| Welcome to The Snipers Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in polls, and introducing yourself to our entire community. Registration is simple and fast! Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Biotechnology; For or Against | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:04 am (207 Views) | |
| DeMaGoG | Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:04 am Post #1 |
|
Level 23
|
So I plan on being involved in genetic engineering and since it is such an important topic I was wondering what yall think of biotechnology. I'm gona include a research paper I did last semester on biotech ethics which yall can analyze and such. That should include all of my views on biotechnology so just read it for my arguements. Essay: The Ethical Aspects of Biotechnology and the Future Thereof Once man discovered that DNA is the genetic material a new era was born. This would be an era nearly free of diseases and cancer. People would be stronger, faster, more intelligent and even more attractive. This would be, in truth, an era of prosperity. Yet it has been over half a century since this discovery and people are still getting cancer and catching diseases. But how could this be, seeing as the benefits are so great? What could there possibly be that is more important than the prosperity of the human race? This anti-prosperous idea is ethics. Many believe that biotechnology will go against religion and other ethical topics. So the question to ask is, "What is the future of biotechnology and how will ethics guide the course?" The answer is obvious, but most are too afraid to admit it. However, there will come a day when nearly all aspects of biotechnology are widely accepted, and the era of prosperity can begin. Many areas of biotechnology are already accepted. One of the most recognizable uses of biotechnology is its use in forensics. Forensic scientists are able to compare the DNA gathered from crime scenes to the DNA of suspects. Carl Cranor calls this "one of the most significant benefits of current DNA research" (Cranor). This technique has been used to great success in the past two decades, despite the mistakes made by one crime lab in Houston, Texas. Bioinformatics has been a huge success as well. Although most do not know what bioinformatics is, everyone knows what is being talked about when the Human Genome Project is mentioned. The goal of the Human Genome Project was to sequence the genetic code of human DNA. This was no easy task. It began in 1990 and was completed in 2003, although some details are still being discovered. This project caused great advances in computer science as well because scientists needed faster processors to sequence the three billion base pairs in the human genome. Not only have scientists decoded the human genome but many other species' as well, including the mouse and fly. A little known area of biotechnology is DNA computing. These computers are made of DNA and enzymes instead of silicon and are able to compute certain problems faster than their silicon counterparts. Genealogists are using biotechnology to trace the roots of families back several generations. All of these techniques are accepted by the general population. There are no laws forbidding their practice or use and will remain in use for some time to come. However, once biotechnologists begin to talk of changing an organism's genetic sequence, flags are raised. Reinhard Low notes that "in some cases justification is required... It does not mean, however, that these cases are automatically immoral, only that they have to be carefully considered from a moral point of view" (Low). The changing of an organism's DNA is known as genetic engineering. Scientists are able to change the genetic code of any living organism. It is easiest to change the DNA of bacteria just by mixing them with other DNA. These genetically modified bacteria can be made to produce certain chemicals that can be used in industries. One of the most commonly used products of genetically altered bacteria is insulin. The alteration of bacteria's DNA is basically the only form of genetic engineering that is not challenged by biotechnology ethicists or religious activists. Yet the next level of genetic engineering is with multi-cellular organisms, and it is here that problems arise. Over the past few years, scientists have introduced genetically altered crops. These crops are larger, more nutritious, disease resistant and provide higher yields than regular crops. Bioethicists have been scrutinizing genetically altered crops since the first thought of them. They say that heavy reliance on these crops could lead to the creation of a new virus that these plants have no resistance to. This would wipe out the agriculture industry as we know it. However, with crops spread out over large areas, increased monitoring of unhealthy plants and several types of genetically altered crops, this threat can be reduced to a minimum. Another threat, according to Robert Colwell, is that these plants could hybridize with pest plants creating much more difficult pest plants to get rid of (Colwell) Scientists have also been altering the genetic make-up