Philosophers and scientists alike have pondered over the question, why are we here? Although the answer to this question lies in the eye of the beholder, it’s in human nature for all of us to formulate a similar answer. Regardless of religious affiliation we can all agree there is some higher purpose. This purpose, however, becomes twisted and distorted through personal religious beliefs. Being raised by a very religious mother, I was told that our purpose on Earth is to serve our Lord and Savior. As years went by and different viewpoints infiltrated my life I rejected my former ideology and accepted a somewhat broader, more politically correct viewpoint. I now believe that people are here to help each other and to make the world more bearable for all. While this conception seems noble, some may argue that science is slowly erasing our moral compass. I agree that there is some bad science out there but as dark as this new technology seems, there is a silver lining. Take for example somatic gene therapy. Upon hearing the words “gene therapy” people automatically become hostile and begin making false claims that scientists wish to play God. Little do these critics know that there is more than one type of gene therapy. The gene therapy that they are thinking of is Germline genetic engineering. McKibben explains Germline engineering in his book titled Enough, “they would tease apart the cells of that embryo, and then, selecting one, they would add to, delete, or modify some of its genes” (McKibben 10). People fear that this will allow scientists to create superhuman creatures, thus making the remainder of society obsolete. Somatic gene therapy, the lesser-known form of genetic engineering, serves the purpose of human life, instead of the desire to create monstrous creatures. McKibben describes somatic gene therapy by stating that “Somatic gene therapy is…much like medicine.” (McKibben 9) What he means is that instead of altering genes at birth scientists introduce microbes containing crucial genetic information that will virtually eliminate heredity defects, such as cystic fibrosis. By allowing the progress of certain sciences society as a whole can rid itself of unfortunate genetic defects. A world without disease would be the ultimate goal of society. What people have to learn is that there is a line between helping each other people and helping yourself. Under no circumstances should genetic engineering be used to “improve” children of the future. Lee M. Silver, author of Challenging Nature, claims that germline genetic engineering will “pull children from any starting point on the curve to a higher point” (Silver 348). Silver assumes that by allowing the advancement of technology society will benefit immensely. This however is not the case. Being able to choose certain genes for your child would form what McKibben describes an “arms war.” Instead of benefiting society people will become like software for a computer. Every new advancement would be put into the new offspring which would make ever generation before that “obselete.” This is why there must be a line for genetic engineering. This line would be monitored by a group similar to the United Nations, except with actual power. Citizens of every major country would vote for their representive to the board. The board would then set down a set of guidelines to follow for genetic engineering. For example if the board bans all germline engineering people that were found guilty of such violations would get heavily fined and stripped of degrees. If the violator continues to cross the line jail-time could be deemed as an acceptable punishment. The board allows science to progress but prohibits it from getting to out of control. Genetic engineering is not evil, nor is it immoral. When used correctly genetic engineering can help answer the question to “why are we here?” We’re here to help each other out and to make the world a better place for all. Genetic engineering allows scientists to eliminate diseases and to cure heredity disorders before people are affected by them.
I really like this essay, you struck a bipartisan chord and that is something needed on an issue this controversial. Now initially, I believe humans do not have a purpose and from a scientific viewpoint I believe that is true. But saying that we should all help eachother, was a purpose that we can all adopt and all relate to. Your plans on Germline engineering should have addressed whether or not we could still research it, and just banned some of its practices. Also since you are for changing the genetics after birth, why not allow the change of certain genes that cause diseases before birth? It would make it easier because you would just have to do it once, so every new generation wouldnt have to go through the therapy. If done effectively and in a global effort, the gene could cease to exist. The line about the UN was funny. This United Nations is an ambitious idea, but we would have to be wary of it being corrupted by the same partisan politics that effects our own government. You should talk more in depth about this idea, like how these representatives would be chosen to ensure sound and just judgement. Another idea that would enhance your vision of the futute of genetic engineering, would be too explain how support for this new technology could be gathered. Because as you said people become hostile when they hear about gene therapy. Overall, it was good because you took a common sense approach to this issue and compromised a practical solution, not one based one straight ideology.
The best thing about this essay, I thought, was that it was a moderate, solidly argued paper in favor of somatic and against germline engineering. Sure, you're basically just agreeing with McKibben, but by beginning to imagine the institutions necessary for striking this balance, you're also pushing somewhat beyond him -- and you do show that you have a solid grasp on Silver, although I'm not sure you really take him as seriously as you could (you could use more of a counterargument here).
The worst thing about this paper, though, is that it is a straightforward essay on somatic gene therapy. You take the prompt as a jumping-off point, without really taking it terribly seriously. You *assume* that you know what people are for, rather than arguing it - there is an argument here, but it's not the one the prompt asks for.
3 comments:
Jason Miller
Why are we Here?
