d love to enjoy pizza at a party. On a more serious application, they can also insert a gene that causes an animal to create human insulin. My dad has diabetes and requires an injection of insulin every time he eats. Animal-made human insulin would probably be cheaper to produce than the giant vats of synthetic insulin. Although I believe transgenic animals should be used, I can respect the viewpoints of others who think animals should be protected. Greg Przedpelski
I read the article The Genetics of Autism By: Michael J. Dougherty and learned that Autism affects the ability lead a full and independent life. This disease becomes apparent at an early age; Some signs include social detachment, mental retardation, abnormal language development, and repetitive movements.Originally it was believed that these types of conditions/diseases existed as a result of environmental factors, however research has shown that behavioral conditions are a result of both the environment as well genes. Some autistic children have a combination of both autism and savant syndrome. I found this to be particularly interesting because people with this syndrome have a rare brilliance allowing to perform significant mental feats and memorize lengthy passages and music. I would like to learn more about this syndrome and know if its presence deteriorates or improves the condition of autism. Sindhu Chadalawada
Genetic Testing to predict disease: the ethical and social issues surrounding this issue are very interesting. This test is fairly new and has given rise to new privacy issues. Genetic diseases are passed from parent to offspring. and some of these genetic disorders are very harmful and bad to live with. Not all the offspring of parents with the disease will for sure have the disorder, however they do carrie it with them in their genes. This means that it can be passed down to their offspring. The issue then is that medical records for this test and in general are confidential. However, other people, like family members may also be effected by the disease or at least be carriers of it without even knowing. The question then is should this information be kept confidential if it can help/save other people?
Bridget Anthony I read the article about DNA patents potentially creating monopolies on living organisms. The Human Genome Organization (HUGO) has been fighting for those who have determined the biological genes or functions to patent their work. They claim that patents are absolutely necessary to do good research. The CRG is completely against this, claiming that all patents do is make items more expensive and less accessible, like a monopoly, and this case is no exception. They say patents are expensive, promote secrecy, and creak unsustainable policies. The fact that DNA and genes could be patented and monopolized is just wrong. Humans are not machines; we should not but genes to put in ourselves to heal us. Everything happens for a reason, and patent genes would take away natural selection and the whole genetic variation in the population.
I chose an article about GMO's or genetically modified organisms and whether or not they are safe for us humans. The concern is that if we are manipulating the DNA of plants and animals to create resistent and resilient organisms, then are we in danger if the bacteria in our gut get a hold of some un digested DNA strand and become resistent to such things as antibiotics. One of the major issues in trying to understand GMO's is that the information and studies done on them are erroneous and not widely publicized. So, after reading through several flawed experiments, the conclusion on the dangerous nature of GMO's is rather unclear. I can give some input concerning outside information I looked up and that is about hormones being given to cows and other animals, and it appears that some scientists believe that it is not an issue to ingest these and our bodily enzymes will cleave the hormones into pieces, therefore rendering them useless and unable to harm humans. It is very evident that there needs to be more funding invested into this topic, that way we can rest assured that our food is indeed safe.
I read the article “Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations”, which talks about whate exactly it is to be a “designer baby”, the risks that come with making one, and the moral struggle of is it ok to genetically enhance your children. What I found the most interesting about the article is the many different ways available to “design” your own embryo. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is used currently to see the potential of passing on a genetic disease to your children. They are able to grow the embryo to it’s eight-cell stage, at which point they remove two of the cells and check for that particular disease gene and remove it. Although this is commonly practiced, it is not totally risk free because it is feared that taking two cells from an eight-cell embryo can cause complications in later development. There is also the possibility of cloning, which favors if you are looking to make your child better looking. The only bad thing about cloning is that it is not available and there is no genetic relation to the parent. They also will not inherit the skill set of the person you are cloning (ex. If you clone Aretha Franklin, your daughter isn’t going to automatically have her voice). Now with these two methods in mind, you begin to question if it’s a moral thing to do at all. Where do you draw the line between simple genetic therapy and enhancing genes? With all these new technologies it’s a wonder how many more years “natural selection” will be a part of the human race, and how society will be affected by it.