of animals. This can be done just after an egg has been fertilized or in cells that reproduce frequently, such as skin cells; however, the former is much more practical. Through these methods scientists have created animals such as glow-in-the-dark pigs, naked rats and a cow that is resistant to hoof and mouth disease, a highly contagious disease that can lead to death. Religious groups are more apt to be in opposition of such uses of this technology. They claim that changing the genetic make-up of living organisms is "playing God." However, this argument can be shot down through simple logic. The fact is, DNA is changing all the time. This occurs when cells reproduce or when viruses infect cells. Since DNA is changing constantly, there is no reason we cannot change an organism's DNA. Another way to show that this is not "playing God," is simply by looking through the Bible. I have yet to find a verse in the Bible stating, "Thou shall not change another organism's DNA." Put simply, God gave us the ability to change DNA so that we could use this technology to better mankind. This brings up the subject of human genetic engineering. This is the most controversial of the areas of biotechnology. Through the alteration of genes, humans can be given traits they once only dreamed of. Humans will be faster, stronger and more intelligent, yet the possibilities do not end there. Possibly the most popular aspect of human engineering will be the ability to change what a person will look like. This does not merely mean more beautiful people. Scientists could give people the ability to use camouflage or just change the color of their irises or finger nails. Yet all of these things are challenged by both religious groups and bioethicists. Religious groups, again, state that this is "playing God," a claim already proven false. Michael Sandel believes that "genetic engineering threatens to banish our appreciation of life as a gift" (Sandel). While Sandel is against human enhancement, Howard Trachtman is all for it, stating, "Enhancement is a new term that is in vogue to describe what doctors have been doing since time immemorial, namely working to improve the lot of the patients they care for" (Trachtman). Even with the certain outcry against beauty alteration they will make few ripples because beauty alteration is already accepted in its physical form known as plastic surgery. These people are merely afraid of the unknown. The idea of a greater race of man that was created by man's hand and not God's is preposterous to them. But God gave man the ability to change things, and change we must. Bioethicists, on the other hand, have much more logical concerns than their religious counterparts. They have proposed the idea that changing human's DNA will lead to new hierarchies. This is due to the idea that only rich people will be able to afford the best genes. This will cause the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer. Also, those with better genes would be offered better jobs and get better benefits than those who can afford few or no genetic alterations. They will be given better health care and life insurance plans. It is here that bioethicists make their greatest stand and it is here that biotechnology will have its greatest battle. Maurie Markman worries that "people will deny health insurance or employment to people who are at increased risk of developing a major disease, based on their genes" (Markman). Another aspect of biotechnology is cloning. No humans have ever been cloned, but many animals have been successfully cloned, including sheep, cats and deer. The only likely application of human cloning would be to harvest organs; however, this method would be too slow to be practical and much too cruel to the cloned individual. Mae-Wan Ho notes that "there is a virtual unanimity among doctors and scientists that the technique is a~untested and unsafe and morally unacceptable'" (Ho). Stem cells will likely be the method by which scientists grow organs for transplant. In fact, scientists have already grown a bladder in the laboratory and a lower jaw in a man's back using stem cells. Stem cells are a controversial issue in and of themselves. These cells are able to become any cell in the body, which makes them great for creating and repairing organs. However, the method of obtaining these stem cells is quite controversial. This method involves removing the embryo from a mother and using these unspecialized cells as the stem cells. As David Baltimore states, "By treating the use of such stem cells as akin to murder, we would lose a great deal" (Baltimore). However, according to President Bush, "Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards" (Bush). Embryonic stem cells have the widest range of cells they can become. Cells in fat can also be used, but they have fewer applications. One recent discovery has shown that skin cells may be able to become many types of cells. This discovery could potentially blow open the door of stem cell research, but there are several things that need to be worked out first. Weighing the positives and negatives of each biotechnology area can help predict the future of