Philosophers and scientists alike have pondered over the question, why are we here? Although the answer to this question lies in the eye of the beholder, it’s in human nature for all of us to formulate a similar answer. Regardless of religious affiliation we can all agree there is some higher purpose. This purpose, however, becomes twisted and distorted through personal religious beliefs. Being raised by a very religious mother, I was told that our purpose on Earth is to serve our Lord and Savior. As years went by and different viewpoints infiltrated my life I rejected my former ideology and accepted a somewhat broader, more politically correct viewpoint. I now believe that people are here to help each other and to make the world more bearable for all.
While this conception seems noble, some may argue that science is slowly erasing our moral compass. I agree that there is some bad science out there but as dark as this new technology seems, there is a silver lining. Take for example somatic gene therapy. Upon hearing the words “gene therapy” people automatically become hostile and begin making false claims that scientists wish to play God. Little do these critics know that there is more than one type of gene therapy. The gene therapy that they are thinking of is Germline genetic engineering. McKibben explains Germline engineering in his book titled Enough, “they would tease apart the cells of that embryo, and then, selecting one, they would add to, delete, or modify some of its genes” (McKibben 10). People fear that this will allow scientists to create superhuman creatures, thus making the remainder of society obsolete. Somatic gene therapy, the lesser-known form of genetic engineering, serves the purpose of human life, instead of the desire to create monstrous creatures. McKibben describes somatic gene therapy by stating that “Somatic gene therapy is…much like medicine.” (McKibben 9) What he means is that instead of altering genes at birth scientists introduce microbes containing crucial genetic information that will virtually eliminate heredity defects, such as cystic fibrosis. By allowing the progress of certain sciences society as a whole can rid itself of unfortunate genetic defects. A world without disease would be the ultimate goal of society. What people have to learn is that there is a line between helping each other people and helping yourself. Under no circumstances should genetic engineering be used to “improve” children of the future.
Lee M. Silver, author of Challenging Nature, claims that germline genetic engineering will “pull children from any starting point on the curve to a higher point” (Silver 348). Silver assumes that by allowing the advancement of technology society will benefit immensely. This however is not the case. Being able to choose certain genes for your child would form what McKibben describes an “arms war.” Instead of benefiting society people will become like software for a computer. Every new advancement would be put into the new offspring which would make ever generation before that “obselete.” This is why there must be a line for genetic engineering.
This line would be monitored by a group similar to the United Nations, except with actual power. Citizens of every major country would vote for their representive to the board. The board would then set down a set of guidelines to follow for genetic engineering. For example if the board bans all germline engineering people that were found guilty of such violations would get heavily fined and stripped of degrees. If the violator continues to cross the line jail-time could be deemed as an acceptable punishment. The board allows science to progress but prohibits it from getting to out of control.
Genetic engineering is not evil, nor is it immoral. When used correctly genetic engineering can help answer the question to “why are we here?” We’re here to help each other out and to make the world a better place for all. Genetic engineering allows scientists to eliminate diseases and to cure heredity disorders before people are affected by them.
I really like this essay, you struck a bipartisan chord and that is something needed on an issue this controversial. Now initially, I believe humans do not have a purpose and from a scientific viewpoint I believe that is true. But saying that we should all help eachother, was a purpose that we can all adopt and all relate to.
Your plans on Germline engineering should have addressed whether or not we could still research it, and just banned some of its practices. Also since you are for changing the genetics after birth, why not allow the change of certain genes that cause diseases before birth? It would make it easier because you would just have to do it once, so every new generation wouldnt have to go through the therapy. If done effectively and in a global effort, the gene could cease to exist. The line about the UN was funny. This United Nations is an ambitious idea, but we would have to be wary of it being corrupted by the same partisan politics that effects our own government. You should talk more in depth about this idea, like how these representatives would be chosen to ensure sound and just judgement. Another idea that would enhance your vision of the futute of genetic engineering, would be too explain how support for this new technology could be gathered. Because as you said people become hostile when they hear about gene therapy. Overall, it was good because you took a common sense approach to this issue and compromised a practical solution, not one based one straight ideology.
The best thing about this essay, I thought, was that it was a moderate, solidly argued paper in favor of somatic and against germline engineering. Sure, you're basically just agreeing with McKibben, but by beginning to imagine the institutions necessary for striking this balance, you're also pushing somewhat beyond him -- and you do show that you have a solid grasp on Silver, although I'm not sure you really take him as seriously as you could (you could use more of a counterargument here).
The worst thing about this paper, though, is that it is a straightforward essay on somatic gene therapy. You take the prompt as a jumping-off point, without really taking it terribly seriously. You *assume* that you know what people are for, rather than arguing it - there is an argument here, but it's not the one the prompt asks for.
Post a Comment