I read the article "Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning" by Glenn McGee. In the article, McGee explains the social and moral issues with human cloning. First, the possibility for humans cloned to be born with deformities is very high. There is also the issue that the clone will always be dependent on the parents. Due to the definition of an embryo, a clone can't even be considered so. There is even controversy as to whether or not the clone would have a soul.I believe it is unethical to clone. It is not worth the high possibility that the child will be born with deformities and have a difficult life. Also, I believe it isn't okay to mess with the natural order of things. I do not, though, agree with the opinion that the clones would not have a soul or lack the traits to be dependent from their parents. I believe the clone would be a person like any other
Genomics by Morgan Drummond P.3 I chose to read the article "Transgenic Animals: Their Benefits to Human Welfare" by Endand Tri Margawati. The article discussed how transgenic animals are made and their applications. A transgenic animal is any animal that has human genes inserted. I do not believe in animal testing but I think that the research involving transgenic animals is very helpful to science and health as a whole. Some great benefits can come out of a scientific discovery. For example, they can create animals that produce human organs. This would be a huge step forward in the medical field. It would reduce the organ donor list drastically and increase the availability of organs used for transplantation. However, this method is very bad for the animals. I think it is wrong to scientifically create an animal that's only purpose is to grow organs for human use. There are also less drastic examples of this scientific method. Scientists can create cows that produce milk with smaller amounts of lactose. This is a huge breakthrough for people who are lactose intolerant but would still like to contain milk.
I read the article “Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations”, which talks about picking the traits for your baby, the risks and the moral struggle of is it ok to genetically enhance your children. What I found the most interesting about the article is the many different ways available to “design” your own embryo. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is used currently, they are able to grow the embryo to it’s eight-cell stage, at which point they remove two of the cells and check for that particular disease gene and remove it. Although this is commonly practiced, it is not totally risk free because it is feared that taking two cells from an eight-cell embryo can cause complications in later development. There is also another option of cloning which is used for looks. But they may not inherit the skill set of the person you are cloning (ex. Athletic skill, vocal etc.). Now with these two methods in mind, you begin to question if it’s a moral thing to do at all. Where do you draw the line between simple genetic therapy and enhancing genes? With all these new technologies it’s a wonder how many more years “natural selection” will be a part of the human race, and how society will be affected by it
I read an article about synthetic biology. The article discussed the difference between genetic engineering (the altering of an already living system) and synthetic biology (the construction of a new living system). I find the science that allows us to manufacture life very intresting. The article also talks about how controversial creating life is. Many people find it unethical to make life in a lab. Although the debate continues this science will continue to grow.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteKiki Castle
ReplyDeleteI read the article, Genetic Testing to Predict Disease: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI. It discusses how it testing for certain diseases can lead to ethical issues. In the specific case study of Marybeth, her brother died when he was born because he had a loss of oxygen. She is pregnant with her second baby who is a boy and finds a mutated X chromosome, she decides to get tested even though she has a healthy four year old girl. She finds that her mother, sister, and possibly her little girl may be carriers of the mutated gene. This leads to problems because now she knows this information but has to deal with the ethical info about whether its appropriate to tell her family members and or have her daughter tested. Would this ultimately lead to different decisions her daughter would make throughout her life? I think the testing can be used in a good way to help fight, and prevent diseases or mutations being passed on but also it can be used in ways to not keep things confidential.
This article drew me in as it is an issue that I am facing right now. I always thought that getting tested and knowing what risks to take and not to take would be a smart idea for someone who has survived cancer once. But through this article it really made me process if that is the kind of life one should live. Should the results come back that you are predisposed for a disease, how would that affect the way you live? I feel like some would live life crazy and erratic to "make the most" out of the time they had before diagnosis, while some would not take any risks and live a life of fear and anxiety. Neither of these people are what I want to become. Should one know their future before their future becomes apparent? The more I think about it, the more I feel the answer should be no. There are also other problems with knowing this information, such as insurance discrimination. As much as I wish that the information would stay confidential, the moment it leaks there can be a huge raise in insurance costs. Not to mention the emotional damage it can do to a family learning that a loved one will get sick. It just doesn't seem fair. You must live life one day at a time, not in fear of what may arise in the future. Genetic testing seems to cause more turmoil than relief in my opinion. The only time i feel it would be a good idea is in infants to protect them from SIDS or other very life threatening diseases within their infantry. But even so, this can send a mother into an overprotective rage and may hold the child back forever. I think the answer for me on genetic pre-disposal would be no.