the subject. Research in bacterial genetics will continue, likely without any controversies. This research will also lead to new drugs and likely to better computers because they will be required to calculate complex algorithms to design bacteria with a specific job. Eventually, the world will become heavily dependent upon genetically altered crops, despite the warnings of some bioethicists. This dependency will be due mostly in part to battling world hunger. With the ability to create more nutritious crops in greater abundance, this goal is much easier to obtain. The religious groups that once proclaimed genetic alteration a sin will be using it just as often as anyone else. Cattle and other livestock will be genetically altered as well. Cows will be genetically altered to have more meat and the milk they produce will be more nutritious and have more beneficial enzymes to aid in digestion. Sheep will have more wool and marine life will even be larger. Human gene alteration will be accepted in its entirety. Gregory Stock claims, "Give these technologies a decade and they will be the cutting edge of human biological change" (Stock). The improvements scientists can make are so beneficial that only after a couple decades one will be able to see the dramatic change in overall human prosperity. This will also increase the rate of logical expansion exponentially due to people having extremely high intelligence. The military will also benefit greatly from human genetic engineering. Soldiers will have the ability to camouflage their very skin and have infrared vision, echolocation and even electromagnetic sensors to locate enemies. While these ideas sound ludicrous now, the sources of these genes are already here. Snakes, dolphins, and sharks each have one of these traits, and it is highly likely that each will be adaptable to humans. Diseases and cancer will nearly be wiped out. This will increase the lifespan of the average person drastically. Human cloning will likely remain obsolete, seeing as there are no known benefits of its practice. Stem cells will be used to great extent, although the possibilities of their use could be limited. From an economic standpoint, these technologies will carry great incentives for all involved. Biotechnology will be used by practically every company dealing with life and even by some computer companies. Politically, support of such technologies will be of great importance in any campaign. People will begin yearning for ways to improve their lives, and the only way to do this is by creating laws protecting the rights of those who are genetically altered or deal with genetically altered products. However, this political move will be slow because an all out push would be too sudden for the people who are not ready for such a giant step. Despite these great aspects, some believe biotechnology will be a negative rather than a positive. One great example of this pessimistic view is the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. This book takes place several years in the future. The people are all created in test tubes and through genetic engineering and other methods the babies are given certain intelligence and assigned a lifestyle even before their birth. Through brainwashing the subjects of this distant future are always content despite their lack of true freedom. However, this view, and many others, is to the extreme and such events could truly never take place. In truth, biotechnology has such great benefits that religion and ethics will one day have very few deciding factors in the area. As the years progress and new technologies are discovered, people will become more and more accepting of these benefits and be willing to change. As stated earlier, fear of the unknown is one of the major issues at this moment. Once people overcome this fear, the era of prosperity can begin. Hope you enjoyed! |
![]() |
|
| Druzil | Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:08 am Post #2 |
|
Level 7
|
I'm more interested in how one person can say yall and understand biotechnology than your paper. I call shenanigans. |
![]() |
|
| DeMaGoG | Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:26 am Post #3 |
|
Level 23
|
Considering that "yall" is dialect, there is nothing wrong with it. If you don't like dialect then you're SOL 'cuz everyone uses it. Also your sentence didn't make much sense, and this topic is for biotechnology, not dialect, so stick to the topic, and while you're at it, make a topic about dialect so you can be happy. |
![]() |
|
| Druzil | Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:01 am Post #4 |
|
Level 7
|
Haha, you became defensive awfully fast. And for the record, I don't say yall, so you're wrong. I couldn't care less if it's dialect and not on the topic of biotechnology, my observation made me laugh so suck me so you can be happy. Watch the flames, and stay on topic. |
![]() |
|
| Hanabito | Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:49 am Post #5 |
![]()
Level 26
|
he said everybody uses dialect, not necessarily yall edit: that thing is way too damn long lol |
![]() |
|
| DeMaGoG | Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:38 am Post #6 |