ReplyDeleteI read the "Looking for Ms or Mr Gene Right: Premarital Genetic Screening" article. This article discusses getting genetic screening done before getting married in order to see what offspring will be produced and if your parter as well as you carry a disease that could be passed on to offspring. I found it interesting that anyone would base part of the reason for marrying someone off of their genes, although getting married is about producing children, it is also about a lot more than that. You can't just not marry someone because they do not have perfect genes, and i do not believe most people would base who they marry partly off of this. On the other hand, if both partners do get married and they have recessive genes for a disease that could be potentially ftal or debilitating to theuir offspring it would be good to know so that they can make a decision whether it is worth it to have children of their own.
ReplyDeleteI read the article "Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning" by Glenn McGee. In the article, McGee explains the social and moral issues with human cloning. First, the possibility for humans cloned to be born with deformities is very high. There is also the issue that the clone will always be dependent on the parents. Due to the definition of an embryo, a clone can't even be considered so. There is even controversy as to whether or not the clone would have a soul.I believe it is unethical to clone. It is not worth the high possibility that the child will be born with deformities and have a difficult life. Also, I believe it isn't okay to mess with the natural order of things. I do not, though, agree with the opinion that the clones would not have a soul or lack the traits to be dependent from their parents. I believe the clone would be a person like any other.
ReplyDeleteI read an article about resurrecting the wooly mammoth. I found it fascinating that humans could reintroduce this long-extinct mammal into the world. One detail that was particularly interesting was that although most mammoths went extinct tens of thousands of years ago, certain populations survived longer. One one arctic island, a population survived up until 3,000 years ago. Elsewhere in the arctic, mammoth carcasses have been preserved in the permafrost. Scientists are using these discovered carcasses to extract DNA. So far, all the DNA has been to extensively damaged for use. Once suitable DNA is obtained, it will be placed in the emptied-out nucleus of an elephant’s egg cell. Then an elephant will be a surrogate for the mammoth. The article raised and responded to potential problems in four categories: legality, morality, feasibility, and potential for success. I thought the article adequately responded to each problem, but what wasn’t addressed was the cost. While I certainly believed the experiments to clone mammoths should be allowed, I would staunchly oppose government funding of the projects. Other individuals should privately invest in the project, if they desire. I look forward to developments in this idea, and I think it will be intriguing in the future.
ReplyDeleteI read the article concerning ethics about cloning. I though it was interesting how everyone has a different opinion on cloning. I feel that cloning is something that we shouldn't do because you can recreate a person but they won't be 100% the same. Their personality will be different there demeanor, because those come from experiences and not your mind. I did think it was interesting how they were going to use it possibly, as a cure for infertility. I thought that it was interesting how "One theological analysis holds that humans are co-creators with God; perhaps it is more accurate to say that humans are moving ever closer to a posture of making babies, rather than having babies. Cloning represents a remarkable test of human restraint, wisdom and institutional development, one that will in many ways identify the moral features of 21st century biotechnology." This was interesting because it shows that religion plays a major role in science to this day!
ReplyDeleteI read an article about genetically modified (GM) foods and how they could potentially be a risk to humans and animals. Something I didn't know was that when foods/crops are gentically modified, they end up with one or more genes that include a series of other genes that can cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics, transcription terminators, or can promote viral activity. I think that this is dangerous for people to be consuming -- especially learning that they can do this. Also, another thing that I learned while reading this article was that these genes can also cause your body to react in an unpredictable manner; which could lead to new allergies. After hearing a few of these facts, it makes me lean more towards not having genetically mutated foods. Would we really want to risk our health for food that lasts longer, and possibly tastes better? I honestly wouldn't. But I really liked this article because I never actually thought of genetically mutated food being bad (besides the name). It's nice to get information like this to help understand why GM foods are bad.