|
Level 23
|
Ya I kinda made this topic for highly oppinionated people that would argue with or against me haha... If you want the gist of it then just read the first and last paragraphs. |
![]() |
|
| iLLioNaiRe | Mon Apr 7, 2008 4:32 pm Post #7 |
|
Level 6
|
Take my future career less. Well, back to reading this .. essay... |
![]() |
|
| TeaLaGe | Mon Apr 7, 2008 6:24 pm Post #8 |
|
Level 50
|
paragraph your work please next time. |
![]() |
|
| DeMaGoG | Mon Apr 7, 2008 6:55 pm Post #9 |
|
Level 23
|
Ya well it was paragraphed, but the file wouldn't open on my computer for some reason, so I just went on turnitin.com and found it and copy/pasted at and didn't really feel like finding the starts of paragraphs... the essay doesn't have to be read though, it's basically an easy way for me to go back and find points I already made to combat the expected arguements, which ever ensued... if you want it paragraphed though here it is... The Ethical Aspects of Biotechnology and the Future Thereof Once man discovered that DNA is the genetic material a new era was born. This would be an era nearly free of diseases and cancer. People would be stronger, faster, more intelligent and even more attractive. This would be, in truth, an era of prosperity. Yet it has been over half a century since this discovery and people are still getting cancer and catching diseases. But how could this be, seeing as the benefits are so great? What could there possibly be that is more important than the prosperity of the human race? This anti-prosperous idea is ethics. Many believe that biotechnology will go against religion and other ethical topics. So the question to ask is, "What is the future of biotechnology and how will ethics guide the course?" The answer is obvious, but most are too afraid to admit it. However, there will come a day when nearly all aspects of biotechnology are widely accepted, and the era of prosperity can begin. Many areas of biotechnology are already accepted. One of the most recognizable uses of biotechnology is its use in forensics. Forensic scientists are able to compare the DNA gathered from crime scenes to the DNA of suspects. Carl Cranor calls this "one of the most significant benefits of current DNA research" (Cranor). This technique has been used to great success in the past two decades, despite the mistakes made by one crime lab in Houston, Texas. Bioinformatics has been a huge success as well. Although most do not know what bioinformatics is, everyone knows what is being talked about when the Human Genome Project is mentioned. The goal of the Human Genome Project was to sequence the genetic code of human DNA. This was no easy task. It began in 1990 and was completed in 2003, although some details are still being discovered. This project caused great advances in computer science as well because scientists needed faster processors to sequence the three billion base pairs in the human genome. Not only have scientists decoded the human genome but many other species' as well, including the mouse and fly. A little known area of biotechnology is DNA computing. These computers are made of DNA and enzymes instead of silicon and are able to compute certain problems faster than their silicon counterparts. Genealogists are using biotechnology to trace the roots of families back several generations. All of these techniques are accepted by the general population. There are no laws forbidding their practice or use and will remain in use for some time to come. However, once biotechnologists begin to talk of changing an organism's genetic sequence, flags are raised. Reinhard Low notes that "in some cases justification is required... It does not mean, however, that these cases are automatically immoral, only that they have to be carefully considered from a moral point of view" (Low). The changing of an organism's DNA is known as genetic engineering. Scientists are able to change the genetic code of any living organism. It is easiest to change the DNA of bacteria just by mixing them with other DNA. These genetically modified bacteria can be made to produce certain chemicals that can be used in industries. One of the most commonly used products of genetically altered bacteria is insulin. The alteration of bacteria's DNA is basically the only form of genetic engineering that is not challenged by biotechnology ethicists or religious activists. Yet the next level of genetic engineering is with multi-cellular organisms, and it is here that problems arise. Over the past few years, scientists have introduced genetically altered crops. These crops are larger, more nutritious, disease resistant and provide higher yields than regular crops. Bioethicists have been scrutinizing genetically altered crops since the first thought of them. They say that heavy reliance on these crops could lead to the creation of a new virus that these plants have no resistance to. This would wipe out the agriculture industry as we know it. However, with crops spread out over large areas, increased monitoring of unhealthy plants and several types of genetically altered crops, this threat can be reduced to a minimum. Another