ReplyDeleteI read an article about a revolutionary new hypothesis regarding the evolution of the modern human being. The article refuted the once widely accepted standpoint that "suggests that modern humans evolved from archaic forms (such as Neanderthal and Homo erectus) concurrently in different regions of the world". This is now a minority standpoint as there have been many breakthroughs in the field that represent the Recent African origin hypothesis; such as that the preferred method of DNA mapping focused on the D-Loop which offers a very high degree of error due to a multitude of factors such as parallel mutations, which is when mutations occur at the same site in independent lineages. This would make the scientific findings fallible because it obscures crucial information about the environments of the individual lineages. The clear solution to this would be to utilize the information outside of the D-Loop because back mutations and parallel mutations were all but absent. I enjoyed this article because it presented dewy point of view that I had not yet been exposed to and it really made me question what I had learned in the past about the evolution of Homo Erectus to the modern human.
ReplyDeleteI chose to read the article, "Animal Cloning: ...Old MacDonald's Farm Is Not What It Used To Be" by Lauren Pecorino. The article highlighted the sciences behind animal cloning, and what's ahead with these technologies. Also, mass producing genetically engineered crops and produce high in nutrients is a magnificent application for these sciences. One of the details mentioned that I found interesting was the ability to preserve endangered species if currently practiced methods are inadequate. I also was intrigued by the incorporation, PerPETuate. Their services include the cryogenic preserving of pets for future cloning. What I wasn't entirely sure about was the methods, specifically the ones outlined in this article, to treat human diseases. What exactly is transplantation rejection? I hope we perpetuate the advancement of our technology in this field, though with all of the ethical controversies, the future for cloning is still cloudy.
ReplyDeleteI read an article on investigations that could lead to the resurrection of the woolly mammoth. The idea of bringing back this once-extinct animal is exciting, nor is there a barrier that would prevent the experiment, but there are many of those who oppose this due to issues of legality, morality, feasibility, and the potential of success. Personally, I believe that this experiment should take place, since it could become a big step forward in the science world. However, the safety of the environment should be taken into consideration. Scientists should make sure that the resurrection of the mammoth will not cause an unbalance to the environment. I hope that this experiment will play a significant role in resurrecting other extinct animals, as well as preserving current endangered animals.
ReplyDeleteI chose to read the article "Genetic Testing to Predict Disease: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI)", which basically talked about the ethical, legal, social, and moral aspects of genetic testing. I can relate to this article because my dad has an acute heart condition where he has extra muscle at the bottom of his heart. I recently went to the cardiologist and my doctor said that if they really wanted to, they could do a test for the myosin protein to see if I have the protein. However, if I showed that I had an abnormal myosin protein in my cardiac muscle we might have to submit that information to insurance companies and in the future insurance companies might be bias and choose to not insure me. I think genetic testing is useful in cases where the parents know they carry rare diseases that their offspring can develop. But, I do think that all fetuses should have the chance to live in our world.
ReplyDeleteThe Article "Genetic Testing to Predict Disease: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI)" deals with the moral and ethical implications of 1. finding results on peoples genetic makeup for disease prevention, 2. screening the genes of fetuses to determine genetic issues etc, and 3. the availability of these results. The article does not lay out any clear conclusion, it only poses the question as to how far genetic testing can go. By presenting a morally ambiguous situation in which a woman discovers her unborn child may have some genetic disorder and, despite being potentially opposed to abortion, is presented with the possibility of such. In reading this article, it is still obvious the impacts presented do not matter given the potential benefits. When considering the moral implications of any action (research or otherwise), the largest factor to consider is (deontologically) the harm in the act itself. As result, one can see that there is a clear intent in testing a person that is based in helping or informing such a person. Each individual can be assumed to be their own moral judge and therefore when looking at an act the focus ought to be placed on the smallest scale possible, being what the person considering the moral action they are responsible for. Beyond that isnt a concern because one person ought not assume themselves better moral judges than another. As result, simply running genetic tests itself is not morally ambiguous as the intent is entirely based in good being to inform and potentially allow for one to prepare for any disease. In the case where the test may force life changing decisions, the action of genetic testing is still justifiable in the fact that a person has the right to make any change at any time, so adding in the factor of genetic knowledge does not present a new harm, and again allows for better understanding.
ReplyDeleteDane Muller pd.3
ReplyDeleteI read the article Environmental Metabolomics: The Study of Disease and Toxicity in Wildlife and I leard a few things about metalolomics. First I learned what Metabolomics is. Metabolomics is the study of naturally occurring small molecules, or metabolites, in order to: understand and diagnose diseases in humans and wildlife, monitor the environment using “sentinel species,” which indicate the health of the environment assess chemical risks of pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and other household and industrial chemicals help maintain healthy stocks of animals, including fish, for farming and industry
The major advantage of metabolomics for diagnosing a disease is, in humans or wildlife, this approach measures the phenotype of an organism, as well as the epigenome. When an organism becomes diseased or stressed, thus triggering specific molecular changes, the phenotype becomes altered. This change can then, in principle, be measured using metabolomics. This was really cool to me because me because Metabolomics not only studies the phenotype, but also the epigenome and how the environment effects the wildlife or human.
David Sahud Period 6
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article on genetically modified foods, i have learned the dangers of these modified foods. When foods are genetically modified, some of the genes may cause bacteria to have an antibiotic resistance, cause the production transcription terminators, or can promote viral activity. Food genetically modified can unpredictably affect the human body such as by causing new allergies to form. What worries me is the lack of extensive testing of the genetically modified food. I feel we need to know exactly what we’re eating and how these foods affect our body. What should be most important is not the income of the companies who sell theses modified foods but the safety of eating these foods for humans. I understand the advantages of genetic engineering but i feel more testing should be done and the foods should be modified to be safer for human consumption.
The article Biotechnology in Crops: Issues for the Developing World by Laura Spinny addresses the advantages and concerns regarding genetically altered crops throughout the world. In 1997, an estimated 30 million acres worldwide were presumed to grow genetically modified (GM) crops. It is clear to see that currently those numbers have grown exponentially, reaching to roughly 70% of all crops grown worldwide. This allows crops to be bioengineered to have qualities that are advantageous for growth and quality of the specific crops. A positive impact of this would be growing the world’s agriculture output by 25% in the next decade or so and delivering more quality foods to consumers. However, there are a few concerning points for GM crops. One would be a monoculture, or plats lacking in diversity to be at full risk of epidemic. If a disease or plague were to infect a certain plant type, usually it does not spread due to genetic diversity of plants. Minimal diversity between plants could end in a wipeout of a crop like the potato famine in Europe. Additionally, there are financial issues of who gets paid for the crops that billions of acres are occupied with. Seeds of these crops are not easy to track and a farmer could be growing a crop unknowing that they legally belong to another person. This brings to attention biopiracy to the world. All in all, this was a great article and had a lot of relevant information for today’s world.
ReplyDeleteBy Jared Meschke p.6
Trey Leonard
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
I read the article on Microbial Forensics.I think that it would be very cool if they could track down specific strains of a disease. If they could look at some anthrax in the US mail system and be able to track it down to a specific location and say definatively that the anthrax came from this location. It would help the prosecution in a court case to show the jury that they are 100% sure that this was the origin of the disease. However the technology to do this would cost a lot of money. Also, as it said in the article, it would be hard to educate all of the first responders and doctors to be able to diagnose the disease. The diseases used in bioterror are not widely seen diseases. However if the technology became widely available and easily used then this could be a very useful tool in trying to prosecute people.
Research around Autism is a challenge due to many factors dealing with the genetics of the disease. From the article Genetics of Autism by Michael J. Dougherty, i learned that Autism is a genetic disorder inherited from parents, it is linked to multiple genes, it is prone to be effected by the environment, and there is a lack of genealogical data. The disorder of Autism is characterized by social detachment, abnormal speech development, unusual OCD's and receptive movements as well as metal retardation. This disease effects one in seven hundred children, boys more often than girls. the study of Autism can be categorized as Behavioral genetics which is a field of research that seeks the source of discrepancies between individuals behavior. Genes surprisingly have a huge effect on personal behavior and environment isn't the only thing that shapes the was people act daily. It was found after studying the combination of nature and nurturing that effected mental retardation that more than one gene could be responsible for a normal function dealing with personality to become mutated and not function correctly. the study of twins has provided immense evidence surrounding Autism. The chance that a identical twin of person effected with autism is 90% and of a fraternal, only 10%. An international collaboration was held in 1996 where all information about Autism and other behavioral disorders was shared and further studies will hopefully someday find which genes, when mutated, trigger the development of Autism within a child.