threat, according to Robert Colwell, is that these plants could hybridize with pest plants creating much more difficult pest plants to get rid of (Colwell) Scientists have also been altering the genetic make-up of animals. This can be done just after an egg has been fertilized or in cells that reproduce frequently, such as skin cells; however, the former is much more practical. Through these methods scientists have created animals such as glow-in-the-dark pigs, naked rats and a cow that is resistant to hoof and mouth disease, a highly contagious disease that can lead to death. Religious groups are more apt to be in opposition of such uses of this technology. They claim that changing the genetic make-up of living organisms is "playing God." However, this argument can be shot down through simple logic. The fact is, DNA is changing all the time. This occurs when cells reproduce or when viruses infect cells. Since DNA is changing constantly, there is no reason we cannot change an organism's DNA. Another way to show that this is not "playing God," is simply by looking through the Bible. I have yet to find a verse in the Bible stating, "Thou shall not change another organism's DNA." Put simply, God gave us the ability to change DNA so that we could use this technology to better mankind. This brings up the subject of human genetic engineering. This is the most controversial of the areas of biotechnology. Through the alteration of genes, humans can be given traits they once only dreamed of. Humans will be faster, stronger and more intelligent, yet the possibilities do not end there. Possibly the most popular aspect of human engineering will be the ability to change what a person will look like. This does not merely mean more beautiful people. Scientists could give people the ability to use camouflage or just change the color of their irises or finger nails. Yet all of these things are challenged by both religious groups and bioethicists. Religious groups, again, state that this is "playing God," a claim already proven false. Michael Sandel believes that "genetic engineering threatens to banish our appreciation of life as a gift" (Sandel). While Sandel is against human enhancement, Howard Trachtman is all for it, stating, "Enhancement is a new term that is in vogue to describe what doctors have been doing since time immemorial, namely working to improve the lot of the patients they care for" (Trachtman). Even with the certain outcry against beauty alteration they will make few ripples because beauty alteration is already accepted in its physical form known as plastic surgery. These people are merely afraid of the unknown. The idea of a greater race of man that was created by man's hand and not God's is preposterous to them. But God gave man the ability to change things, and change we must. Bioethicists, on the other hand, have much more logical concerns than their religious counterparts. They have proposed the idea that changing human's DNA will lead to new hierarchies. This is due to the idea that only rich people will be able to afford the best genes. This will cause the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer. Also, those with better genes would be offered better jobs and get better benefits than those who can afford few or no genetic alterations. They will be given better health care and life insurance plans. It is here that bioethicists make their greatest stand and it is here that biotechnology will have its greatest battle. Maurie Markman worries that "people will deny health insurance or employment to people who are at increased risk of developing a major disease, based on their genes" (Markman). Another aspect of biotechnology is cloning. No humans have ever been cloned, but many animals have been successfully cloned, including sheep, cats and deer. The only likely application of human cloning would be to harvest organs; however, this method would be too slow to be practical and much too cruel to the cloned individual. Mae-Wan Ho notes that "there is a virtual unanimity among doctors and scientists that the technique is a~untested and unsafe and morally unacceptable'" (Ho). Stem cells will likely be the method by which scientists grow organs for transplant. In fact, scientists have already grown a bladder in the laboratory and a lower jaw in a man's back using stem cells. Stem cells are a controversial issue in and of themselves. These cells are able to become any cell in the body, which makes them great for creating and repairing organs. However, the method of obtaining these stem cells is quite controversial. This method involves removing the embryo from a mother and using these unspecialized cells as the stem cells. As David Baltimore states, "By treating the use of such stem cells as akin to murder, we would lose a great deal" (Baltimore). However, according to President Bush, "Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards" (Bush). Embryonic stem cells have the widest range of cells they can become. Cells in fat can also be used, but they have fewer applications. One recent discovery has shown that skin cells may be able to become many types of cells. This discovery could potentially