ReplyDeleteAllison Atkin
p.6
The Article "Genetic Testing to Predict Disease: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI)" covers the moral and ethical issues of using results of people’s genetic makeup to prevent disease, determine genetic problems in a fetus and how the results of such tests should be made available. One issue of course being abortion (which shouldn’t be an issue). If you are pregnant and know your baby will be mentally retarded, are you still willing to raise them? Should you really have to? It’s all personal opinion, but come on a fetus isn’t self aware- it isn’t even aware of its own existence. Aborting a baby that will only have a hard life seems to me like a win win for both the parent and potential child. Honestly, though, the moral issues here are strictly on a personal level. I literally cannot stand people such as the anti-choice group, because hey, listen, your subjective and narrow religious views don’t apply to everyone. If you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one, end of story, if someone else wants to have one, it’s not your choice. Stay out of it. The basic intent to test a fetus to check for disease is good, it produces no harm itself. The actions that would result of a test might be ethically questionable to certain people.
ReplyDeleteI read Transgenic Animals: Their Benefits To Human Welfare by Endang Tri Margawati. It discussed how transgenic animals were made, and what their uses are. In my opinion, I think transgenic animals are ok to use. The benefits they provide to humanity outweigh the harm to the animal (which seems extremely minimal- in fact they didn’t even discuss it in the article). It relates specifically to me in two cases. I am lactose intolerant which means I am missing an enzyme that breaks down lactose. Lactose is present in all dairy products like milk, cheese and ice cream. They can insert a human gene into that cow that causes it to produce milk with less or no lactose. From my standpoint, this seems like a great idea. I’d love to enjoy pizza at a party. On a more serious application, they can also insert a gene that causes an animal to create human insulin. My dad has diabetes and requires an injection of insulin every time he eats. Animal-made human insulin would probably be cheaper to produce than the giant vats of synthetic insulin. Although I believe transgenic animals should be used, I can respect the viewpoints of others who think animals should be protected.
ReplyDeleteGreg Przedpelski
I read the article The Genetics of Autism By: Michael J. Dougherty and learned that Autism affects the ability lead a full and independent life. This disease becomes apparent at an early age; Some signs include social detachment, mental retardation, abnormal language development, and repetitive movements.Originally it was believed that these types of conditions/diseases existed as a result of environmental factors, however research has shown that behavioral conditions are a result of both the environment as well genes. Some autistic children have a combination of both autism and savant syndrome. I found this to be particularly interesting because people with this syndrome have a rare brilliance allowing to perform significant mental feats and memorize lengthy passages and music. I would like to learn more about this syndrome and know if its presence deteriorates or improves the condition of autism.
ReplyDeleteSindhu Chadalawada
Genetic Testing to predict disease:
ReplyDeletethe ethical and social issues surrounding this issue are very interesting. This test is fairly new and has given rise to new privacy issues. Genetic diseases are passed from parent to offspring. and some of these genetic disorders are very harmful and bad to live with. Not all the offspring of parents with the disease will for sure have the disorder, however they do carrie it with them in their genes. This means that it can be passed down to their offspring. The issue then is that medical records for this test and in general are confidential. However, other people, like family members may also be effected by the disease or at least be carriers of it without even knowing. The question then is should this information be kept confidential if it can help/save other people?
Bridget Anthony
ReplyDeleteI read the article about DNA patents potentially creating monopolies on living organisms. The Human Genome Organization (HUGO) has been fighting for those who have determined the biological genes or functions to patent their work. They claim that patents are absolutely necessary to do good research. The CRG is completely against this, claiming that all patents do is make items more expensive and less accessible, like a monopoly, and this case is no exception. They say patents are expensive, promote secrecy, and creak unsustainable policies. The fact that DNA and genes could be patented and monopolized is just wrong. Humans are not machines; we should not but genes to put in ourselves to heal us. Everything happens for a reason, and patent genes would take away natural selection and the whole genetic variation in the population.
I chose an article about GMO's or genetically modified organisms and whether or not they are safe for us humans. The concern is that if we are manipulating the DNA of plants and animals to create resistent and resilient organisms, then are we in danger if the bacteria in our gut get a hold of some un digested DNA strand and become resistent to such things as antibiotics. One of the major issues in trying to understand GMO's is that the information and studies done on them are erroneous and not widely publicized. So, after reading through several flawed experiments, the conclusion on the dangerous nature of GMO's is rather unclear. I can give some input concerning outside information I looked up and that is about hormones being given to cows and other animals, and it appears that some scientists believe that it is not an issue to ingest these and our bodily enzymes will cleave the hormones into pieces, therefore rendering them useless and unable to harm humans. It is very evident that there needs to be more funding invested into this topic, that way we can rest assured that our food is indeed safe.
ReplyDelete-Aidan
I read the article “Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations”, which talks about whate exactly it is to be a “designer baby”, the risks that come with making one, and the moral struggle of is it ok to genetically enhance your children. What I found the most interesting about the article is the many different ways available to “design” your own embryo. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is used currently to see the potential of passing on a genetic disease to your children. They are able to grow the embryo to it’s eight-cell stage, at which point they remove two of the cells and check for that particular disease gene and remove it. Although this is commonly practiced, it is not totally risk free because it is feared that taking two cells from an eight-cell embryo can cause complications in later development. There is also the possibility of cloning, which favors if you are looking to make your child better looking. The only bad thing about cloning is that it is not available and there is no genetic relation to the parent. They also will not inherit the skill set of the person you are cloning (ex. If you clone Aretha Franklin, your daughter isn’t going to automatically have her voice). Now with these two methods in mind, you begin to question if it’s a moral thing to do at all. Where do you draw the line between simple genetic therapy and enhancing genes? With all these new technologies it’s a wonder how many more years “natural selection” will be a part of the human race, and how society will be affected by it.
ReplyDeleteI read the article "Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning" by Glenn McGee. In the article, McGee explains the social and moral issues with human cloning. First, the possibility for humans cloned to be born with deformities is very high. There is also the issue that the clone will always be dependent on the parents. Due to the definition of an embryo, a clone can't even be considered so. There is even controversy as to whether or not the clone would have a soul.I believe it is unethical to clone. It is not worth the high possibility that the child will be born with deformities and have a difficult life. Also, I believe it isn't okay to mess with the natural order of things. I do not, though, agree with the opinion that the clones would not have a soul or lack the traits to be dependent from their parents. I believe the clone would be a person like any other
ReplyDeleteGenomics by Morgan Drummond P.3
ReplyDeleteI chose to read the article "Transgenic Animals: Their Benefits to Human Welfare" by Endand Tri Margawati. The article discussed how transgenic animals are made and their applications. A transgenic animal is any animal that has human genes inserted. I do not believe in animal testing but I think that the research involving transgenic animals is very helpful to science and health as a whole. Some great benefits can come out of a scientific discovery. For example, they can create animals that produce human organs. This would be a huge step forward in the medical field. It would reduce the organ donor list drastically and increase the availability of organs used for transplantation. However, this method is very bad for the animals. I think it is wrong to scientifically create an animal that's only purpose is to grow organs for human use. There are also less drastic examples of this scientific method. Scientists can create cows that produce milk with smaller amounts of lactose. This is a huge breakthrough for people who are lactose intolerant but would still like to contain milk.
I read the article “Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations”, which talks about picking the traits for your baby, the risks and the moral struggle of is it ok to genetically enhance your children. What I found the most interesting about the article is the many different ways available to “design” your own embryo. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is used currently, they are able to grow the embryo to it’s eight-cell stage, at which point they remove two of the cells and check for that particular disease gene and remove it. Although this is commonly practiced, it is not totally risk free because it is feared that taking two cells from an eight-cell embryo can cause complications in later development. There is also another option of cloning which is used for looks. But they may not inherit the skill set of the person you are cloning (ex. Athletic skill, vocal etc.). Now with these two methods in mind, you begin to question if it’s a moral thing to do at all. Where do you draw the line between simple genetic therapy and enhancing genes? With all these new technologies it’s a wonder how many more years “natural selection” will be a part of the human race, and how society will be affected by it
ReplyDelete