blow open the door of stem cell research, but there are several things that need to be worked out first. Weighing the positives and negatives of each biotechnology area can help predict the future of the subject. Research in bacterial genetics will continue, likely without any controversies. This research will also lead to new drugs and likely to better computers because they will be required to calculate complex algorithms to design bacteria with a specific job. Eventually, the world will become heavily dependent upon genetically altered crops, despite the warnings of some bioethicists. This dependency will be due mostly in part to battling world hunger. With the ability to create more nutritious crops in greater abundance, this goal is much easier to obtain. The religious groups that once proclaimed genetic alteration a sin will be using it just as often as anyone else. Cattle and other livestock will be genetically altered as well. Cows will be genetically altered to have more meat and the milk they produce will be more nutritious and have more beneficial enzymes to aid in digestion. Sheep will have more wool and marine life will even be larger. Human gene alteration will be accepted in its entirety. Gregory Stock claims, "Give these technologies a decade and they will be the cutting edge of human biological change" (Stock). The improvements scientists can make are so beneficial that only after a couple decades one will be able to see the dramatic change in overall human prosperity. This will also increase the rate of logical expansion exponentially due to people having extremely high intelligence. The military will also benefit greatly from human genetic engineering. Soldiers will have the ability to camouflage their very skin and have infrared vision, echolocation and even electromagnetic sensors to locate enemies. While these ideas sound ludicrous now, the sources of these genes are already here. Snakes, dolphins, and sharks each have one of these traits, and it is highly likely that each will be adaptable to humans. Diseases and cancer will nearly be wiped out. This will increase the lifespan of the average person drastically. Human cloning will likely remain obsolete, seeing as there are no known benefits of its practice. Stem cells will be used to great extent, although the possibilities of their use could be limited. From an economic standpoint, these technologies will carry great incentives for all involved. Biotechnology will be used by practically every company dealing with life and even by some computer companies. Politically, support of such technologies will be of great importance in any campaign. People will begin yearning for ways to improve their lives, and the only way to do this is by creating laws protecting the rights of those who are genetically altered or deal with genetically altered products. However, this political move will be slow because an all out push would be too sudden for the people who are not ready for such a giant step. Despite these great aspects, some believe biotechnology will be a negative rather than a positive. One great example of this pessimistic view is the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. This book takes place several years in the future. The people are all created in test tubes and through genetic engineering and other methods the babies are given certain intelligence and assigned a lifestyle even before their birth. Through brainwashing the subjects of this distant future are always content despite their lack of true freedom. However, this view, and many others, is to the extreme and such events could truly never take place. In truth, biotechnology has such great benefits that religion and ethics will one day have very few deciding factors in the area. As the years progress and new technologies are discovered, people will become more and more accepting of these benefits and be willing to change. As stated earlier, fear of the unknown is one of the major issues at this moment. Once people overcome this fear, the era of prosperity can begin. |
![]() |
|
| TeaLaGe | Mon Apr 7, 2008 9:06 pm Post #10 |
|
Level 50
|
wait wait did u write this? |
![]() |
|
| DeMaGoG | Mon Apr 7, 2008 11:57 pm Post #11 |
|
Level 23
|
Ya I did haha, sorry, did I not say that in the original post? I thought I did... my mistake I guess. Edit: So I just looked, and I did say I wrote the essay in my original post. No hard feelings though haha ;) |
![]() |
|
| Lintendo | Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:08 am Post #12 |
|
Level 5
|
interesting, clones wars!, its interesting that one of the good points of genetic engineering is that it may help us fight wars and kill people better. |
![]() |
|
| Druzil | Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:17 am Post #13 |
|
Level 7
|
Murderess tendencies make me feel funny inside :lol: |
![]() |
|
| TeaLaGe | Thu May 8, 2008 1:05 am Post #14 |
|
Level 50
|
biotechnology...yeah we need it. WE NEED ANOTHER WORLD WAR SO IN THE FUTURE, EVERYONE WILL KNOW WHO DID WHAT, oops caps ^^ |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · Serious Discussions · Next Topic » |








3:09 PM Jul 11